Hutt Valley Services Committee
Minutes of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, Upper Hutt City Council,
838-842 Fergusson Drive, Upper Hutt on
Friday 3 March 2017 commencing at 9.30am
PRESENT: Cr L Bridson Cr C Carson
Cr P Lambert Cr G McDonald (Deputy Chair)
Cr H Swales Cr D Wheeler (Chair)
APOLOGIES: Mayor W Guppy, Mayor WR Wallace, Deputy Mayor D Bassett
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr C Upton, Chief Executive, UHCC
Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive, HCC
Mr B Sherlock, General Manager, City Infrastructure, HCC
Mr G Stuart, Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services, HCC
Mr D Newth, Financial Accounting Manager, HCC
Mrs K Falconer, Democratic Services Advisor, UHCC
Mrs H Clegg, Democratic Services Advisor, UHCC
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
|
Resolved: That the apologies received from Mayors W Guppy and W R Wallace and Deputy Mayor D Bassett be accepted and leaves of absence be granted. |
2. PUBLIC FORUM
There was no public comment.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. MINUTES
|
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Hutt Valley Services Committee held on 16 December 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record. |
|
5.
|
Project Pencarrow Progress Report 19 NOVEMBER 2016 – 30 JANUARY 2017 Report by the Wastewater Contracts Manager, Wellington Water. The General Manager, City Infrastructure highlighted paragraph 8, explaining the current consent for discharge expires in early 2018, and that extensive investigation and consultation have resulted in a short list of seven options for a new resource consent application for discharge. He informed the committee these options range in cost from $0.00 to $35million, and that the object is to balance costs and environmental benefits, adding that currently approximately $13million is set aside in both councils’ budgets. He further explained the national standards for water quality and the requirements of the Regional Plan are more stringent than the current requirements, which could result in the Status Quo option not being consentable, and that the Hutt City Council will be consulting the public on their preferences during this year’s Annual Plan process. He predicted the final decision will likely be decided in the Environment Court, with the likelihood of appeals coming from any number of the consulted parties or members of the general public. In response to questions from members, the General Manager, City Infrastructure explained the consent process, adding that it is planned to lodge an application by November 2017, which will add six months to the existing discharge permit. He acknowledged the budgetted monies are included in the 2022/2023 financial year, and explained that no detailed design or costings had been undertaken as yet – these will occur once the preferred option is chosen. He antcipated no building works would occur until about this time, although did not rule out construction starting earlier. With regards the amount of money required, the General Manager, City Infrastructurecautioned spending large amounts of money on a system which would connect to an aged outfall pipe (which may need replacing in the next 20years). Rather he advised that an option which assisted in future proofing the entire system would be prefereable although such options would likely be to the higher end of the projected costings. In response to further questions from members, the General Manager, City Infrastructure explained there are still many areas within both cities where stormwater ingress to the wastewater system resulted in capacity issues, and that the 10000m3 wastewater storage tank in Silverstream, was an example of one methodologyu to limit consequential wastewater overflows. With regards to paragraph 4, the General Manager, City Infrastructure explained the clarifiers have been repaired one at a time, to enable the entire system to still operate during the repair process. The Wastewater Contracts Manager explained this process is approximately half way completed. She further explained that with regards paragrah 6, it is referring to a second bylaw (the Transportation Of Trade Waste) as opposed to the Trade Waste Bylaw. The Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services assurred the committee Joint Bylaws such as that proposed, do operate between Councils. |
|
That the Committee notes the progress on Project Pencarrow as outlined in the report. |
|
7. |
Report by the Landfill Consultant, Tonkin and Taylor |
|
|
The General Manager, City Infrastructure highlighted paragraph 13, adding that this week the group alerted him to a strong gas smell emanating from the landfill. He reported that considrable work had been done to identify and remedy problem areas. In response to questions from the members, the General Manager, City Infrastructure explained the membership of the Community Liaison Group came from HCC, Tonkin and Taylor, Waste Management Ltd, Stokes Valley Residents (primarily from the Robson/McManaway Gr areas) and Mr Ross from the Silverstream Retreat. He added the group has a formal charter, meets regularly and has a good relationship with HCC. He further advised that the residents were well aware of the various avenues available by which to advise Council of any issues or concerns, and assured members that any such concerns were always responded to immediately. With regards paragraph 8, the General Manager, City Infrastructure advised that by bringing the completion date forward on this work (which is required to ease the constraint of working in a narrow valley), future works will also be advanced on the timeline. There was general discussion concerning the largely positive feedback the landfill receives, although a concern was raised that comments from officials which appear in the media need to be carefully worded, as a recent comment regarding the reduced volumes of materials dumped will negatively impact on the amount of gas being used to produce electricity, was not well received. The General Manager, City Infrastructure further advised that there are no Health and Safety liabilities for UHCC at the landfill, as it is managed by HCC staff and contractors. With regards paragraphs 9 and 10, he clarified that Pioneer Generation Ltd are a completely separate entity to the Council, and as such do not report to Council. He added that efficient gas collection is critical for both the gas plant operator and for Council, and to this end both parties have agreed to a target of “100% connections.”This means that although some gas wells occasionally do need to be disconnected for landfill operational purposes, this is to be avoided wherever possible. The General Manager, City Infrastructure was congratulated on the efficiency of the Community Liaison Group and the response to complaints. |
|
That the Committee notes the progress at Silverstream Landfill. |
|
8. |
Report by the Parks and Reserves Manager, Upper Hutt City Council. Chief Executive, UHCC elaborated on the report, adding that the additional burials occurring are in line with forecast expectations (as Taita cemetery has now closed). He also explained the Cemetery Development report is concentrating on assessing land suitable for burial, and that types of burials will be investigated at a later date. In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive, UHCC advised this report will be finalised within the next six months. |
|
|
That the report be received. |
|
9. |
Report by the Compliance Services Manager, Upper Hutt City Council |
|
|
The Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services explained that within Lower Hutt, three formally dog prohibited areas have had successful trials allowing controlled dogs on leads. He added there is a general feeling that the public are more accepting of controlled dogs, and that Days Bay beach now has an area for dogs off lead from 7pm to 10am. In response to questions, he was surprised the dog litter bags are not already installed in the new areas, as he had received an assurance from officers that this was to occur immediately. He explained the report for this item and for item 10 are nearly identical, apart from the figures: those for the Hutt City Council include the dog numbers from Upper Hutt City Council, and that Upper Hutt day-boards any dogs impounded, but that as it does not have a pound, those dogs are transported to Lower Hutt for overnight stays if they are not picked up by their owners. |
|
|
That the Committee notes the Dog Control Update. |
|
10. |
Report by the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services, Hutt City Council |
|
|
That the Committee notes the Dog Control Update. |
|
12. |
|
|
|
Cr Bridson reported that HCC is investigating setting up a Disability Advisory Group and raised whether UHCC would be interested in joining. She further stated HCC is also investigating employing a person to manage public art works within the city, and asked whether UHCC had a staff member with public art as part of their portfolio and whether they would be interested in jointly employing someone. The Chief Executive, UHCC replied that the Council currently takes advice on Disability issues from Ms G McLaughlan, and that there are already many such groups in existence. He clarified that UHCC do not have a specific staff member to oversee public works of art, and did not foresee this being a position UHCC would support. Cr Bridson confirmed such an person would be at officer level, rather than councillor level. |
13. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 10.08am.
Cr D Wheeler
CHAIR