Agenda of Community Plan Committee

COMMUNITY PLAN COMMITTEE (Committee of Council as a whole)
Membership:	13
Quorum:	Half of the members
Meeting Cycle:	Meets as required during LTP and Annual Plan processes
Reports to:	Council

Attachment 4

Further Information Requested by Council

See sub no. located in TRIM	Submitter	Issue	Officer to action	Report back to 8 June CPC	Report back through Committee process	Officer’s comments	Action completed
DAP17/902	Bob Moffat	Dowse maintenance – roof, technology and sound, maintenance programme including health & safety priorities. Report required through committee process regarding digitising of Dowse Collection.	Joe Bolton/Jay Houpapa		ü	Officers are discussing with UrbanPlus Ltd. A report regarding the digitising of the Dowse Collection will be provided through the Community Services Committee.
DAP/17/125	Joseph Wyse	Issue of contractors and follow up by staff to ensure work is to standard. Complaints he has made have not been followed up.	John Gloag			Maintenance Contracts Manager to meet with Mr Wyse.
		Mayor to meet with Mr Wyse to talk about maintenance issues.					ü
DAP17/1029	David Tripp	Concerns about lack of cycling process	Simon Cager/John Gloag			See report to Mayor, Councillors and CEO - DOC/17/84445 attached
		Mayor requested an update regarding cycling. A number of submissions showed people are not aware of all work being done in regard to cycling.				See report to Mayor, Councillors and CEO – DOC/17/84445 attached
DAP17/1105	Elaine Richardson	Maintenance programme for RiverLink to include maintenance of Western Hills cycle access.	Paki Maaka/Simon Cager			Being dealt with by Colin Lunn of the Contracts Team
DAP17/1105	Elaine Richardson	Ms Richardson will email Mayor with email tree concerning lack of responsibility for maintenance of Grounsell Crescent cycle ramp (HCC,GWRC,TNZ). Mayor to direct her to Bruce Sherlock					ü
DAP17/1131	Candace Williams – Wingate Business Group	Report from safety officer – need community patrols in the Wingate area and other ways to help with issues around the area, e.g. boy racers.	Jimmy Ballantyne			Meeting held: Jimmy to notify Stokes Valley and Naenae Community Patrols who are covering the now defunct Taita Community Patrol. Place AFZ signage up asap. Discuss this issue and that of 22 Peterkin Street with Police.	ü
DAP17/946	Enviroschools	Waste minimisation – what more could be done? Progress update for June deliberations.	Gary Craig / Jez Patridge	X		Report going to CPC 8 June
DAP17/871	Rhys Jones on behalf of survivors and rescuers -Wahine Disaster	More detail of request required. Also what are officers doing for Wahine commemorations?	Brad Monaghan / Debbie Hunter			The Wahine 50 Group have spoken with Council’s City Events team, who have committed to cover the cost of the Eastbourne morning commemorations out of their events 17/18 budget. Costs City Events have agreed to cover include, ceremonial equipment (AV, speakers and lectern if required), refreshments for participants at the commemoration, and a marquee if required. Wahine 50 are requesting additional funding for the entire event, as opposed to just the event based activity taking place in the Eastern Bays. This would not be a cost that the City Events budget could cover, hence the request through Council’s Annual Plan process. City Events have also put the group in contact with Museums (possible integration with PSM), Archives and the Eastbourne Community Board. Once more information is known, Events will also put the group in contact with Council’s Parks team, who have worked on Wahine led projects in the Eastern Bays. Officers have provided advice regarding other funders eg DIA and also forwarded officer’s contact details to the Wahine Trust.
DAP17/404 DAP17/1123 DAP17/898 DAP17/662 DAP17/933 DAP17/949 DAP17/465		Wharves – impact on aquifer, implications of the kinds of timber proposed, update on “do nothing” option, Rona Bay acting as a groyne, access to Pt Howard oil tanker wharf for fishermen	Bruce Hodgins	X	X	See separate report to Community Plan Committee.
DAP17/210	Stuart Reid	Glass wall flood protection – input from GWRC about such alternatives to stopbank. Write to them for official response.	Bruce Sherlock			Will be discussed with GW officers in next RiverLink meeting.
DAP17/1124	G Hall	Eastern Bays Walkway/Shared Pathway – update required.	John Gloag			See report to Mayor, Councillors and CEO – DOC/17/84445 attached
DAP/17/1	Wainuiomata Historical Museum Society	What is happening with the Heritage Fund?	Melanie Laban/Debbie Hunter			Heritage fund was included in recent Community Funding review. Changes will take effect from 1 July 2018. Debbie Hunter will contact this group.
DAP17/107	Arthur Bush	Horoeka Street stormwater issues update.	Bruce Sherlock			Wgtn Water have been asked to look at Mr Bush’s concerns and resolve with him.
		Sportsville Wainiuomata – update around costings, operational plan.	Matt Reid	ü		Report going to CPC 8 June
		Petone Grandstand update.	Bruce Hodgins			Three years ago limited strengthening work was undertaken on the Petone Grandstand to ensure its seismic rating was above that of an earthquake prone building. This was done on the basis that it was a temporary measure until such time as a decision was made on the Petone Sportsville development. The work that has been completed on development proposals shows that the preferred Petone Sportsville site is North Park. Once a firm decision is made on this matter, officers will investigate options for the future of the grandstand and will report back to Council later in the year.
		Wellington Water – update on the treatment of the bores.	Bruce Sherlock			Comms team to include Mr Bush in next update on this matter.
DAP17/741	Petone Community Board	Stormwater on Queen Street – dune restoration by residents damaged due to waste from a stormwater pipe recently installed into the dune area at the end of Queen Street.	Bruce Sherlock			Have asked WWL to investigate and report back to PCB.
DAP17/2	Sandy Nimmo	Update on Avalon in-line skating rink. Through committee process. Need information from officers about how this lines up to help for other sporting codes.	Bruce Hodgins/Craig Cottrill	X	City Development Committee	Council officers have had limited contact with the two clubs regarding this proposal. One on-site meeting was held to discuss the clubs’ proposal and information supplied on practical aspects. The Clubs were advised to discuss their proposal with Fraser Park Sportsville, given the track’s proximity to Fraser Park, and to put forward a proposal for Council consideration during its annual plan deliberations. The current track is in poor condition and located on GWRC land. To date there has been no work undertaken by officers to assess the proposal relative to other priorities.
DAP17/947	Hutt City Youth Council	Melling Skate Board Park – totally dependent on new interchange progress? Update on safe youth specific areas.	Bruce Hodgins/Jimmy Ballantyne	X		The future of the Melling Skate Park may be impacted by the new Melling roading interchange, for which preliminary concept options have been developed. The construction of the preferred option is likely to be some time away. Once the design and timing are known, officers will be in a position to report on the future of the Skate Park.
DAP17/865	Chris & Kathryn MacKay	Greening of Queens Drive.	John Gloag/Bruce Hodgins			Council has no plans to Green Queens Drive other than what might come from the Making Places Project. Plantings were contemplated for a number of CBD streets in 2011. Many have been done but Queens Drive did not have funds allocated.
DAP17/1008	Sigurd Magnusson	Electric vehicles – GWRC says cost compatible but we say 20% more? Provide update regarding electric vehicles and charging stations around city.	Martin Barry/ Gary Craig/Jez Partridge/			A standard percentage figure of 20% figure is not used in any HCC advice or information regarding the comparative costs of purchasing EVs. Each time a vehicle comes up for renewal officers do an assessment of the lease or purchase costs, ETS emissions cost, residual costs if purchased, and fuel costs over the term to determine the financial cost of the vehicle. These factors produce the cost difference between a petrol/diesel versus electric vehicle. Council’s updated Sustainable Fleet Vehicle Policy includes a target of making 50% of the fleet electric, with a minimum addition of 1 electric vehicle per year to the fleet.
		Rates differential and freeze – more information from officers. CE advised appropriate time would be to look at later in calendar year when reviewing Revenue and Financing Policy.	Brent Kibblewhite		ü	Finance and Performance Committee
DAP17/404	Eastbourne Community Board	Climate Change policy – with GWRC and HCC having opposing policies. What is each Council actually doing?	Wendy Moore			Council has not made a decision on climate change. A report on Risk and Resilience was considered by the Policy and Regulatory Committee in February 2017 and Council in March 2017.
DAP17/1034	Love Wainuiomata	Wainiuomata Plan wanted officer assistance – does Council have capacity?	Gary Craig			Love Wainuiomata Inc. (LWI) has requested officer assistance to progress the development of their detailed concept plans for Wainuiomata. This request is for assistance with next stage of planning. Note no additional resources or funding is required to meet this request. During the first two quarters of 2017/18 relevant officers are able to participate in a series of workshops with LWI to create a spatial plan that aligns the community’s vision, council’s own projects and investment from the wider community. Officers from various parts of Council can contribute relevant expertise and advice, detail on forecast projects and asset maintenance, plus advice to scope any further projects that can contribute to the plan. This is expected to come from existing officer resource. External resource requirement to formally document the plan will come from the current allocated Wainuiomata Development Plan 2017/18 budget.
		Naenae community (Cr Bridson) – no staff capacity to help Naenae community?	Gary Craig			There are no available resources in the City Development team to undertake or support a role. A position similar to the Seaview Coordinator role would require an organisation to employ a person part time and budget for associated projects and work – say $40K per annum.
DAP17/352	Ron Beernik	State of pedestrian access around new Rebel/Briscoes building in Petone. Does building fit within design guide?	John Gloag/Tim Johnstone			The new Rebel/Briscoes pedestrian and building fits within the Design Guide. Refer to pages 9 – 15 of the Resource Consent Decision Report for the assessment of the building against the Design Guide.
