3715 Submissions Received Ahead Of 22 May City Council Votes
More than 3000 submissions regarding water, insurance, investment, project spending, rates, fees and other charges were received by Wellington City Council during consultations last month.
The Council consulted on an amendment to the 2024-34 Long-term Plan, the Annual Plan and necessary water reform under Local Water Done Well legislation between 20 March and 21 April.
In total, 3002 submissions were received on the amendment and the Annual Plan, while 713 came in about Local Water Done Well reform.
Along with the submissions, close to 175 people, groups and organisations spoke at an oral hearing. The Council also surveyed a representative sample of 500 residents reflecting the demographic characteristics of Wellington.
When it came to water reform, 72 percent of submissions and 82 percent of survey participants supported the Council's preferred options of a multi-council-owned water organisation. The most important factors cited for the delivery model were value for money and legal compliance.
Regarding the Long-term Plan amendment, over a third of respondents to both the consultation and the survey supported the preferred option of creating large debt headroom by making changes to capital spending valued at $385 million and establishing a small $68m investment fund using proceeds from the sale of nine ground leases.
Close to a quarter of respondents backed an alternative option of balancing borrowing and investing by reducing capital spending by $200 million and creating a medium-sized investment fund of up to $314 million. Most of these responses indicated their preference for establishing the fund was a partial sale of the Council's airports shares plus the sale of nine ground leases.
There was a high level of interest in the proposed changes to capital projects aimed at reducing spending.
Sixty one percent of consultation submissions supported the preferred Council option of increasing the Begonia House project budget by $2.9 million to do the minimum amount of work for it to continue operation. Half of the survey respondents indicated the same.
Nineteen percent of submissions supported the Council's preferred option of selling the Karori Events Centre in its current state, while 41 percent said repairs should be done to achieve compliance. Forty-six percent of survey respondents said the site should be sold as is, while 24 percent backed the option to do repairs for compliance, which would increase the related budget by $1.3 million.
A quarter of submissions supported the Council's preferred option to rephase the Paneke Pōneke bike network over 20 years rather than 10, while 34 percent said only projects that are approved or under construction should be finished. Thirty-six percent of survey respondents backed a rephasing of the network while 32 percent supported finishing what was started, approved or under construction.
For the Annual Plan, 60 percent of submissions supported the Council partnering with Taranaki Whānui to manage the Matai Moana reserve, with 27 opposing joint management. Sixty-four percent of survey respondents supported the partnership arrangement around Matai Moana while 22 percent did not. (Four to 5 percent in both platforms didn't like either option).
A large majority of submitters and respondents supported Council proposals to change the current policy around short-term accommodation providers. Sixty-six percent of submissions backed clearer guidelines around charging commercial rates to such providers with 20 percent against the move. Seventy-one percent of survey respondents also supported the move, with 13 percent against.
Support for the overall budget, which would result in an average rates increase of 12 percent in 2025/26 (including the 1.4 percent sludge levy), was mixed. Thirty-eight percent of submissions supported the budget, and the same percentage of people opposed it; while 40 percent of survey respondents supported the budget and 30 percent opposed it.
Deliberations on the Long-term Plan Amendment, Annual Plan and Local Water Done Well water reform will take place at the Long-term Plan, Finance and Performance Committee meeting on Thursday 22 May.
The final amendment and Annual Plan are scheduled to be adopted by Council on Thursday 26 June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
21 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.
