50                                                   21 February 2017

Community Plan Committee

05 January 2017

 

 

 

File: (17/1)

 

 

 

 

Report no: CPC2017/1/42

 

HCC Owned Wharves - Options for the Future.

 

Purpose of Report

1.         This report proposes options on the future of each of the Council owned wharves, following a comprehensive survey of their condition, and proposes that community engagement be undertaken as part of the Community Plan consultation on these options.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

(i)         notes that a comprehensive survey of the City’s wharves reveals continued deterioration of these ageing structures, such that the level of funding currently provided in the Long Term Plan will be insufficient to maintain the wharves to the required standard;

(ii)        notes that the wharf structures, being between 88 and 122 years old, are near the end of their expected useful lives, such that full replacement or rationalisation should be considered;

(iii)       notes that the Petone Wharf is temporarily closed due to damage sustained in the November 2016 earthquake and will not reopen until such time as a decision is made on its future and agreed works undertaken;

(iv)      notes that the $400,000 capital renewal budget in this year’s annual plan is being spent mostly on Days Bay Wharf with only essential works to prevent further cost to Council on the three other wharves;

(v)       notes that this effectively means that there will be deferred maintenance of approximately $750,000 on the other three wharves, which will remain deferred until such time as the long term future of each wharf is decided; and

(vi)      agrees to engage with the public on the options for the wharves presented in this report as part of the Community Plan consultation.

 

Background

2.         Hutt City Council owns and manages four wharves and two small jetties. The wharves situated at Rona Bay, Days Bay, Point Howard and Petone were vested in Hutt City Council in 1989 at the time of local government reorganisation. They are traditional hardwood structures, ranging in age from 88 to 122 years.  The two jetties are at Whiorau Reserve, Lowry Bay. As the jetties are more modern structures requiring a minimal cost to upkeep they have been excluded from consideration in this report.

3.         Wharf repairs and maintenance have been carried out regularly since 1992, following periodic surveys. The latest survey, Hutt City Wharf Condition Report and Options Study (the Study), undertaken by Calibre Consulting and attached as Appendix 1 to the report, reveals significant deterioration at each of the wharves as well as damage sustained during the November 2016 earthquakes, principally to the Petone Wharf. The Petone Wharf has since been closed and will not re-open until Council has made a decision on its future and agreed works have been undertaken.

4.         The Study finds that an estimated $1.15M of remedial works needs to be undertaken now in order to restore the wharves to the appropriate standards previously adopted by Council. The Study further states that it expects that future maintenance costs will increase as the structures get older. Immediate and future budget provisions in the current Long Term Plan are insufficient to meet these costs.

5.         The $400k for wharf maintenance in the 2016/17 budget will be spent mostly on the Days Bay Wharf with only essential works undertaken on the other three wharves to prevent further cost to Council or resolve safety issues.  This means that $750k of remedial works will be deferred.

6.         The following table provides basic information on each of the wharves.

 

Rona Bay

Days Bay

Pt Howard

Petone

Year built

1906

1895

1929/33

1907

Length

119m

129m

220m

393m

Area

955m2

910m2

1,100m2

2,500m2

No. of piles

84

83

103

230

Construction

material

Timber structure with concrete deck

Timber structure with concrete deck

Timber structure with asphalt deck

Timber structure with concrete deck

Status

Light recreational wharf

Recreational wharf

 

Light recreational wharf

Light recreational wharf

Main Uses

Viewing

Walking

Fishing

 

Ferry

Fishing

Swimming

Viewing

Fishing

Yachting

Small business

 

Fishing

Walking

Viewing

Ferry (occasional)

Heritage

Heritage 1

Heritage 1

No status

Heritage 2

 

 

7.         Each of the wharves is nearing the end of its economic life, such that long term maintenance costs will exceed the cost of replacement.  Funding in the current long term plan is insufficient to maintain the wharves to the required standards.

Discussion

8.         Council could consider the future of the wharves from two perspectives. The first and preferred approach is to consider the wharves as a collection of like assets and make decisions on a collective basis, taking into account future needs of the community.  The second approach is to consider the future of the wharves on an individual stand-alone basis. With either approach heritage considerations need to be factored in.

9.         Using the first approach it would be hard for Council to justify the need for the number of wharves it currently owns, particularly given their relative cost to maintain, versus a limited recreational use. 

10.       Originally, the wharves were constructed for reasons associated with commerce and transport (not recreation), with only Days Bay Wharf continuing to function on a daily basis as a working wharf, being an integral part of the region’s commuter transport network.    If starting from scratch today it is highly unlikely that Council would be able to justify investing significant resources in commercial wharves, predominantly for recreational purposes, noting that it might consider lighter purpose-built structures more appropriate for recreational uses.

11.       Heritage values and the ability to provide local resilience in a natural disaster are other factors requiring consideration.  For instance retaining Days Bay Wharf as a working wharf, is important in providing resilience to the Eastern Bays should the road be impassable for a period of time. 

Options

12.       The various options proposed for consideration for each of the wharves is shown in the following table. A do nothing option is not proposed, as the health and safety issues arising from such an approach would be a considerable risk for Council to manage.

Wharf

 

Fully Refurbish

Demolish and don’t replace

Partially demolish and refurbish

 

Demolish and replace

Rona Bay

√

√

√

√

Days Bay

√

 

 

√

Pt Howard

√

√

 

 

Petone

√

 

√

√

 

Consultation

13.       Officers propose that these options be the subject of public engagement through the Community Plan consultation process, prior to making a decision on their future. A draft consultation plan is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

Legal Considerations

14.       The heritage value of the wharves needs to be considered. Both Days Bay and Rona Bay wharves are listed in the District Plan as Heritage One structures, both are Category Two Structures in the Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) List, while Petone Wharf is in the District Plan as Heritage Two but not listed by HNZ.

15.       Demolition of part or all of these structures is a discretionary activity in the District Plan and one of the assessment matters are those contained in Part II of the Resource Management Act (RMA). This part of the Act outlines that the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate development is a matter of national importance. Further, policy (b) under 14F 1.1 of the District Plan seeks to ensure that where the demolition or relocation of listed heritage buildings and structures is proposed, a thorough assessment and determination is made of the need for that demolition or relocation and of the alternatives available.

Financial Considerations

16.       The following table summarises the estimated costs associated with the various options proposed for consideration for each wharf. Where no value is shown against an option, that option is not considered appropriate for that wharf.

Wharf

Fully Refurbish

Demolish and don’t replace

Partially demolish and refurbish

 

Demolish and replace

Rona Bay

$1,370,000

$200,000

$580,000

$1,500,000

Days Bay

$2,076,000

-

-

$2,000,000

Pt Howard

$2,306,000

$400,000

-

-

Petone

$4,758,000

-

$3,415,000

$8,200,000

 

Other Considerations

17.       In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it reviews ageing community infrastructure owned and managed by Council.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1View

2016 Wharf Inspection Report by Calibre Consulting

54

2View

Draft Consultation Plan - Wharves

97

    

 

 

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

 

 

 

Author: Craig Cottrill

Reserves Assets Manager, Parks and Gardens

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved By: Bruce Sherlock

General Manager, City Infrastructure