DAP17/733	James Beban	Remissions policy – when is it up for review?	Gary Craig			The Policy is being reviewed as part of this Annual Plan. Submitters’ comments will be considered when finalising the revised policy.
DAP17/939		Four high level Sportsville recommendations – why haven’t they been implemented? Will officers look at other Sportsvilles around the country and report back on how successful they are? Is it true that clubs have been told to agree now or it will never happen? Is Petone Sportsville really an Inc.? Are they fulfilling their requirements for their legal entity?	Matt Reid	ü		Report going to Community Plan Committee 8 June
		Petone Sportsville – need full report. Large number of Crs questions wanted confirmation of actual support from clubs, proof that clubs’ buildings required maintenance work, how much money had been committed by clubs, relationships with Petone Workingman’s Club and P2040.	Matt Reid	ü		Report going to Community Plan Committee 8 June
		Statistical analysis of submissions to the AP – ethnic breakdown. Add for future.	Joyanne Stevens			Statistics on age, ethnicity and gender can be collected from submitters by including these in future annual plan questionnaires.
DAP17/918		Lowry Bay Yacht Club – alternatives to Rona Wharf been looked at? Maintenance issues – been going for 25yrs but needs upgrading? Has anything been done in those years?	Bruce Hodgins	ü		Report going to Community Plan Committee 8 June
DAP17/919	Casey Diver	Mental Health report – update from Healthy Families about state of mental health of youth.	Hayley Goodin			The feedback will be taken to the Healthy Families Lower Hutt Leadership Group for consideration. We acknowledge the issue although note the issue is not specifically included in the remit of the Healthy Families Lower Hutt contract.
DAP17/655	Laura Skilton	Mayor requested CFO report on rating issue – why rates stated as going up at rate of inflation, but Ms Skilton’s up by 11%. Clarify special rate of 1.3%. Draft proposal for rates remission.	Brent Kibblewhite			The overall rates increase for the city will be 2.3% comprising 1.3% for inflation (as measured by the Local Government Cost Index), plus an additional 1% for rejuvenation projects which was approved by Council for a fourth year during the 2016/17 Annual Plan. HCC operates a proportional rating system with rates charged on the value of capital improvements for each property. This is the system used by most Councils and is considered the fairest based on ability to pay. During the three yearly revaluation in October 2016, residential property values increased on average by 24% while business property values increased by 15%. The different valuation increases resulted in residential rates increasing on average by 2% even before the 2.3% general rate increase. While residential property values across the city increased on average by 24%, residential properties in Petone increased on average by 36% (or $159,872). Based on the new property values in Petone, residential rates will increase on average by 10.7% ($275 p.a.).
DAP17/477	Jo Clendon	Officers to provide report on the delivery of cycling strategy	John Gloag/Simon Cager			See report to Mayor, Councillors and CEO – DOC/17/84445 attached
DAP17/1232	Seaview Business Association	Officers to report back on Gracefield proposal for parking; Heavy Vehicle Bylaw to assist in moving boy racers out of Wingate and Seaview area; Parking outside of Seaview Marina entrance	Gary Craig/Graham Sewell/John Gloag			Seaview Marina entrance parking will be managed within normal business process and budget. The review of the current Traffic Bylaw 2007 has started. The issue of using legal powers under this bylaw is currently being considered with respect to the Seaview area. The results of this review will create a draft Traffic Bylaw 2017 that will be released calling for public submissions after the August Council meeting. The Seaview Business Association may wish to lodge a submission once the draft Bylaw has been released.
		Mayor requested an update on Seaview Road state, safety and on width of shared pathway progress	John Gloag			See report to Mayor, Councillors and CEO – DOC/17/84445 attached
DAP17/1125 DAP17/1136 DAP17/1164 DAP17/1166 DAP17/1178		Cr Lulich asked that officers report back on consultation with residents regarding Petone Sportsville and Memorial Park Proposal	Matt Reid/Bruce Hodgins			Report going to CPC 8 June
		Update in regards to parking in the City – where is the parking study regarding closure of Riverbank carpark? Mayor would like information on the future needs and demands of parking in the City and Petone with its new developments.	Parvati Rotherham			We have mostly completed the first stage of the parking strategy which is the research phase. A survey of what customers think of our parking has been completed through Public Voice which gave us 983 responses. This confirmed that a lot of people find it difficult to get a car park in Lower Hutt CBD and Petone. To quantify the problem we are looking at engaging GHD to undertake a parking occupancy survey in Lower Hutt CBD and Petone. With this information we will determine whether there is spare capacity in current parking availability, or whether we need to be looking to provide more availability, in particular areas. This could be through time restrictions or charging. We hope that this work will be completed by end of July. We are looking at various technology options including a paying app to make it easy for our customers. We have identified various process improvements and are prioritising these and investigating further. Wendy Moore and John Pritchard are working on the actual policy and are looking to hold workshops soon.
DAP17/608	Citizens Advice Bureau Lower Hutt	Community funding and a discussion around CABs in Hubs/libraries.	Matt Reid/Mike Mercer			Council officers will work alongside CABs over the coming 12 months to investigate what opportunities there are for partnerships in Hub and Library facilities around Lower Hutt.
DAP17/1204	Phil Benge	Cr Cousins asked that the maintenance of the entranceway to Greenwood Park, Eastbourne be investigated and the gift of the park be acknowledged. Officers to copy any responses to the submission on Rona Wharf and Greenwood Park to the Eastbourne Community Board.	Bruce Hodgins			Officers will investigate and action where appropriate.
DAP17/1066	Michael Gray	Mayor asked that Michael Gray be added to the CBD Taskforce Group list.	Gary Craig			Added to CBD Forum invitees.	X
DAP17/220	Hutt Valley Living Wage	Requested Chief Executive to work with the movement.	Tony Stallinger			On Council agenda for 23 May.	X
DAP17/812	Wainuiomata Rural Community	Mayor would like officers to talk to them regarding a trial of waterways cross channel invention which clears rubbish from waterways.	Bruce Sherlock			A meeting was held some time ago with Bill Voisey who first proposed this system, and GW officers responsible for the Wainui River. Bruce Sherlock will contact GW officers to ascertain progress.
DAP17/812	Wainuiomata Rural Community	Mayor said if Council was considering development in flow research, it would consult with the residents of Fitzherbert Road.	Bruce Sherlock			Agree with the Mayor’s comments. Modelling of waste and stormwater impacts would be required as part of the consenting process for any development.
DAP17/150		Mayor requested a report on the walkways in Korokoro Road and on substandard roads.	John Gloag			10 year Sub-Standard Road Upgrading programme set in 2011. Roads in the Western Hills and Eastern Bays were assessed. Korokoro Road requires upgrading but is not on the current programme because other roads were assessed as having higher priority.
DAP17/1224	Keri Brown	Social Housing – Mayor said the issues needs discussion, policy and a holistic view, specifically the role of UrbanPlus. However, local government should not replace central government’s role. Social Housing - Look at developing a coordinated approach to homelessness with regard to policy and community services. Who should Council advocate to about this?	Tony Stallinger			Housing is one of the hottest topics in the lead up to the central government elections later this year. Some policy announcements have been made already and more are expected from major parties soon, but the nationwide approach and the impact on Lower Hutt will not be known until a government is formed post-election. It that time it will be appropriate to reconsider Council’s involvement in housing and the role of Urban Plus. That can be determined and committed in the coming Long Term Plan of Council and the next annual Statement of Intent for Urban Plus. Recent ideas such as very small and more affordable homes can be assessed during that process. In the meantime Council is continuing its work under the Urban Growth Strategy on creating opportunity for more housing in the City, and Urban Plus is progressing with several sizable housing developments (including social housing) either underway or in the pipeline. Council will also continue advocating for action in respect of vacant Housing New Zealand land including the central government provision of more emergency housing in the city to address homelessness.
DAP17/813	Ginny Anderson	Social Housing – investigate tiny homes for affordable housing. To do with homes for the homeless, elderly and disabled sector.	Tony Stallinger			As above.
DAP17/1224	Keri Brown	Social Housing – update on housing in Wainuiomata with data about the housing types, who is buying the new homes? Are the Wainuiomata people missing out?	Gary Craig			Houses being developed under Urban Growth Strategy are all private developments. Unaware of any new HNZ houses being proposed in Wainuiomata at this stage.
		Cycle facilities provide for in the Sportsville plans?	Matt Reid	ü		Report going to Community Plan Committee 8 June re Sportsville
		Update on the ANZAC bus shelter progress.	Bruce Hodgins			The architect has drawn up draft plans for improvements to the structure to address concerns with the adequacy of shelter for users. The plans are currently being assessed by the structural engineer and expected back shortly.
		Update on the fountains and dog-friendly fountains (Seaview Marina has a design).	Bruce Sherlock			Comms team will be providing updates on Buick and Dowse drinking fountains as and when progress is made. Council has no plans to amend designs to provide dog drinking facilities.
		Update regarding the Waste Minimisation Strategy and review of the green recycling buckets. Is there a report coming to P&R about this? Update regarding cost for people who want to pay for their own recycling wheelibins.	Gary Craig/Jez Patridge		X	Add to Corporate Agenda – Community Services Committee – Cycle 3.
DAP17/983	Graeme Ross	Update on more colour in flower beds.	Bruce Hodgins			Noted by officers.
DAP17/810	Ellen Blake	Update regarding footpath audits and wheelchair friendly routes	John Gloag	X		See attached memorandum.

