Plans For $2.5 Million Inner-City Development In Hastings For Vibrant Living
More inner-city living is on the cards for Hastings with a Queen St West site earmarked for a $2.5 million development.
The Hastings District Council-owned site has been partially sold to Mike Walker Management (MWM) and plans include city housing, commercial spaces and a public car park.
Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst said the project brought the community's vision for a more vibrant, connected city centre one step closer.
"It's also a positive step towards delivering on our commitment to enable more inner city living, supported by a variation to the proposed district plan in 2019 to allow residential activity in the upper floors of city centre buildings," Hazlehurst said.
MWM director Mike Walker said the development of the former Farmers' Co-operative garage building was a unique opportunity to blend heritage and modern living in a way that brings long-term value to the community.
"Hastings has a strong identity and rich history, and we're proud to be part of a project that reflects that," he said.
"Our approach is to retain and celebrate what's already here while delivering spaces where people want to live, work and connect.
"We believe this redevelopment will be a catalyst for even more investment and vibrancy in the city centre."
Plans include strengthening and reusing the facade of the Farmers' Co-operative heritage building, terraced townhouses, new commercial tenancies and office space, and a public park and laneway connecting Queen St West to Heretaunga St West.
The project follows a four-year search by the council for the right development partner.
Demolition of the existing buildings is scheduled to begin in August 2025.
Stage one will focus on delivering a new public green space, and pedestrian laneways, and strengthening the heritage facade.
The next stage will see the development of commercial accommodation and then townhouses potentially beginning to be built as early as 2026.
An application is under way to amend the existing resource consent, originally granted in May 2023 for a three-storey, mixed-use development comprising 20 apartments.
The revised consent will allow for the development of terraced townhouses.
The council will retain ownership of the public park and laneways while divesting the land for commercial and residential use at market value.
It says the net cost of the project remains within the budget allocated in the Long-Term Plan 2024-34.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Warning to illegal rubbish dumpers: new rules could lead to crack-down
Clearing up the worst dumping spots costs Heretaunga-Hastings ratepayers more than $100,000 a year, councillor Wendy Schollum says, and she wants councils to have better enforcement options (file photo). Photo: Supplied/ Hastings District Council Fly-tippers illegally dumping rubbish could be in for a shock if new laws are passed making it easier for councils to prosecute them, and to crack down on them using clues such as old car registration plates or names on letters or mail. The government has proposed revisions to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the Litter Act 1979 (the Litter Act), including giving authorities more flexibility to help them crack down on illegal dumping. Hastings District Councillor Wendy Schollum told Checkpoint that illegal rubbish dumping was an ongoing issue in the community, but the council was currently limited in its ability to do much about the fly-tippers. Annually, picking up litter in Heretaunga-Hastings cost well over $100,000, council staff had told her - "and that was only in hot-spot areas, so that wasn't even across the whole district," she said. Wendy Schollum Photo: Supplied via LDR "We estimated that if we were to try and clear every space of litter, it would cost in excess of over $1 million." The types of rubbish being dumped in the area varied from everday litter, to households worth of rubbish, including whiteware and mattresses. "It's actually quite outrageous some of the stuff that gets left," Schollum said. Hastings District Council was not alone in the problem, but critics say it is difficult to hold offenders to account under laws written in the 70s, with offenders basically needing to be caught in the act. "When I first was elected onto council back in 2017, right from then until now, littering and dumping has been the number one issue with ratepayers in our area," Schollum said. But at the moment, even with overwhelming evidence, the council often could not do much in response, she said: "Unless someone was literally standing there watching the person do it at the time, under the current law, there is so little we can do." A consultation document on the law changes also noted the problem: The current Waste Minimisation Act "provides limited CME [compliance, monitoring and enforcement] powers. Prosecution is the main means to address non-compliance, with maximum fines of $100,00 for all main offences at a central government level, [and] $20,000 for a breach of bylaws." But in effect that meant: "For ... offences [other than non-payment of the levy] prosecution through the courts is the only enforcement option, which is limiting because prosecution can be a disproportionate regulatory response to non-compliance, [and] if non-compliance falls below the prosecution threshold, no consequences can arise from breach of the WMA." Schollum said the current loophole leaves ratepayers footing the bill for fly-tippers. "In an area like Heretaunga, where they've been hit by Cyclone Gabrielle and we're reeling from recovery costs, our ratepayers don't need to be paying for what is frankly laziness." She believes the problem was caused by bad attitudes, rather than issues affording dump fees. "Often people contact me and say, 'well, if you reduce the dump fees, people wouldn't litter'. The reality