Far North council to hold independent review on Sweetwater project
In speaking to the motion Radich said he had concerns about the costs of the scheme and the processes used throughout. He said despite numerous requests he had yet to receive the full costs of the scheme so far.
Radich said and independent look into the project was needed and despite following the project closely over the past 13 years, he still did not know what had happened to make costs blow out and deadlines to be missed.
Figures given to him from council staff since 2021 ranged from $13.5 million to $18.9m, with three different figures - varying by almost $4m - provided just this year.
'Ratepayers have a right to know how much it cost,' Radich said. 'I know a judicial review is expensive, but given the mess, what other option do I have? It's so important to bring out the truth.'
''I'm just seeking clarity,'' he said.
A judicial review would cost tens of thousands of dollars - possibly as much as $100,000 - and would take much longer than the independent review.
Radich said over the years he had been given different figures on how much the project had costs, with some figures less than what he had been given in previous years, and he believed the costs had now exceeded $20 million.
Deputy Mayor Kelly Stratford wanted assurances any review would be 'absolutely independent' as she was unconvinced it would have sufficient integrity if it was carried out internally.
'We're not looking to lay blame, but we need to understand what happened, so we don't make the same mistakes going forward.'
Councillor Ann Court said she was concerned about the expense of a review, and the cumulative cost of the council's ad hoc decisions.
'If this is just a 'gotcha' exercise, I don't think it would be a useful spend of ratepayer money.'
However, if the review led to useful lessons, it could have merit, Court said.
Chief executive Guy Holroyd said a review could cost 'tens and tens of thousands of dollars'. He wanted to gather the information internally, then have it audited by external experts.
The independent review would be done immediately and involve council staff gathering the relevant information and passing it on to the independent reviewers, which would include an accountant. The review would then be reported back to the council in July.
The council started the Sweetwaters project in 2011, with the scheme gathering pace after the 2020 drought that hit Northland. It was designed to provide clean drinking water for Kaitāia and surrounds and do away with the need to take water from the vulnerable Awanui River.
The situation got so bad that water tanks had to be placed in Kaitāia as the Awanui River ran extremely low during the drought.
But the project has been dogged with problems, and it has now soaked up more than $17 million of ratepayer money, with the council insiders saying the final cost is likely to top $20m, but the council denies it will reach that level. It missed two deadlines over the past two years, but water was finally delivered into the public water supply in February.
Last month Northland Age revealed that the council and contractor face potentially big fines if they are found guilty of illegally discharging more than 90 million litres of groundwater into the Sweetwater Wetland.
The council and Ventia are being prosecuted by the country's top environmental watchdog - the Government's Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the Resource Management Act (RMA).
Each defendant faces a charge each of illegally discharging abstracted groundwater within 100m of the Sweetwater Bore Wetland and two charges each of undertaking earthworks or vegetation clearance within a 10m setback from the same natural wetland. They have entered not guilty pleas to the representative charges - meaning they happened on more than one occasion - and the matter will be back before the court on June 13. The maximum penalties for the offences are a fine of no more than $600,000.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
8 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Mayor criticised for undermining staff
Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich has been slammed for undermining staff after suggesting the council has an anti-carpark "agenda". During yesterday's infrastructure services committee meeting, Mr Radich raised concerns from stakeholders who wanted more consultation on the council's Albany Street Connection, a project aiming to provide a safe walking and cycling connection between the harbour path Te Aka Ōtākou and Dunedin's tertiary area and CBD. "I've been contacted by business owners on that street and they were under the expectation there was going to be some additional consultation with them about the parking and the set-up for the road," Mr Radich said during discussion on the council's forward work programme. "They're certainly not of the opinion that they've had that. "It does suggest that there might be some other agenda, other than optimisation of that street." Mr Radich rephrased his statement after a point of order from infrastructure chairman Cr Jim O'Malley, who took issue with the mayor's assertion staff had an "agenda". When it was upheld by deputy chairman Brent Weatherall, Mr Radich said there was "another 'imperative', another 'raison d'etre' for the project that does not include or does not take into due consideration the key stakeholders of the area". Council papers showed construction was expected to start in November and be completed by May next year. But Mr Radich said the procurement process, due to begin in July, should be halted until the parking committee had reviewed and approved a revised plan, "subject to consultation with the business and property owners". Mr Radich later told the Otago Daily Times he was not suggesting council staff had an agenda. "I wasn't attributing that to anyone in particular, although the project is a hangover from the previous council. "It might be governed by different imperatives than the benefit of the key users of the street." He was unable to clarify who might be driving the "different imperatives". "If you've got divisiveness amongst the key stakeholders of a project, then surely it's better to get them on the same page, to modify the project accordingly so that everyone can have agreement about how it should end up." When asked, Mr Radich said it was business owners Jason La Hood and Greg Paterson who had contacted him with their concerns. Climate and city growth general manager Scott MacLean said there had been a lot of consultation with affected parties — "they've had a lot of input into the final design, and my understanding is that they were happy with that." Cr Lee Vandervis said while councillors had seen initial plans, he was concerned they had not seen the final design. "I feel that [the project] has been pushed through this council, and now pushed through with changes yet to be ratified." Cr Vandervis said he was concerned the project was going ahead without a chance for elected officials to comment on it. "To find that it is now, with all haste, going to contract and to be done, I find that unusual, and it makes me uncomfortable." Cr Steve Walker said the discussion was "getting close" to being the most extraordinary thing he had seen at the council table and the suggestion consultation had been underdone was a "kick in the guts" to staff. "It is interesting that both the mayor and the other councillors never bring up these concerns when it's a consultation that fits their agenda," he said. Cr Christine Garey said councillors had been assured a thorough consultation process had been held by staff with expertise. "To then cherry-pick, which is how I see it, because there are some folk who don't agree with where it's landed — it's cutting our staff off at the knees, and I don't accept that that is an acceptable way for governors to behave." Cr Sophie Barker said she would like to see the plan but there had been ample opportunity for consultation. Cr Carmen Houlahan said there was "a lot of waffle and not a lot of point to the issues being raised". There had "obviously" been extensive consultation, she said.