Attachment 4

Further Information Requested by Council

Memorandum

Our reference:	Walking & Cycling
To:	Mayor, Councillors & CEO
Copy:	Bruce Sherlock
From:	Simon Cager (Senior Project Engineer)
Date:	17 May 2017

Subject: Urban Cycleways, Recreational Cycling / Walking & Behaviour Change Programmes

The recent oral submissions in the Annual Plan process have highlighted that there are information gaps and uncertainty by some residents as to the progress of the urban cycleways, recreational cycling / walking and behaviour change programmes for the City.

In particular, there seemed to be two themes to the submissions. Firstly some frustration at lack of progress on physical works, and secondly a desire to see more work done on promoting a culture within Hutt City more aligned with active transport modes. This memorandum outlines the progress being made on a number of major walking/cycling projects. Completion of these projects is clearly necessary before a “paradigm shift” in culture is achievable. But in the interim, Council has many programmes underway, especially targeted at schools and youth, aimed at promoting active modes; and both officers and elected members engage regularly with groups promoting such activity. This memorandum therefore also reports on those programmes and engagements.

Urban Cycleways

Wainuiomata Hill Shared Path

Scope: To provide a consistent, connected and safe shared cycling and pedestrian environment between the Hutt Valley and Wainuiomata for various levels of cycling competency. Initially this was for the completion of a 4m wide path (3m in constrained areas) alongside the Wainuiomata Hill Raod and upgrading of footpaths on Gracefield and Bell Road South. The design was extended to Rishworth Street to provide a safer connection for both pedestrians and cyclists on an already utilised path crossing the off ramp. The shared path will provide a formalised connection to the recently completed $1.6M Pukeatua Bridge at the summit along with a new lookout point, both of which are experiencing unprecedented use.

Implementation is split into two stages, these are:

Stage 1 – Hutt Valley to Pukeatua Summit Bridge

Stage 2 – Pukeatua Summit Bridge to Wainuiomata

Design: Professional Services Contract awarded to GHD

Project Progress:

· Stage 1 Detailed Design completed and tendered

· Resource consents granted by both HCC and GWRC for Stage 1

· Tender and evaluation completed for Stage 1, preferred contractor notified

· Consultation completed via community open days for both stages, dedicated project webpage on the HCC website established

· Working with both Contractor and Consultant to get an affordable tender price for both Stages 1 and 2.

· Stage 2 Detailed Design complete and under review

· Resource consents drafted for both HCC and GWRC for Stage 2

Timelines:

Key Milestone	Estimated Completion Date
Detailed Design Stage 1	Completed
Detailed Design Stage 2	2^nd Quarter 2017
Construction Stage 1	4^th Quarter 2017
Construction Stage 2	1^st Quarter 2018

The Beltway

Scope: To provide a cycling spine to the east of the city extending between Seaview and connecting to the Hutt River Trail at Taita. The route will provide the opportunity for additional links over time to form a connected network between residential areas, workplaces, the hospital, schools and recreational areas.

Design: Professional Services Contract awarded to Beca

Project Progress:

· Currently completing a Single Stage Business Case

· Initial concept consultation open day completed in February

· Dedicated project webpage on the HCC website established

· Further consultation and engagement with residents, schools, businesses in the northern and southern sections via a letter drop, library displays and online feedback currently ongoing until 9 June

· Corridor split into northern, mid and southern sections to allow prioritised work packages for construction

· Extensive route selection process analysed, scored and weighted following initial works shops with key stakeholders

· Resource consent planning underway

· Working with KiwiRail to gain their approval on the cycleway aspects that may encroach on their corridor

· Working with GWRC with respect to improvements outside Waterloo Station facilitating a shared path connection

Timelines:

Key Milestone	Estimated Completion Date
Community and Stakeholder Engagement	June 2017
Single Stage Business Case with Recommended Options Design	June 2017
Agreed Preferred Option	July 2017
Detailed Design of Preferred Option	July 2017
Construction of first Work Package	Mid 2018

Eastern Bays Shared Path

Scope: To provide a shared path improving the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists in Marine Drive between Point Howard and the northern end of Days Bay, also the southern end of Days Bay (Windy Point) to Eastbourne (Muritai Road / Marine Parade intersection).

Design: Professional Services Contract awarded to MWH (Stantec)

Project Progress:

· Completed an Indicative Business Case with two options taken forward for further investigation. This is awaiting endorsement by NZTA, however they have given us authorisation to proceed to the Detailed Business Case

· Community consultation on shared path width options in November 2016

· Based upon the outcome of the community consultation, the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) process and alignment to objectives two options were taken forward for more detailed assessment and analysis prior to selecting a single preferred option, these being a general 2.5m and 3.5m width. These two options have the greatest alignment to the agreed investment objectives for the project, whilst also being clearly preferred in the MCA process. These two options also scored well against the other options in the MCA sensitivity testing across the social, environmental, cultural and economic weighted assessments. The community feedback received also suggested a definite preference for either of these options. The economic evaluation undertaken identifies a BCR for both options of around 2.5 which clearly demonstrates a project that results in a positive economic return

· Updates on the project progress were given to the Eastern Bays Shared Path Steering Group in May 2017. This is a group that was formed about 15 years ago and consists of representatives from each bays residents association, the Eastbourne Community Board and the East Harbour Environmental Association. The group meets on an ad-hoc basis and generally when there is progress to report

· We are engaging with the Port Nicholson Settlement Block as well as other iwi groups to get their input and participation through the design and consenting process

· Specialists engaged with expertise in coastal processes (NIWA), ecology, avifauna and birdlife, visual assessments, RMA planning to work with consultants and key stakeholders in a collaborative design exercise

· A forward works programme of construction will be developed in conjunction with the design process.

Timelines:

Key Milestone	Estimated Completion Date
Community and Stakeholder Engagement	July 2017
Detailed Business Case	August 2017
Agreed Preferred Option	August 2017
Detailed Design of Preferred Option	December 2017
Construction of first Work Package	Mid 2018

NZTA Projects

Council is also providing inputs and contributions, both current and historic, to the planning and design of the following NZTA projects:

· Ngauranga to Melling Cycleway (including a $1M financial contribution to the project)

· SH2 / 58 intersection upgrade (Council Officers lobbied for the inclusion of high quality safe cycling facilities through the intersection alongside the Hutt Cycle Network)

Recreational Cycling / Walking

Listed below are the key projects over the last 18months that have been completed or are in progress for recreational cycling / walking:

· Hutt River Trail Manor Park stage two development currently in progress from Manor Park Golf Course to Silverstream Bridge, this is anticipated to be a 1.5m width gravel track essentially following the rail line Detailed design is to be commissioned in July 2017 with construction in the summer of 2017/18 once written agreements have been signed with KiwiRail and the Manor Park Sanctuary

· Rimutaka Cycle Trail/Petone Esplanade upgrade currently in the later stages of a two year program to widen the Petone Esplanade off road shared path to 4m where possible. The next stage of the works will be commissioned for design in the summer of 2017/18

· Council works with the Wainuiomata Trail Project committee to design and deliver the WTP Strategic Plan with an annual budget of $50,000. We now have 30km of off road trails as part of this project

· The Te Whiti Riser opened in 2016 and is widely regarded as one of the Wellington Regions premier shared trails. Winding up from the valley floor to the top of the Eastern Hills the trail is over 4km and caters for an array of abilities and users

· Rimutaka Cycle Trial/Orongorongo Station Carpark development and trail upgrade – Wellingtons only National Cycle Trail is supported and managed by 5 Territorial Authorities, DOC and a number of private land owners. Starting on Wellington’s doorstep, this trail winds through the Rimutaka Ranges to the Wairarapa Valley and the mouth of the Orongorongo River

· Hutt River Trail Manor Park stage one development completed the link between and over Dry Creek to the Manor Park Railway Station in 2015/16

· Hutt River Trail sealing works are ongoing with the ‘gap’ that was left due to the GWRC riverbank works completed this year. Work is planned in 2017/18 to extend the sealing from the finishing point in Harcourt Werry Drive to the intersection of Taita Drive and High Street

Parks and Reserves staff meet with the Wainuiomata Trail Project Team on a monthly basis which provides opportunities for 2 way engagement regarding any issues, concerns and future development relating to the operation of the trails.

HCC is one of 8 Wellington Region Territorial Authorities, who including, GWRC and DOC are providing input to formulate a new framework for the development of high class recreational trails network for the benefits of residents and visitors to the Wellington Region. The framework sets out a strategic approach for consistent planning, development, management and promotion of an integrated sustainable trail network by the region’s trail managers, partners and communities. It also aims to improve the health, lifestyle and social benefits flowing to the region’s residents from safe, quality trails accessing the region’s exceptional and diverse landscapes and urban parklands.

Behaviour Change Programmes

Engagement:

Road and Traffic staff meet regularly (approximately monthly) with Hutt Cycle Network (HCN) to keep them updated on progress of various major and minor works, events and activities that encourage more people to cycle. We investigate any concerns that they bring to our attention at these meetings, and make efforts to remedy issues where possible.