is that if that were the case, we would see in areas where it's cheaper or free to dispose of rubbish that there would be no illegal dumping at all and that's just not the case. "The evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact it's about attitudes." Under the proposed changes, evidence like addressed mail left in dumped rubbish could be used to identify dumpers and fine them. (file photo) Photo: Supplied/Gisborne District Council The consultation document also suggests a new tiered compliance system, with different penalties for different levels of offence. This could range from small infringements where a warning might be suitable, for example for "illegal plastic bag use" or minor littering, through to mid-range offences where the most severe consequences were not suitable, up to the most severe consequences, for behaviour like "high-harm illegal dumping". Schollum said tiered enforcement options would be helpful to the council: "If someone threw their takeaway container out their car window, they're not going to be met with the same sort of penalty as someone who dumps a whole house ... worth of rubbish [in] the community area. "This is about councils finally being able to pursue repeat offenders and stop communities having to pay for the cost of laziness, but only with reasonable evidence." The revisions could also distinguish between individuals and larger entities committing offences, and define offences and maximum fees, penalties and prosecution. Schollum said despite enthusiasm from the community to help in clearing the litter, other frustrating barriers have stood in the way. "Some of the worst hit areas are actually NZTA managed lands, and at the moment, because of health and safety rules with NZTA we can't even arrange community clean ups on their land." Even though these set backs have limited community clean ups, Schollum said it should not be the community's job in the first place. "We shouldn't be having to look at the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solution, which is the community spending their money and time trying to clean up other people's mess. We need to stop the dumping and the littering in the first place." Other changes in the proposal include adjusting how local councils are allocated funds to dispose of waste, widening what councils can use the funds for and clarifying who is responsible for what. Consultation for the potential law changes closed on 1 June, the Ministry for the Environment website said. Next, the submissions will be considered, and from there Cabinet could decide to create an amendment bill, which could be introduced to Parliament to pursue changing the existing law. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
17 hours ago
- Newsroom
Crackdown on $15b supermarket giants' opaque pricing ‘doesn't go far enough'
Analysis: A Government attempt to break open supermarkets' chokehold on grocery wholesale 'hasn't worked as intended', the Commerce Commission admits. That may be an understatement. According to the general manager of the family-owned Night 'n Day grocery chain, it's failed dismally. Foodstuffs and Woolworths sold only $7 million of groceries to smaller retailers through the regulated 'fair price' wholesale scheme last year, Matthew Lane says. Night 'n Day wants to offer competitive grocery prices. It's grown from one corner store in Dunedin to a nationwide chain of 52 grocery and convenience stores. Lane says it's the third-biggest grocery chain in New Zealand, after the two big players – but it's not even close to being able to break the duopoly's market control. One of the biggest challenges for smaller retailers is accessing grocery supplies at a good price. Many dairy owners are forced to queue at the checkouts of the big supermarkets to buy their supplies at retail prices, then mark up those prices further to turn a dollar. To help address that, the previous government applied some arm-twisting, to get the big chains to open up their wholesale operations to smaller competitors. Finance Minister Nicola Willis now says she's turning her attention to the supermarket sector, and all options are on the table, including breaking up the big companies – either forcing them to divest some of their stores, or separating their wholesale and retail businesses. In a dramatic development on Thursday morning, Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden has given the two big chains just 12 months to clean shop – or face regulation. Lane welcomes the preliminary findings from the commission's wholesale supply inquiry, recommending the major supermarkets expand their wholesale product range and pass on promotional funding to allow other retailers to access lower prices. Last year, as an example, Foodstuffs had sold just $1.3m worth of goods through the scheme. It approved only 41 wholesale customers to purchase from its wholesale service – and Night 'n Day was not one of them. So Lane's also cautiously supportive of Government attempts to woo one of the big foreign supermarket brands like German-owned discount grocer Aldi to these shores – but he says ministers should be looking closer to home. 'They shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket,' he says. 'If we can develop grocery competition locally, well, I think that's actually a better result for all parties – especially opening the door to someone that's already established in the market. 'We can control our destiny. We're here in the market, and we're wanting to grow.' The grocery commissioner says the current grocery market is not serving Kiwi consumers well. 