NZ Herald
12-05-2025
- NZ Herald
Far North council to hold independent review on Sweetwater project
In speaking to the motion Radich said he had concerns about the costs of the scheme and the processes used throughout. He said despite numerous requests he had yet to receive the full costs of the scheme so far. Radich said and independent look into the project was needed and despite following the project closely over the past 13 years, he still did not know what had happened to make costs blow out and deadlines to be missed. Figures given to him from council staff since 2021 ranged from $13.5 million to $18.9m, with three different figures - varying by almost $4m - provided just this year. 'Ratepayers have a right to know how much it cost,' Radich said. 'I know a judicial review is expensive, but given the mess, what other option do I have? It's so important to bring out the truth.' ''I'm just seeking clarity,'' he said. A judicial review would cost tens of thousands of dollars - possibly as much as $100,000 - and would take much longer than the independent review. Radich said over the years he had been given different figures on how much the project had costs, with some figures less than what he had been given in previous years, and he believed the costs had now exceeded $20 million. Deputy Mayor Kelly Stratford wanted assurances any review would be 'absolutely independent' as she was unconvinced it would have sufficient integrity if it was carried out internally. 'We're not looking to lay blame, but we need to understand what happened, so we don't make the same mistakes going forward.' Councillor Ann Court said she was concerned about the expense of a review, and the cumulative cost of the council's ad hoc decisions. 'If this is just a 'gotcha' exercise, I don't think it would be a useful spend of ratepayer money.' However, if the review led to useful lessons, it could have merit, Court said. Chief executive Guy Holroyd said a review could cost 'tens and tens of thousands of dollars'. He wanted to gather the information internally, then have it audited by external experts. The independent review would be done immediately and involve council staff gathering the relevant information and passing it on to the independent reviewers, which would include an accountant. The review would then be reported back to the council in July. The council started the Sweetwaters project in 2011, with the scheme gathering pace after the 2020 drought that hit Northland. It was designed to provide clean drinking water for Kaitāia and surrounds and do away with the need to take water from the vulnerable Awanui River. The situation got so bad that water tanks had to be placed in Kaitāia as the Awanui River ran extremely low during the drought. But the project has been dogged with problems, and it has now soaked up more than $17 million of ratepayer money, with the council insiders saying the final cost is likely to top $20m, but the council denies it will reach that level. It missed two deadlines over the past two years, but water was finally delivered into the public water supply in February. Last month Northland Age revealed that the council and contractor face potentially big fines if they are found guilty of illegally discharging more than 90 million litres of groundwater into the Sweetwater Wetland. The council and Ventia are being prosecuted by the country's top environmental watchdog - the Government's Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Each defendant faces a charge each of illegally discharging abstracted groundwater within 100m of the Sweetwater Bore Wetland and two charges each of undertaking earthworks or vegetation clearance within a 10m setback from the same natural wetland. They have entered not guilty pleas to the representative charges - meaning they happened on more than one occasion - and the matter will be back before the court on June 13. The maximum penalties for the offences are a fine of no more than $600,000.
NZ Herald
05-05-2025
- NZ Herald
Sweetwater Project: Far North councillor Mate Radich wants judicial review
But the project has been dogged with problems, and it has now soaked up more than $17 million of ratepayer money, with council insiders saying the final cost is likely to top $20m, but the council denies it will reach that level. It missed two deadlines over the past two years, but water was finally delivered into the public water supply in February. Radich has been critical of the rising costs of the project for several years and says he still does not know the full cost of the project. Radich said he will speak to the rationale of the motion at Thursday's meeting and hopes to get the support of his fellow councillors for a judicial review. 'This has been dogged by problems from the very start. It's just going to add even more costs to this. And I still have not been able to get the full costs of this from the council, despite asking several times,' Radich said. Last month the Northland Age revealed that the council and contractor face potentially big fines if they are found guilty of illegally discharging more than 90 million litres of groundwater into the Sweetwater Wetland. The council and Ventia are being prosecuted by the country's top environmental watchdog – the Government's Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Each defendant faces a charge each of illegally discharging abstracted groundwater within 100m of the Sweetwater Bore Wetland and two charges each of undertaking earthworks or vegetation clearance within a 10m setback from the same natural wetland. They have entered not guilty pleas to the representative charges – meaning they happened on more than one occasion – and the matter will be back before the court on June 13. The maximum penalties for the offences are a fine of no more than $600,000. Far North District Council's Sweetwater Aquifer project has been dogged with problems since it started. Now a councillor wants a judicial review of the project. Radich was not surprised at the court case, saying it would add yet more costs to the project that he believed were already well out of control. He now needs the majority of councillors to support his notice of motion to start the judicial review process. What is a judicial review? A judicial review is where a judge is asked to review an action or a decision that has been made under a legal power. The judge looks at whether the way the decision was made was in accordance with the law. The judge won't usually decide whether the decision was the 'right' decision. Judicial reviews are important in New Zealand law to make sure the Government and government agencies act within the law, fairly and reasonably. Judicial reviews are always heard in the High Court. About 180 judicial reviews are heard each year. Only a person affected by a decision can apply for a judicial review. The respondent (the other side) is the person or government agency that made the decision which is being challenged. For a judicial review to be successful for the applicant, the court will need to be persuaded on the evidence that the decision-maker did not lawfully follow the proper decision-making process.