Walk and Cycle the Hutt 2014-19 has an Advisory Group which meets quarterly. It includes Council’s Road Safety Coordinator and Senior Research / Policy Advisor, elected members Lisa Bridson and Virginia Horrocks, representatives from Hutt Cycle Network, Living Streets Aotearoa and The Great Harbour Way, plus Jo Clendon as an independent citizen with an interest in cycling issues. This process, along with regular meetings with HCN, provides ongoing opportunities for 2-way engagement.

There is an implementation plan which has been developed and agreed on by the Group. It incorporates actions that will contribute towards achieving the desired ‘paradigm shift’ referred to by submitters. It is a working document, and for each meeting it is updated to report on events and activities over the previous quarter. This enables the groups represented to monitor the implementation of the strategy, and flag any concerns they may have about priorities.

Safe routes to school:

HCC works consistently on its school travel plan programme. Our School Travel Planner and Road Safety Coordinator work with each participating school, to develop a plan of activities to encourage active travel, and improve safety. The process includes a road safety audit of the area around the school. Council makes safety improvements where possible, e.g. road-marking, parking management, parking time limits, creating alternative drop-off locations away from the school gate to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems, 40km/h speed limits, pedestrian crossing upgrades, new kea or pedestrian crossings, signalised crossings. Around 20 of Hutt City’s 38 primary schools have taken advantage of this targeted programme over the last 10 years, and a number of others have been assisted with measures such as walking school buses, and various road safety improvements.

As part of the ongoing school safety zone programme we plan to implement new 40k speed zones around schools each year. In 2016/17 4 new zones are programmed for implementation at Naenae Primary, Wellesley College, St Orans, and Avalon Intermediate, these are due to start operating in Term 3 of 2017.

HCC parking wardens also visit all schools on rotation, to ensure that parents are parking safely and legally.

Promoting active travel in schools:

Our School Travel Planner and Road Safety Coordinator work with schools on an ongoing basis, together with partners Greater Wellington Regional Council and Police School Community Officers.

· Movin’ March 2017 – 15 primary schools took part in this month-long GW promotion, that encourages walking, scooting and cycling to school.

· Scooter skills training in schools – pupils learn skills for safe footpath use, consideration of other users

· Walking school buses – these come and go, but at any one time there are usually around 10 participating schools with a total of 100-140 pupils using these as an alternative to car trips to school.

· Road Safety Coordinator placed 2 feature pages in Hutt News in March 2017 which was designed to target parents of primary school pupils. These feature pages promoted walking school buses, and safe behaviour by parents who drive children to and from school.

· Cycle skills training and bike fixups in 10 schools in 2015/16. Demand growing fast and in the first three terms of 2016/17 cycle skills training was undertaken in 14 schools with Grade 1 achievements totalling 1,554 pupils and Grade 2 totalling 117 pupils. 381 bikes were fixed by Biketec. Cycle skills training is delivered by GWRC’s Pedal Ready programme supported by our School Travel Planner, Police School Community Officers, and Biketec who support training by providing loan bikes for pupils without a bike of their own.

· HCC recently assisted 250 pupils from low decile schools to enter Weetbix Try with subsidised entry fees, free pool passes for training, bike skills and fitness training, and some received the use of free loan bikes provided by Biketec.

· HCC supports the ‘Bikes in Schools’ projects in partnership with Bike On NZ Trust. Currently 4 schools have constructed tracks and another 6 are fundraising to build a track.

Promoting active travel in adults and the wider community:

· Bike fixups at 4 public events in 2015/16 with a total of 64 bikes fixed. In 2016/17 bike fixups at 4 public events with a total of 61 bikes fixed.

· HCC supported and promoted the Aotearoa Bike Challenge in February 2017 which was a nationwide event. The Council also contributed to GWRC development of Wellington area challenge website.

· Go by Bike Day breakfast event in February 2017 with 140 participants.

· HCC supported the Project Glow Wear regional design competition in 2015/16, and again this year April – Aug 2017 which promotes cyclist and pedestrian visibility.

· New cycle stop boxes are progressively being installed at signalised intersections around the city and in 2016/17 are planned for the Hutt Rd / Petone Ave and Queens Drive / Laings Rd intersections.

· Ongoing installation and upgrade programme to install more bike stands around CBD and suburban shopping centres. In 2016/17 we have currently installed 3 stands and 16 cycle-hoops.

· HCC will be promoting GW’s new ‘Smart travel’ online platform which once the launch phases are complete will incorporate spot prizes and incentives for active travel.

Memorandum

To:	Community Plan Committee
From:	Jan Simmons, Road Safety Coordinator
Date:	30 May 2017

Subject: Submission DAP 17/810 - Ellen Blake, Living Streets Aotearoa

This submission included a request for a dedicated budget of $50,000 per year to continue footpath audits and provide wheelchair friendly footpath routes.

Background

Throughout the city, there are numerous defects in footpaths which present hazards to people with visual and physical impairments, and to the elderly. Defects include cracked and uneven footpath surfaces, walkoffs which have a lip, walkoffs that are too steep to be negotiated safely in a wheelchair or mobility scooter (risk of tipping or getting stuck in the gutter), corners without any walkoffs, crossings without tactile pavers, and accessibility problems at bus stops.

In 2014/15, $300,000 for ‘Wheelchair friendly footpath routes’ was included in Council’s budget to address this issue. The funding was targeted towards areas with the highest numbers of elderly persons and wheelchair and mobility scooter users.

Areas around Hutt Hospital, major retirement villages and pensioner housing, and suburban shopping centres with pharmacies and medical practices were identified. Staff and residents of retirement villages were consulted to find out about routes and areas most commonly used. These areas were audited to locate defects that presented a hazard. Defects were repaired/reconstructed by contractors.

The funds available were used to significantly improve access in the following areas:

· Area around Hutt Hospital

· Shopping centres – Wainuiomata, Naenae, Taita, Fairfield, Park Ave

· Rest homes – Shona McFarlane, Wesleyhaven, Laura Fergusson Trust, Aroha Home, two rest homes in Wai-iti Crescent and walking route to CBD.

The following areas were audited, but additional funds are needed to complete the necessary work.

· Alicetown, Waterloo (Epuni Street area), Moera, Waiwhetu shops (Whites Line East/Waiwhetu Road), Avalon (area around UrbanPlus housing units in Colson Street/McBain Grove), routes to Waterloo Station (Cambridge Terrace), and the CBD.

Areas still to be audited:

· Stokes Valley, Petone (including area around Bob Scott retirement village), Eastbourne, Homedale Village, Western Hills, routes to railway stations.

Current resourcing for footpath maintenance

The annual footpath renewal and replacement budget for 2017/18 is $205,000. Most of this is required for essential work to progressively replace sections of old, damaged and sub-standard footpaths, as identified in RAMM surveys and residents’ requests. It is not sufficient to remedy all residents’ requests within a reasonable time, nor is it sufficient to also improve accessibility for the disabled in a targeted way.

Strategic Fit

A dedicated budget would support the achievement of Goal Three of Hutt City’s Accessibility and Inclusion Plan:

“All people are able to move about the city easily and safely without being limited by the physical environment”

KPI (i) – Street audits of Lower Hutt are carried out on a regular basis measured by the street audit report.

It would also support achievement of Objective 1 of the Walk & Cycle the Hutt Plan 2014-2019, ‘Safe and integrated networks for commuting and recreational purposes’:

“Continue to ensure that new and existing footpaths and infrastructure are compatible with a range of needs”.

Conclusion

A dedicated budget of $50,000 per year would enable Road & Traffic staff to carry on making targeted improvements, and continually improve accessibility. This will be needed more as our population ages, and the number of residents with mobility and other impairments continues to grow.

Attachment 5

Peter Glen Research Report on Options for Seaview Treatment Plant Resource Consents

2017 PUBLIC CONSULTATION SURVEY

REGARDING WASTEWATER OPTIONS

Research report prepared for

the Hutt City Council

Bruce Sherlock

May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

				Page No.
1.	Background			3
2.	The need for research			4
3.	Research objectives			4
4.	Method			5
5.	Information obtained			6
6.	Timing			6
7.	Research Results:			7
7.1.			How acceptable are the options?	8

7.2.			Option rated as No.1 preference	9

7.3.			Rank order of preference	12

7.4.			No.1 preference by age groups	13

7.5.			No1.preference by ward	14

7.6.			The relative importance of factors concerning wastewater disposal	15

7.7.			The funding of the wastewater options	16

7.8.			What Hutt City residents would like to ask the Council about the wastewater options	19

7.9.			Respondent profile	24

7.10.			Conclusion	25

8.		Questionnaire		27
9.		Wastewater options		35

1. BACKGROUND

Hutt City Council provided the following background information for this research project.

The Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges treated effluent into Cook Strait at Pencarrow Head. The treated wastewater is pumped from the plant to Pencarrow Head via an 18 km long main outfall pipeline.

There are however two situations in which the treated wastewater from the Plant needs to be diverted to an alternative discharge point. These are:

1. When extreme wet weather causes the flow of wastewater through the Plant to exceed the capacity of the main outfall pipeline

2. When maintenance is required on the main outfall pipeline.

Currently the alternative discharge point is to the Waiwhetu Stream approximately 120 metres from the Stream’s mouth into the Hutt River. Tidal flows mean that the discharge can travel up the Waiwhetu Stream as far as the Bell Road bridge on the incoming tide, although this effect does not occur during storm events when the stream is in flood.