'The status quo lets a few major players set the rules for the rest of the industry which is negatively impacting consumers, new and expanding competitors, and small suppliers.' Van Heerden criticises Foodstuffs, Woolworths, and some of the large national and multinational suppliers, whose significant market share allows them to influence the settings of the market. His draft report proposes to change the Grocery Supply Code to stop the supermarkets imposing a confusing array of charges on suppliers – they're typically forced to pick up the tab for supermarket costs like stocking shelves, setting up displays, and promoting their products. Van Heerden also wants to eradicate the $5b in rebates, discounts and promotional payments paid by the big suppliers to the supermarkets, to put their products 'on special'. 'Competing retailers can't negotiate similar levels of support due to their weaker buying power. 'Consumers lose out because prices jump around more. This can mean the average price is more expensive and it's harder for consumers to assess the value of products.' New Zealand cooperative Foodstuffs is the country's biggest player, with more than 500 Pak'nSave, New World, Four Square and Liquorland stores, as well as wholesalers Gilmours and Trents. It's at war with the Commerce Commission, taking court action to challenge millions of dollars of fines for anti-competitive land covenants, and to overturn the commission's ban on it merging its North Island and South Island businesses. Spokesperson Stefan Herrick says a well-functioning market must support efficient, productive outcomes – and that includes ensuring retailers can negotiate fairly to deliver value at the checkout. The co-op takes its obligations under the new Grocery Supply Code seriously, he says. Any supplier who has an issue should complain through the appropriate channel. 'In our view, the current code has already effectively set the 'rules of engagement' with suppliers. We regularly survey our suppliers to ensure we are working as partners, listening, and constantly improving.' Australian-owned Woolworths NZ, which has more than 185 stores and also franchises 70 SuperValue and FreshChoice stores, has mostly taken a more conciliatory approach. Interim managing director Pieter de Wet says wholesale is a new and fast-evolving area for the company. 'In just three years we've developed a business which provides grocery products to more than 100 retail sites and we have over 60 customers using our service to provide more choices for shoppers,' he says. 'We're working closely with suppliers and wholesale customers.' Both chains say they'll take time to read the draft documents issued by the Commerce Commission in detail, and promise to work constructively with the commission through the submission process.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facial recognition in supermarkets - inside the privacy inquiry and when it's coming to a shop near you
To back up that recommendation, the OPC opened its own formal inquiry on April 4 2024 to cover the trial, which ran from February 8 2024 until September 7 2024. Foodstuffs-owned Pak'nSave and Woolworths-owned Countdown. Photo / NZME The OPC said: 'It is hard to overstate the privacy implications of a technology that, if widely deployed in supermarkets, would capture images and process the faces of millions of New Zealanders going about their daily lives.' That's a valid observation. Over the six-month trial period it scanned 225,972,004, clearly including repeat shoppers. Foodstuffs NI has around 4 million customers a week. A failure rate of one in a million would still be 200 people a year who have wound up on the wrong end of live facial recognition. What's the problem it is trying to solve? Foodstuffs NI and other retailers have spoken of the increase in retail crime in recent years, particularly with harm to staff and customers. Foodstuffs NI says it faced 5124 retail crime incidents in the first three months of 2024. Nationally, the estimated loss through retail crime is said to be $2.8b. It's not just the shoplifting, though. Aggression and violence towards staff was also a major motivator. As the OPC said, there was an overlap between the two with intervention over shoplifting incidents often leading to aggressive or violent behaviour. Live facial recognition offers a number of benefits, advocates say. Deterrence is the first - those who know live facial recognition is operating are said to be less likely to offend if they know they will be detected and potentially banned from shopping there. And for those already on a watchlist, they know their images have been captured and face a high risk of being identified if they enter the store. Foodstuffs trialed live facial recognition across 25 stores in the North Island. Photo / File If that doesn't put someone off, live facial recognition refines the human element by speeding up detection. Rather than monitoring of CCTV cameras by store security workers operating off memory, it provides a match with such speed that - Foodstuff NI says - it gives staff an average of four minutes of extra time to decide how to respond. That could include making a plan to deal with someone known to be problematic which could include calling police for backup. How does facial recognition work? When someone entered one of the Foodstuffs NI supermarkets in the trial, a camera would capture their face from which a computer would create a mathematical model of the person. That would be done by measurements of the shape and position of facial features like your eyes, mouth or nose. The mathematical model is called a 'biometric template' and is compared against images of the person that had been previously captured. The result will be a 'comparison score' expressed as a percentage that measures the likelihood the image of the person captured entering the supermarket is the same person who images is held, for example, in the store's watchlist of people previously identified as a risk by store security. In the case of Foodstuffs NI, the percentage score initially used was 90%. OPC considered that was too low and responsible for matching the wrong images. It has recommended Foodstuffs NI increase the percentage to 92.5%. No further issues emerged after that change. What happens when it doesn't work? This is a developing technology that comes with flaws although those are decreasing as time passes. OPC's view was that the type of system is a critical choice for those seeking out facial recognition technology with wide variation in quality between products on the marketplace. Issues which have emerged across platforms are higher error rates matching women and similar issues matching people with darker skin, largely because lighter shades are used to capture the biometric markers. 