WCRC Meeting Its Targets
West Coast Regional Council's report card for the third quarter of the year shows it meeting 85% of its targets.
The achievements are in the non-financial performance report for the 2024-2025 financial year presented at yesterday's Council meeting. This measures against the 2024-2025 Long-term Plan.
Corporate Services Group Manager Peter Miller says the report shows 23 of 27 (85%) targets were met, an improvement on the second quarter's 81%.
'Overall, it demonstrates we're doing what we said we'd do. Our emergency preparedness, flood protection scheme maintenance and responsiveness to increased demand on our hotline 0508 800 118 are all high points.
'There were some targets we couldn't meet mainly due to external factors, such as the Ministry for the Environment not yet releasing National Policy Statements. This means we haven't been able to deliver on some of our expected work programmes.'
A report on developing the Annual Plan for 2025-2026, and seeking direction on the setting of rates, was also tabled.
'There are no significant differences to levels of service or deliverables between the Long-term Plan Year 2 and the Annual Plan for 2025-2026', says Peter Miller.
'The increase in Council's general rate is proposed to be 12%, as per the Long-term Plan Year 2 consultation.
'Increases in targeted rates for the 23 rating district schemes across the Coast will be discussed with those rating districts.'
'Council's unallocated debt has risen as expected, it was $10m in 2024. In line with previous expectations set out in the Long-term Plan, the paper recommends Council start considering how to manage debt as part of the next LTP cycle.'
The draft Annual Plan will be presented at Council's 3 June meeting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Happy Valley Land Purchased For Metlink Bus Depot
A Happy Valley site has been purchased by Greater Wellington for the development of a bus depot as part of the regional council's Public Transport Asset Control Strategy. Approved by 86% of respondents during consultation for the 2024-34 Long term Plan, the strategy to acquire depot sites is considered crucial for securing the long-term continuity of Metlink bus services. Greater Wellington Transport Committee chair Thomas Nash says by controlling depots, the council is removing barriers for new bus operators to enter the market. 'Value for money for residents and public transport users through open and fair competition is a key plank of our strategy, which also aims to improve the passenger experience as we transition to a zero emissions fleet,' Cr Nash says. 'This purchase gives us a base for growth by encouraging bus operators that do not have depots to bid for Metlink contracts. It gives us certainty to make long term investments in charging infrastructure for electric buses, at a location that will help us deliver a more planned, responsive and efficient network.' 'We need the right infrastructure in the right places,' says Greater Wellington chair Daran Ponter. 'The depot will be near the start of several bus routes – including the high frequency route 1 – and will support the expansion and electrification of north to south services. 'Beyond 2030, the future is uncertain for the earthquake prone, historic Kilbirnie bus depot, while a depot in Rongotai has space constraints. 'That's why Metlink is also exploring opportunities for another depot north of Wellington, and breaking ground on a new depot by the airport to buttress east to west buses – including our most popular service, the route 2.' Greater Wellington takes possession of the one-hectare, Happy Valley section in May 2026, and plans for a depot to open there in mid-2028. Deputy Transport Committee chair Simon Woolf says the purchase is 'sensible future proofing' for the region. 'Happy Valley depot will eventually strengthen bus services between Wellington's south coast and growing areas in the north,' Cr Woolf says. 'It will initially stable up to 80 diesel buses, until sufficient energy is connected and battery chargers installed to power our expanding electric fleet.' South Wellington bus user and regional councillor Yadana Saw says Metlink is committed to being a good neighbour and responsible member of the Happy Valley community. 'Securing this site safeguards public transport assets in public ownership. It enables genuine engagement with people working and living nearby and strengthens our partnership with mana whenua Taranaki Whānui and Ngāti Toa Rangatira – by bringing us together on any sites of significance,' Cr Saw says. 'BigAir gym will continue to operate on the site, and other tenants will be given time to relocate. When development begins, we'll take steps to protect Ōwhiro Stream from any stormwater run-off that comes from the section. This is a win for transport, the environment and our community for the long term.'
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
QLDC Responds To Environment Court Decision On Shotover Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Environment Court has released its decision to approve the application for an Enforcement Order over the Shotover Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), following mediation between Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC), Queenstown Airport Corporation (QAC), and Otago Regional Council (ORC). QLDC General Manager Property & Infrastructure, Tony Avery accepted the Environment Court's ruling and was pleased to share that Council was already making progress against the orders. 'We're ahead of our programme to significantly upgrade the WWTP by the end of this year, which will introduce a second treatment reactor and a range of supporting infrastructure to further improve the quality of treated water discharged from the facility and cater for our growing district,' said Mr Avery. 'The Orders largely reflect activities and investments that Council has already identified and committed to, which is a positive outcome and positions us well to deliver on these obligations on behalf of the community.' The Environment Court decision includes a range of requirements to avoid, remedy, and/or mitigate adverse effects on the environment caused by the operation of the Shotover WWTP, which must be actioned by specific dates. These requirements relate to the operation, maintenance and upgrading of the facility, and include but are not limited to: enhancements to the facility's Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual, sampling and monitoring regime, and operator training procedures; completion of upgrade works already underway at the facility by 31 December 2025; and decommissioning the facility's remaining oxidation ponds by 31 December 2027. The decision also requires QLDC to submit a consent application for a new disposal system by May 2026, and to implement that system by December 2030. The Environment Court's decision is separate to Council's retrospective consent sought in early May 2025 for emergency works at the WWTP, and the bypassing of the facility's disposal field to discharge treated wastewater into Shotover River. This application remains with ORC for assessment. Mr Avery confirmed that the results of ongoing testing of the treated wastewater since direct discharge began remain well within consented limits and are publicly available on the Council's website. The decision made by the Environment Court also declined Aotearoa Water Action Inc's (AWA's) application to join the enforcement proceedings out of time. The Court agreed with QLDC, and the parties, that granting the waiver would have been highly prejudicial to QLDC, ORC and QAC given the work undertaken through mediation to finalise the Enforcement Orders, and also, the Court found that AWA did not have an interest in the matter greater than the public generally.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 - It's Back
Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration. (813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP. Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability? In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices. Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors. Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff. Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits. In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance. The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate. The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population. The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy. When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration. The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse. Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways. The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules. Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector. WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation. The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy. It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers. It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts. The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region. In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled. Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment. In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production. The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country. A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference. Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented. New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens. With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.