Over the last five years, wet weather discharges have occurred on average approximately four times per year, while there have been only three maintenance discharges in that five-year period.

Wet weather discharges occur during storm events, when the quality of the water in the stream is low while the stream is in flood. The quality of the treated wastewater discharge can, in these circumstances, be better than the water quality in the Stream.

Maintenance discharges can occur as a result of planned or unplanned work on the main outfall pipeline. Planned works are always undertaken in winter when recreation use is at its lowest and when fish spawning is not occurring. Unplanned works (repairs) by their nature can occur at any time. If these occur during dry conditions, the treated wastewater discharge can make up a significant proportion of the overall flow of the Waiwhetu Stream.

The existing consent to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream is due to expire in early 2018. While the treated wastewater is of reasonable quality, and discharges occur for only short periods, and consequently with only temporary effects on the Stream, regulations relating to such discharges are becoming stricter. Continuing with the current arrangement might not, therefore, be acceptable from a regulatory point-of-view. Hutt City Council is, therefore, considering which option to seek planning approval for and is seeking to understand community preferences as a valuable input to the decision-making.

2. THE NEED FOR RESEARCH

In order to understand community preferences, Peter Glen Research was commissioned to conduct an independent random survey of Hutt City residents. The purpose of the survey has been to gather information that can complement the public submission process, as well as identify the views of residents who would not normally make a formal submission to Council.

The results of the survey are intended as one important input to the decisions that are made with regard to wastewater treatment and disposal.

A large number of alternative solutions were initially investigated and these were subsequently reduced to a short-list of seven, which is still a large number for the public to consider in detail. Therefore, in order to facilitate a more manageable number of options, four possible solutions were selected for the research, which cover a broad range of environmental considerations and cost factors. These have enabled residents to provide feedback to the Council regarding the extent to which they are prepared to trade off environmental and other benefits versus cost. In turn, this will give the Council a good steer on the end-solutions that are likely to be acceptable to Hutt City residents.

The four selected test options are shown in Section 9 of this report.

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

These were defined as follows:

a) To determine to what extent each of the four options are regarded as acceptable/not acceptable to residents of Hutt City

b) To determine which of the four options residents prefer

c) To understand residents’ reasons for preference

d) To rank the relative importance of various factors that may have a bearing on the community’s decision, such as water safety, environmental and cultural considerations, impact on rates, etc.

e) To identify any areas of question and/or concern that residents may have about the wastewater options.

4. METHOD

The survey was undertaken among a stratified random sample of 300 Hutt City residents.

The survey participants were recruited using random selection procedures, but sample quotas were set to ensure that the survey was proportionately representative of the Hutt City adult population (16+ years of age) by age, gender and ethnicity.

The interviews were also spread over the six geographic areas (wards) within the city, to ensure that a proper cross-section of the community was represented. The sample was therefore be structured as follows:

wards		survey sample		population
		No.	%	%

	Northern Ward	47	15.7	15.6
	Harbour Ward	53	17.6	17.6
	Western Ward	38	12.7	12.7
	Wainuiomata Ward	53	17.7	17.6
	Eastern Ward	52	17.3	17.3
	Central Ward	57	19.0	19.1


	total interviews	300	100.0%	100.0%

It is estimated that this provides a sampling variance of +4.7% at the 90% confidence level on the total sample.

The survey was conducted using a combination of contact approaches and interviewing procedures. The majority of interviews were undertaken by way of telephone interviewing (landline and mobile), with some face-to-face interviewing, where necessary, to meet stratified sample quotas and to ensure that a proper cross-section of the community was engaged.

In order to enable the selected residents to provide a more “considered” response to the wastewater options, explanatory material was provided to the research participants (where necessary) prior to the interview. It should be noted that this information was distributed to all Hutt City residents as part of the Annual Plans Consultation process, so some had already considered the material, or had it available to consider. If not, Peter Glen Research made the material available to them. This approach has been successfully used in previous plans studies for Hutt City Council.

At enrolment, the purpose of the survey was outlined and an appointment arranged to call back, if the selected respondent was unable to complete the interview at the time of initial contact.

The interview was administered by way of a structured questionnaire, which was developed in consultation with Hutt City Council.

A team of experienced interviewers employed by Peter Glen Research conducted the interviewing.

Peter Glen, the principal of Peter Glen Research, personally managed all aspects of the research project, from questionnaire design, through fieldwork set-up and supervision, to the analysis and reporting of results.

5. INFORMATION OBTAINED

A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Section 8 of this report.

6. TIMING

The fieldwork for the survey was conducted from 4 April to 6 May 2017.

7. RESEARCH RESULTS

7.1. HOW ACCEPTABLE ARE THE OPTIONS?

After familiarising themselves with each of the four options presented, the research participants were asked to indicate how acceptable they would be to them, as a resident of Hutt City. The results are shown in the chart below.

All four options were rated either ‘acceptable’ or ‘I could live with it’ by more than half the residents interviewed. However, some were rated more positively or negatively than others.

Overall, at this stage of the interview there was not a clear preference.

7.2. OPTION RATED AS No.1 PREFERENCE

The research participants were then asked specifically to indicate which of the four options would be their No.1 preference. Opinion was almost equally divided across three of the four options, as shown below.

The 32% of residents who chose the *re-consent* option did so mainly because it was the least expensive option and they considered the current system was working adequately for Hutt City’s needs. Their responses included:
		% mentioning
		(n=300)
	The existing plant has served us well/there is nothing wrong with it; it is working now, so why change what we have; I do not see a reason to change; if it’s not broken, don’t fix it/leave it alone	13

	It doesn’t cost us anything/as much as the others; there is no construction cost/extra capital required; it saves dollars (we could be spending the money on something else); I don’t like the thought of spending a lot of money on it; there will be less impact on rates	11

	There is no need to change, if the problem is only happening a few days/times a year	2

	It is the best option to stay within budget, which they need to do/is important	2

	They should try the existing option first. If it doesn’t meet the resource consent, they can move to the cheapest alternative/something else	2

	The main problem seems to be the proximity to the Maori cemetery, which has been there a long time, as has the plant. Why is it, all of a sudden, a problem? Leave it alone	1

	Resource consent seems a convenient excuse to make change	1

	Other reasons	3

12% of the residents interviewed selected the option of a new discharge and structure into the Hutt River, 100 metres off Barnes Street. These respondents viewed it as a medium level investment, which would have less environmental impact on the Waiwhetu Stream and, possibly, the beaches and bays in the area. Their comments can be summarised as:

	% mentioning
	(n=300)
It takes the flow away from the Waiwhetu Stream; it places the wastewater into the harbour instead of the stream	4

There would be lesser effects on aquatic/marine life, but it is not as expensive as the Port Road option	3

It requires a medium/moderate level of investment; it is not the cheapest and the most expensive alternative	3

There might be less dispersal/pollution of the beaches and bays than with the Port Road option	1

Other reasons	1

28% of the residents interviewed selected a new discharge and structure into the Harbour, 600 metres off Port Road as their preferred option. This option appealed primarily because it would place the treated wastewater furthest away from the shore and waterways, where it would have a greater level of dilution. Some residents also favoured this option because it was likely to have the least concern for iwi.

It places the wastewater further away, which I assume is better than nearer; I assume the furthest away is safer for all; the further out it can be discharged the better; it provides more reassurance because it places the wastewater furthest away	12

There would be greater dilution, with the wastewater placed further away/as far away as possible, therefore less impact on the environment	4

It offers least concerns for iwi and allows improvement; it seems to deliver the most benefits to the environment and addresses iwi/Maori concerns	4

It would be a better option for both the stream and the river (less pollution/better for marine life)	3

It moves the wastewater directly into the harbour instead of into the stream	2

Other reasons	2

The 28% of residents who preferred the option of new discharge and structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage mentioned a variety of points. These included:

	% mentioning
	(n=300)
It seems to make (real) improvements at a lower cost	6

It is the least expensive/is the cheapest of the alternative options; it is not too expensive (at $12 million)	5

It allows more control/options with regard to release (especially as we are likely to have more wet weather events); better control means the Council is improving the system/raising their game	4

The flow of the river will take the wastewater away/save harm to the stream; release into the river mouth is good	4

The Waiwhetu Stream won’t be affected; it seems better than it going into the stream; discharge to the river mouth is more acceptable than the stream	3

Being able to release on an outgoing tide means the dilution factor goes up and there is less sediment; there would be better dilution on the outgoing tide	3

It is a more sensible option, which is trying to balance cost against benefit; I choose it because it is a compromise around budgeting allowance and wanting to improve the current system	3

It fits within the $13 million budgeted	1

It acknowledges the Maori cultural concerns without getting silly about it/going over the top financially	1

Less effect on the environment and aquatic life in the Waiwhetu Stream	1

It has the potential to reduce the number of discharge events. The others don’t, they just cost money; it is the only option that offers a different approach to discharge	1

Other reasons	2

7.3. RANK ORDER OF PREFERENCE

After establishing respondents’ No.1 preference, they were then asked to rank the remaining options in order of choice.