'Those error rates are likely to be higher if the system has not been trained for a particular population,' says OPC. Users across the world have attempted to iron out these discrepancies by training systems on the specific population on which it is being used. And the OPC says there is 'no specific training data set for the New Zealand population'. Dr Karaitiana Taiuru spoke of concerns Māori would be used as guinea pigs for facial recognition companies. Photo / RNZ OPC said 'it is unclear that these improvements have affected error rates for Māori and Pacific peoples'. It also notes greater negative effects for 'populations that are already more subject to disadvantage, surveillance, profiling, or being labelled as 'persons of interest''. This concern of errors was borne out with the misidentification of a woman in Rotorua who was wrongly accused of being a shoplifter. It is unclear that these improvements have affected error rates for Māori and Pacific peoples Office of the Privacy Commissioner Māori flagged a specific concern. A Māori interest group set up by the OPC, which is about to publish a position paper on biometrics, spoke against live facial recognition in supermarkets. Issues that arose included Māori already being subjected to over-monitoring and that a disproportionate focus on individuals will lead to active bias against a group. Also, there are real tikanga Māori concerns about the taking and storage of biometric information. The body parts captured are often considered tapu, including tā moko, mataora or moko kauae. Is it a silver bullet solution to retail crime? No, a human element is critical. The OPC emphasised the need for humans to be involved despite the ability of the technology to scan hundreds of millions of people each year. 'The technology is only part of the picture.' Live facial recognition needed to be used alongside a security strategy - 'that is, whether and how staff respond if the system triggers an alert', says the OPC. And 'how' is a key question as the OPC points to the intent behind the technology to reduce harmful events - and that depends on how the human element responds. The OPC also offered a reminder: 'It is also still primarily the role of the police as a well trained and equipped organisation with specific statutory powers, to reduce and respond to harmful incidents in stores.' It offers other cautions. The live facial recognition will identify only those on the store's watchlist, and that the previous alleged behaviour of those on the watchlist may not adequately predict current or future behaviour. It warns that each separate store needs to make a decision on the worth it will get from such a system - they all need to decide whether this technology is 'right for their communities'. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner raised repeatedly in the facial recognition report that police are the responsible agency to deal with theft and other crimes. Also, the trial was limited to those who showed 'serious harmful behaviour'. Those who committed 'low-level shoplifting' were one example of those the OPC says should not be on the watchlist. But did it work? The OPC says yes, 'a live facial recognition system was an effective way to reduce serious repeat offending during the trial period' although warned the use of live facial recognition and increased contact with customers could create new opportunities for violence. Foodstuffs NI lead lawyer Julian Benefield pointed to a review of the trial which found 100 serious harm incidents had been prevented (half because trespassed people did not enter the store) and a 16% reduction in harm as a result. There was also a 54% increase in trespass being detected. That's not where it ends because the OPC did have concerns at the lack of data produced by the trial. It was told the number of captured images (including repeats) was 225,972,004 but it didn't know how many 'unique faces' had been scanned. It tried to square that number through checkout transactions but the end result was not enough to understand the extent of the privacy impact. The scanned images and data related alerts, interventions and mismatches were not broken down by skin tone which made it hard to evaluate any bias towards people of colour. The OPC also raised issue with the way the trial stores self-selected and the quality of the 'control' information from stores not using the technology. Those in the trial provided good data while the control stores 'became disengaged' which led to 'inconsistencies in reporting and comparatively very low incident counts'. 