OPTIONS	No.1 Preference	Second preference	Third preference	Least preferred
	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)
	%	%	%	%
Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu Stream	32	16	9	43

New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 100m off Barnes Street	12	31	49	8

New discharge & structure into the Harbour, 600m off Port Road	28	20	9	43

New discharge & structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage	28	33	33	6


TOTAL RESPONDENTS	100%	100%	100%	100%

This analysis indicates that the fourth option on the above list, which includes the storage option, may be the most acceptable option overall. 61% of respondents ranked it either first or second in their choice selection and very few (only 6%) ranked it as the least preferred option.

The first and third options in the above list appear to have the strongest level of divided opinion, with 48% of respondents ranking them first or second, but 43% ranking them last.

7.4. No.1 PREFERENCE BY AGE GROUPS

An analysis of respondents’ No.1 preference, by age group, reveals that opinion is fairly evenly distributed across the age spectrum.

OPTIONS	TOTAL	16 – 39 years	40 – 59 years	60+ years
	(n=300)	(n=111)	(n=93)	(n=96)
	%	%	%	%
Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu Stream	32	31	34	30

New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 100m off Barnes Street	12	12	15	9

New discharge & structure into the Harbour, 600m off Port Road	28	30	23	31

New discharge & structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage	28	27	28	30


TOTAL RESPONDENTS	100%	100%	100%	100%

7.5. No.1 PREFERENCE BY WARD

The analysis of respondents’ No.1 preference, by their area of residence, indicates that there may be some important differences across the wards. However, base sizes for this subgroup analysis are relatively small. Therefore, the results should be regarded as indicative only, rather than statistically absolute. The average sampling variance across the individual wards is estimated at +11.6% at the 90% confidence level.

OPTIONS	TOTAL	Northern	Harbour	Western	Wainui.	Eastern	Central
	(n=300)	(n=47)	(n=53)	(n=38)	(n=53)	(n=52)	(n=57)
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu Stream	32	25	25	24	32	35	48

New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 100m off Barnes Street	12	11	9	18	7	15	12

New discharge & structure into the Harbour, 600m off Port Road	28	34	41	29	25	27	14

New discharge & structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage	28	30	25	29	36	23	26


TOTAL RESPONDENTS	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

7.6. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS CONCERNING WASTEWATER

DISPOSAL

The research participants were introduced to a list of factors that need to be taken into consideration when making decisions about the disposal of wastewater for Hutt City. It was explained to the respondents that all are important, but the Council would appreciate their views on the relative importance of each factor. Accordingly, they were asked to rank the factors from ‘1’ to ‘7’.

The factors are listed below in terms of the overall order of importance that emerged.

	RANK ORDER OF IMPORTANCE RATING
FACTORS	Most important	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	Least important	Av. Mean rating
	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)	(n=300)	Av. Mean rating
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Assurance that the disposed wastewater is safe in terms of human health	70	21	2	6	1	-	-	1.47

The wastewater does not affect the marine life in the area	13	55	17	6	7	1	1	2.46

The water into which the wastewater is disposed remains natural in its appearance	1	8	27	23	21	16	4	4.19

The cultural considerations of Maori and other New Zealanders	8	1	19	24	15	15	18	4.54

That the wastewater disposal meets the current standards required by the RMA	5	9	16	14	20	15	21	4.64

The impact on Hutt City’s rates bills	2	4	14	21	17	14	28	5.01

The appearance of any structures and buildings fits with the environment in which it is situated	1	2	5	6	19	38	29	5.70

The first two factors listed in the above chart were clearly considered to be the most paramount, with 91% and 68% of respondents respectively ranking them first or second most important

7.7. THE FUNDING OF THE WASTEWATER OPTIONS

The research participants were given the following introductory explanation:

“I now have a question about the funding of the wastewater options. Costs could be met either:

· through a targeted rate, for 20 years, on all ratepayers with a separate wastewater charge that would cease once the costs were fully recovered, or

· through the general rate.”

They were then asked:

“Which of these options would you prefer?”

The results were as follows:

It can be noted that when respondents were considering these rating options, they were further informed:

· Wastewater makes up 20% of an average household rates bill. (This is 20% of the HCC portion of a rates bill, i.e. it excludes the GWRC component).

· Every $10 million of borrowing repaid over 20 years via a targeted rate, would cost $42 per annum per wastewater connection. (So, every residential ratepayer with a wastewater connection would pay an additional $42 per annum).

The main reasons for choosing the *‘targeted rate’* are summarised below:		% mentioning
		(n=300)
	The targeted rate would be more transparent; it would be a separate rates item that could be monitored; ratepayers could see it on their bill and hold the Council/appropriate people to account	14

	The targeted rate has a defined rating period/limited life; after 20 years it would be paid off/we wouldn’t pay for it any more	10

	Rates increase with inflation. In theory, the targeted rate could be better, because it would be fixed at today’s amount; presumably the amount would be fixed, so with inflation the actual level of commitment would reduce over time	7

	The figure of $42 per annum, for 20 years, sounds alright; I could afford it/sustain paying that amount	4

	There would be no surprises – it would be a fixed amount, with no added costs or rate increases; the targeted rate would be like a fixed mortgage. We would know what we were paying and can budget accordingly	3

	Other reasons	3

The research participants who chose the ‘general rate’ did so for the following reasons:

It is better in the general rate, where it can be managed as part of the total rates commitment	6

We only need one rates bill/amount. Otherwise there is potential/a tendency for these things to accumulate on top of the basic rates amount/commitment/sum	4

Tradition/it’s what we are used to – one rates bill is all we need/is easier to understand	5

Rates are getting high now. Many people can’t afford them. The Council should be made to stay/work within the $13 million budgeted for this	3

With the number of projects the Council are undertaking, it is important that they manage their budgets and spend within acceptable limits. The general rate looks at the total picture	3

Wastewater is a core Council service, which is there for everybody. It should be budgeted and controlled within the general rate/rating system, not targeted (like a user-pays system)	3

I’m old/in my 70s and don’t know whether I will be paying rates in 20 years	2

Other reasons	2

Respondents who indicated that they ‘*don’t know’* or were ‘*unsure*’ about which rating option they would prefer expressed the following views:		% mentioning
		(n=300)
	I would probably prefer the cheaper option/whichever option has the less impact on rates, so would need more information; rates are expensive/horrendous/unaffordable at the moment, so I don’t want anything that will add to them; the Council should not increase the rates at all	10

	I would want to know how the two rating options compare/what it would mean for me as a ratepayer	4

	I don’t feel qualified enough to comment; financial considerations such as this are not my strength; the finance people would need to evaluate these options carefully	4

	Where does the Regional Council come into this? I am unsure what I would prefer at this stage; how much of the increase is the responsibility of the GWRC and how much is HCC? (Surely the entire amount is not picked up in the HCC bill)		3

	I am concerned about who the Council might be targeting, e.g. the rural ratepayers, the businesses? Wastewater is a core Council service that everyone uses, so I am concerned when they talk of it being a targeted rate; a targeted rate implies that some ratepayers pay more than others – how is that going to work?		3

	I don’t have confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the cost/rating application – they will manipulate it to fit their budget		2

	I am unsure because this project is something new. It wasn’t previously in the HCC Plan/Annual Plan, so I am a bit suspicious of it and how it has crept into consideration; the need for this has only recently been introduced – we need more facts		1

	An investment in upgrading a plant/infrastructure sometimes results in operational savings. It may apply in this case. I think the whole thing needs greater consideration, before we commit to what and how we want to pay for it		1

	Other reasons		3

7.8. WHAT HUTT CITY RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL

ABOUT THE WASTEWATER OPTIONS

The research participants were asked to identify anything they would like to ask (or tell) Hutt City Council about the wastewater options. 45% of respondents mentioned a point. Their questions and concerns covered a broad range of factors, which are summarised below, using examples of the verbatim comments.

	% mentioning

WHAT IS (TREATED) WASTEWATER?	6

“What is treated wastewater? Does it have solids in it?”

“What does the treated wastewater look like?”

“What does it smell like? There is often an unpleasant smell around Seaview.”

“Someone told me that the treatment process purifies the water to a level that is just one step away from being drinkable. Is this true? I now have some doubts.”

“What is the end product that is discharged into the stream? I would like to know more precisely what it is we are talking about.”

“What is ‘faster dilution’? It is a term the Hutt City Council has used in relation to discharge. I don’t know what that is and I should do. It may influence my choice.”

HOW LONG WILL THIS FUTURE-PROOF US FOR?	6

“How long will this future-proof us for - ten years or more?”

“Will these options be right for the future, not just today?”

“We are talking a considerable sum of money, so how long will these options be appropriate for our needs?”

“How long will the new options last for? Is it a 5 year, 20 year, or a 50-year investment we are looking at?”

“How long will these options meet our needs, especially given the estimated population growth?”

“What is the expected life of the project and will it cover all events?”

	% mentioning

CONCERNS ABOUT EXPENSE/IMPACT ON RATES	6

“I am concerned about the impact on rates. We are paying a lot now.”

“I don’t want to spend a small fortune on it, but it sounds like we could be. How much is budgeted for in the rates?”

“I am concerned about the impact on rates. The prices are up to $33 million and, based on past Council projects, that could grow. How much is this really going to cost us?”

“I’m torn on these options, because there is serious money involved – millions of dollars of ratepayers’ money. What is really necessary?”

“It sounds expensive. Although the most expensive option sounds the best, can we really afford it?”

“This sounds like it involves a lot of money. Isn’t there more important things to spend our money on?”

OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT FUNDING/RATING OPTIONS	4

“Where does the Regional Council come into this? Is this a total commitment for Hutt City Council, or does it also fall under the Regional Council’s umbrella? We don’t want to be paying for it twice.”

“How much of an increase to rates is the targeted rate versus the general rate increase?”

“Does the commercial ratepayer contribute towards the targeted rate? They should do, especially given the current residential – commercial split, which I think is unfair.”

“Do not borrow a lot of money to do this. It impacts the ratepayer now through interest and continues into the future.”

“Funding is an issue for me. Are they going to do it all through rates increases, or is it going to involve some borrowing?”

	% mentioning

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT TIMING	5

“Why is the Council considering the alternative options only now, when the existing consent is due to expire in 2018? It will take more than a year to implement any change.”

“They should have been working on this long before now. The existing consent runs out next year.”

“What is the timeframe for building each option? What, if anything, will be the level of disruption?”

“How long will the construction of the proposed arrangements take?”

“When will preparation start? Is the start date likely to change?”

“How long before the issue is solved?”

WHY IS THERE A NEED TO CHANGE?	4

“Why is there a need to make changes? What is wrong with the existing option?”

“Why can’t they just keep it as it is? It has served the city well up until now. I do not understand why it has to change.”

“If the reconsenting option of the existing discharge is not likely to meet RMA requirements, what is wrong with it? It sounds like they are hiding something.”

“I think they should leave it as it is. There is nothing wrong with what we have now.”

“The statement says ‘the existing arrangement might not be acceptable from a regulatory perspective’. What does that mean and why is it necessary to change something that has been acceptable up to now? I suspect a good third-party could work their way around this, if it is now really necessary to take a different approach.”

	% mentioning

ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS	4

“What, if anything, are the risks to health and the environment with each option? You need to be transparent about this. It is an issue of major public importance.”

“What work has been done to reduce other toxic waste getting into our waterways? I am concerned about the build-up of toxicity from chemical waste, e.g. soap powders, toothpaste, perfume, fibres from synthetic clothing.”

“What are the long-term effects of these options on the environment?”

“I’d like to know the different effects of these options over, say, 50 years. What would be the effect on the environment for choosing each one of these?”

“What assurances can they give that these options won’t adversely impact the environment? Whatever they do has to be safe for the environment.”

“How do you plan to keep things safe for the future?”

IS HUTT CITY COUNCIL LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS?	4

“Is Hutt City Council looking at other options, because none of these particularly appeal to me?”

“What other options are there to look at? I am not sure that these seem right. They are different takes on the current process.”

“Other options, or combined options, might give a better solution. Is it possible to combine, for example, the storage option with different discharge points?”

“Are they looking at other options? These options are versions of the same thing. All they are doing is moving the discharge point and when it is released. They are not addressing any ecological issues. Other options should be explored.”

THE SMELL AT SEAVIEW	2

“How are they going to address the smell at Seaview? It has been an issue since they built the plant there. I don’t know how people can work there.”

“Can you please stop the smell from this facility? It is offensive.”

“Does the smell at Seaview come from the wastewater facility?”

“The smell at Seaview is often there, but not all the time. Does it coincide with the release of the wastewater?”
	% mentioning

WHAT ARE THE MAORI CULTURAL CONCERNS?	2

“What is Maori concerned about? Please explain.”

“What are the concerns of the Maori? I’m not saying they are not valid, but I would like to find out what they are, so I can try to understand them a bit more.”

“What concerns do Maori have? I know it relates to the location of the cemetery and the discharge point, but what is the actual concern? I would like to know. Perhaps there are concerns that we can all learn from.”

“How much Maori influence is behind this? They need to be fair and take into account the needs and wishes of us all.”

HOW WILL THESE OPTIONS AFFECT USERS OF THE ENVIRONMENT?	1

“What is, and will be, the effect on fishing in the area? A lot of people fish off the bridge around there and the marina, for the boats and pleasure craft, is not far away.”

“I would like to ask whether it is safe to swim at the beaches in Petone and the Eastern Bays? How will the new discharge points affect the swimming?”

“I think they should talk to the users of the waterways, like the fishermen, the swimmers and the boaties. They could be affected by the decisions made.”

OTHER QUESTIONS/POINTS MENTIONED	1

“What is the volume of wastewater involved? It says how often it occurs, but it doesn’t say how much waste is being dumped into the stream.”

“How old is the pipeline out to Pencarrow? What is its life expectancy? I wonder whether they should plan for a larger pipe, or additional pipe, given the growth in houses and population.”

“Where are the actual discharge points? The options are explained clearly enough, but the discharge points into the Hutt River and the harbour weren’t quite clear, so I’d ask where are they and what is immediately around them?”

7.9. RESPONDENT PROFILE

The chart below confirms that a broad cross-section of Hutt City residents participated in the survey.

PROFILE BY GENDER, AGE & ETHNICITY
	TOTAL
	(n=300)
	%
GENDER

Male	50
Female	50
TOTAL	100%

AGE GROUPS

16 to 39 years	37
40 to 59 years	31
60 years and over	32
TOTAL	100%

ETHNICITY

NZ European/New Zealander	68
British	3
Other European	1
NZ Maori	17
Pacific Island/Pacifica	10
Asian (Chinese, Indian, Other)	11
Other groups	2
TOTAL	112%

Note that the ethnicity count adds to more than one hundred percent, because some respondents indicated that more than one ethnicity group applied to them.

7.10. CONCLUSION

This research project has been undertaken among a broad cross-section of Hutt City residents, including those who would not normally make a formal submission to Council.

The survey has quantified the extent to which Hutt City residents find each of the wastewater options satisfactory. Overall, a majority (over 50%) of the residents interviewed rated each of the options either ‘acceptable’ or stated that they ‘could live with it’. The results have also revealed that there was not a clear ‘winner’ among the four wastewater options, with residents’ preferences being divided across the alternatives presented.

However, when the survey data is examined further, it can be noted that three of the options had comparatively high levels of non-appeal to over 40% of residents. That is:

· 42% of respondents rated the Port Road option ‘unacceptable’ (compared with 23% to 26% for the other options) and 43% ranked it as their least preferred option.

· 43% of respondents also ranked the Re-consent option as their least preferred.

· A high 57% of respondents ranked the Barnes Street option either third or fourth in their order of choice.

This leaves the option of the ‘new discharge and structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, with storage’ as the one that is most likely to be met with the least resistance. 61% of the research participants ranked this solution as either their first or second choice, and only 6% considered it their least preferred option.

When the preference results are examined by ward, there are indications that residents’ views may differ across the city, especially in the Harbour and Central wards.

The various factors concerning wastewater disposal, that were defined in Section 7.6 of the report, were all considered important to some degree. However, the two that were ranked significantly higher than the others were ‘assurance that the wastewater is safe to human health’ and ‘does not affect the marine life in the area’.

Preference between the funding options of a ‘targeted rate’ versus the ‘general rate’ was not conclusive. Both options achieved a considerable level of support, but it is important to note that 31% of respondents stated that they were ‘unsure’ at this stage which funding option they would prefer.

It can be noted that almost half the respondents (45%) had questions or concerns about the wastewater options that they would like to draw to the Hutt City Council’s attention. These are summarised in Section 7.8 of the report and span a wide range of issues. This perhaps indicates a need for the Council to provide further information and discussion on wastewater disposal before proceeding with a final decision.

Finally, it is worth noting that the residents interviewed in this study considered the issue of wastewater disposal to be an important one. Many of the research participants commented that they had not only considered the introductory material that we had provided on the subject, but they had also visited the Seaview area (complete with map) to get a better understanding of what was being proposed in the area concerned.

The importance of the topic was also expressed in concluding remarks that were made by respondents, such as:

“I am happy to give my opinion on this and it is good that the Council has asked the public about it. However, at the end of the day, I have to trust the science of it, to ensure that the water treatment and water is safe for us and for the marine life. It is an important decision and I trust the Council will get the best advice possible.”

“I have given my views and I realise it is just one person’s view among a lot of things they will have to consider. It is quite complex really and hard to get your head around. It is important to get it right for the city, so I would say to the Council it needs careful consideration. I am happy for them to make the decision, as long as they keep us (the public) informed.”

“I hadn’t given wastewater disposal much thought before, but this exercise has made me think just how important it is for us all. I also think that people should know what their money is going towards.”

“Water is becoming a big issue generally. There is something about it on the news most weeks. I would like to say that I hope the Council is getting proper guidance. It is worth spending some money upfront to get it right, rather than just rush into a decision that is as important as this one.”

“I can see that this is an important matter for the Council to address. It is pretty hard for the public to make a decision. It is good we have been asked to contribute our views, but the final decision needs to be based on a lot more facts and scientific consideration. I would say let’s make improvement where it is needed, but not go over-the-top in terms of expenditure. After all, the existing plant and system has served us pretty well.”

8. QUESTIONNAIRE

PUBLIC CONSULTATION SURVEY REGARDING

WASTEWATER OPTIONS

April/May 2017

APPROACH.

“Good morning/afternoon/evening. I am …… from Peter Glen Research, a market research company. We are conducting a survey on behalf of Hutt City Council about possible options for the treatment and disposal of wastewater in Hutt City. For this interview, I need to speak to a Hutt City resident.”

“Is there somebody in your household who would be able to help me with the interview please?”

IF MORE THAN ONE PERSON QUALIFIES, ASK TO SPEAK TO THE PERSON WHOSE BIRTHDAY FALLS NEXT. REPEAT INTRODUCTION IF NECESSARY.