'This affected the overall data quality. In short, it was clear to us that the data need to be treated with a degree of caution.' Its own inquiry, along with Foodstuffs NI's independent review - hired at the urging of the OPC - got the OPC to a place where it was 'confident in our conclusions' that the technology was effective at reducing harmful behaviour, had privacy safeguards to protect people and that Foodstuffs NI was complying with the Privacy Act. What is expected of those using live facial recognition? The vibe of the OPC report was one of an expectation that any store using this technology will invest in a framework that will avoid, or at least minimise, the downsides of 'overcollection, scope creep, surveillance, misidentification and bias'. The framework the OPC recommends has humans at its centre. Every step of the way, humans are making key decisions and carrying out ongoing reviews. In the trial, the live facial recognition system was disconnected from Foodstuffs NI's usual reporting tool - presumably the Auror crime reporting network. Each live facial recognition system was specific to its location, rather than available across other stores. All access was logged automatically and subject to regular review. It also came with strong record keeping to keep track of how the system was working. Foodstuffs has been told use of live facial recognition technology requires constant monitoring. Particularly, the OPC says Foodstuffs NI needs to actively monitor the use of live facial recognition but also the environment it is used in. While initial results from the trial show success in reducing serious crime, 'there is no evidence about whether it will continue to be effective or justified in the longer term'. It also includes making sure the language associated with those on the watchlist is specific to reflect the 'serious' alleged offending that led to their inclusion. If triggered by a trespass order, they were urged to drill down into what led to the trespass as not all would qualify for inclusion in a facial recognition watchlist. Once you're on a watchlist, how do you get off? The OPC was strict on how a watchlist operated - as was Foodstuffs NI in its trial. The OPC found the watchlists to be 'of reasonable quality and carefully controlled'. There was a separate watchlist for each store, apparently so as not to shut an alleged offender out of all places locally that might sell food. The watchlist could only be added to by staff with specific training. As noted earlier, inclusion on the list was for serious matters - not 'low-level' shoplifting. The OPC defined serious as 'physical and verbal assault, violent and threatening behaviour and higher value theft'. To be added to the watchlist, it required two staff members to confirm that the required level had been met. When it came to keeping people's information stored, those who didn't register an alert were instantly deleted. Those who did would be kept for a maximum two years with three months for accomplices. The watchlist also had those who were not allowed to be added such as children or young people under 18, the elderly and those with 'known mental health conditions'. Will police use the same technology? Police have so far ruled out the use of live facial recognition. In a recent assessment - August 2024 - it said 'the overall risks currently outweigh the potential benefits in the policing context'. It offered the view that it couldn't proceed until there was better knowledge around the ethical, legal, privacy and security elements of its use. That's not to say police officers don't use facial recognition it because they do - but not as a live tool. Rather, it uses it to match images of unknown offenders on a range of databases to see if a match can be made. With the publication of the largely positive OPC inquiry, Minister of Police Mark Mitchel and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers were enthusiastic. The statements made by each were effusive about its use by retailers rather than reflecting on any police use. Mitchell talked up crime reduction figures touted by Foodstuffs NI while Chambers enthused about technology as 'one of the biggest opportunities we have as a country … when it comes to fighting crime'. Chambers comments focused on retailers and how best they might use facial recognition for 'deterring, detecting and resolving crime'. The OPC's reminders of the primacy of police in this space and the police's enthusiasm for retailers to adopt the technology is an interesting contrast. Will we see more of this across other stores? Almost certainly. Live facial recognition technology is highly likely to be commonplace across New Zealand retail spaces. That's definitely the aim of Sunny Kaushal, spokesman for the Ministerial Advisory Group for the Victims of Retail Crime. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, centre, with Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee and Ministerial Advisory Group chair Sunny Kaushal. Photo / Ben Dickens The advisory group is working up a report for Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith on the subject although Kaushal has made it clear where its thinking is at. 'Retail crime is a $2.8 billion dollar problem and is paid for by every retailer and customer in New Zealand. Retailers need access to every tool that can help them to keep themselves and their businesses safe - including facial recognition technology." 'Privacy is important, but we need rules that recognise the right of every New Zealander to be safe from violent crime at work.' Goldsmith was effusive about the Foodstuffs NI trial following the release of the OPC report, calling it great news for those subject to retail crime. 'I expect our Ministerial Advisory Group will continue to look at this technology as an option to be used more widely and engage with the sector on it. What comes next? The OPC is preparing to publish its guidance on biometric systems. That will include facial recognition but also consider other means by which people are identified and tracked, from eye scanning through to computer analysis and tracking of the way people walk. And Goldsmith is expecting to receive a report from the retail advisory group. As indicated above, the sector is bullish over a wider rollout of the technology. David Fisher is based in Northland and has worked as a journalist for more than 30 years, winning multiple journalism awards including being twice named Reporter of the Year and being selected as one of a small number of Wolfson Press Fellows to Wolfson College, Cambridge. He joined the Herald in 2004. Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