IF APPROPRIATE PERSON IS UNAVAILABLE, ARRANGE TIME TO CALL BACK.

Respondent name: ____________________________ Phone number: _________

Time/day to call back: _______________________

“I would like to arrange a time to get your input to the possible options for the treatment and disposal of wastewater in Hutt City. This is an important decision for Hutt City residents and the Council would value your input on the matter. Your input will be treated confidentially and will be combined with the views of other residents who are participating in the survey. Peter Glen Research will provide an overall interpretative report to inform Council of public opinion, but will not link people’s names to the views expressed.

The interview will take approximately ( … ) minutes. Is it convenient to make an appointment time now, or is there a more convenient time I should call you back?”

if necessary, record call back details.

Respondent name: ____________________________ Phone number: _________

Respondent address: _________________________________________________

Time/Day to Call Back: ________________________

“So that you can get a good idea of the options that are being considered, I need to send you an information pack that you will find useful for completing the interview. May I send this to you please?”

IF NECESSARY:

“Alternatively, I could arrange a time/day/to meet with you, at a place that is convenient to show you the proposed options and complete the interview.”

-2-

Introduce the four options to the respondent and explain the various columns shown in the table. When the respondent has had time to (re)familiarise themselves with the options, commence the interview.

Q.1	“As a resident of Hutt City, how acceptable to you are each of these options? (First/next), is the option (…). Is this option acceptable to you, is it one you could live with, or is it unacceptable to you?”

				DO NOT READ
OPTIONS	Acceptable	I could live with it	Unacceptable	(Unsure)
Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu Stream	01	02	03	04

New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 100m off Barnes Street	01	02	03	04

New discharge & structure into the Harbour, 600m off Port Road	01	02	03	04

New discharge & structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage	01	02	03	04

Q.2 (a)

“Based on the information provided, which of the four options would be your No.1 preference?”

Q.2 (b)

“Which of the remaining options would you rank as your (second/third/least) preferred option?”

	CIRCLE ONLY ONE OPTION IN EACH COLUMN
OPTIONS	No.1 Preference	Second preference	Third preference	Least preferred
Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu Stream	01	02	03	04

New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 100m off Barnes Street	01	02	03	04

New discharge & structure into the Harbour, 600m off Port Road	01	02	03	04

New discharge & structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage	01	02	03	04

Q.2 (c)

“For what reasons have you selected (.. OPTION ..) as your No.1 preference?” PROBE UNTIL ‘NO’ & POINTS ARE CLEAR

Q.3

“There are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration when making decisions about the disposal of wastewater for Hutt City. They are all important, but we would like to get an indication of how important each factor is to you. Please rank them from ‘1 to 7’, according to their importance to you. Note that ‘1’ is the most important factor, ‘2’ is the next most important, and so on, with ‘7’ being the least important.”

	CIRCLE ONLY ONE OPTION IN EACH COLUMN
FACTORS	Most important	2^nd most important	3^rd most important	4^th most important	5^th most important	6^th most important	Least important
Assurance that the disposed wastewater is safe in terms of human health	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

The wastewater does not affect the marine life in the area	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

The water into which the wastewater is disposed remains natural in its appearance	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

The cultural considerations of Maori and other New Zealanders	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

The appearance of any structures and buildings fits with the environment in which it is situated	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

The impact on Hutt City’s rates bills	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

That the wastewater disposal meets the current standards required by the RMA	01	02	03	04	05	06	07

Q.4 (a)

“I now have a question about the funding of the wastewater options. Costs could be met either:

· through a targeted rate, for 20 years, on all ratepayers with a separate wastewater charge that would cease once the costs were fully recovered, or

· through the general rate.

“Which of these options would you prefer?”

	Targeted rate for 20 years ______________________	01
	The general rate ______________________________	02
DO NOT ASK	(Don’t know)________________________________	03

Q.4 (b)

“Why do you prefer that rating option?”

PROBE UNTIL ‘NO’ & POINTS ARE CLEAR

Interviewer Note: If the respondent needs further information on costs relating to Q.4, the following information can be given.

· Wastewater makes up 20% of an average household rates bill. (This is 20% of the HCC portion of a rates bill, i.e. it excludes the GWRC component).

Q.5	“What questions, if any, would you like to ask Hutt City Council about these wastewater options?” PROBE UNTIL ‘NO’ & POINTS ARE CLEAR

DEMOGRAPHICS

“In order to help us analyse our survey by statistical categories, can I please check … “

D.1.	CODE GENDER	Male__________________________________	01
		Female________________________________	02

D.2.	“Into which of the following age groups do you come?”

		16 - 19 years___________________________	01
		20 – 29 years __________________________	02
		30 – 39 years __________________________	03
		40 – 49 years __________________________	04
		50 – 59 years __________________________	05
		60 – 69 years __________________________	06
		70 years and over_______________________	07

D.3.	“Which of the following ethnic groups do you belong to? One or several groups may apply to you.”

		NZ Maori___________________________	01
		NZ European ________________________	02
		British______________________________	03
		Other European ______________________	04
		Pacific Island/Pacifica _________________	05
		Chinese_____________________________	06
		Indian______________________________	07
		Other Asian _________________________	08
		Other (specify) ______________________	09

D.4.	“In which suburb do you live?”

write suburb: _______________________________________ then code:

Mayor W R Wallace (Chair)
Deputy Mayor D Bassett
Cr G Barratt	Cr C Barry
Cr L Bridson	Cr J Briggs
Cr M Cousins	Cr S Edwards
Cr T Lewis	Cr M Lulich
Cr G McDonald	Cr C Milne
Cr L Sutton

	2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012	2011
Hard copy consultation document	540	632	260	1,218	328	347	329
Hard copy flyer (summary consultation document)	322	312	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Online questionnaires	226	91	144	308	74	205	108
Letters	9 (including one with 322 attachments in support)	49	89	86	42	50	322
Emails	138	144	176	251	136	210	180
Fax	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Total	1,236	1,228 + 1 online petition	669 + 1 petition	1,863 + 3 petitions	580	812	939

Age Group	Number of submitters
Under 25	19
25 – 40	139
41 – 60	363
Over 60	407

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Consultation Feedback including Statistics from Questionnaire and Flyer	9
2 ⇩	Requests for Funding	44
3 ⇩	Citizens' Panel Feedback	49
4 ⇩	Further Information Requested by Council	85
5 ⇩	Peter Glen Research Report on Options for Seaview Treatment Plant Resource Consents	118

SUBM NO	NAME/ORGANISATION	REQUEST	YEARS	AMOUNT	COMMENTS ON ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTESTABLE FUNDING FROM OTHER COUNCIL SCHEMES
DAP17/1	Gavin Wallace, Wainuiomata Historical Museum Society	Request for increase in annual grant to help finance the operation of the Wainuiomata Museum	Annually	Increase annual grant from $2,000 to $5,000	Wainuiomata Historical Museum Society for the past at least 10 years have received $2,000 per annum for operational costs. Other options they could pursue for funding are COGS, Infinity Foundation, and/or Pub Charity.
DAP17/2	Sandy Nimmo	Request for funding to improve the old outdoor skating rink and small banked track at the corner of Percy Cameron Street and Harcourt Werry Drive	One-off	Estimate provided – Council has requested a report to the appropriate committee	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/190	Don Manning, Sailability Wellington Trust Inc	Proposal for a Mariners Shed, ideally at or near Seaview Marina	Annually	$10,000 per year with the group aiming to be self- funding within six years	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. However, the Community Plan Committee has previously allocated funding to Menz Shed. Other options they could pursue for funding are Infinity Foundation, Pub Charities, Lotteries.
DAP17/220 and others	Living Wage Hutt Valley and others	Requesting a commitment for Hutt City Council to become a Living Wage council	Annually	Not stated	Not applicable to contestable funding schemes.
DAP17/607	Diana Crossan, Wellington Free Ambulance	Request to increase annual grant of $0.62 per person	Annually	Increase to $0.75 per person in 2017/18 with a view to moving to $1 per person in 2018/19	Increases are provided through the Annual Plan process.
DAP17/608	Allan Sainsbury, Citizens Advice Bureau Lower Hutt	Request for increase in grant to fund deficit	2017/18	Increase from $46,195 to $55,318	The current funding model means that groups funded through the Annual Plan cannot apply for contestable funds.
DAP17/663 DAP17/664	Barbara Hay, Stokes Valley Community House	Request for an outdoor basketball court be installed in Stokes Valley following removal of the community house and Plunket Rooms	One-off	Not stated	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/721	Paul Duffin, Hutt Sister City Foundation	Request for increase in grant to four travelling students to fully cover the cost of airfares	Annually	Increase from $800 per student to $2,250 per student, an annual increase of $5,800	This project would be ineligible under any of Council’s funding schemes because they distribute the money themselves. They would need to look at other funders external to Council.
DAP17/721	Paul Duffin, Hutt Sister City Foundation	Request for provision of a sculpture depicting the Tempe connection, painting of the small bridge to depict the connection with Minoh or erection of a structure connecting to the Hashimoto Walkway	One-off	Not stated	This project could be considered under the Council’s Creative Communities Scheme. The next funding round opens on 14 August 2017.
DAP17/735	Tracy Coleman, Maungaraki Community Association	Request for a public toilet and drinking fountain at the Maungaraki centre	One-off	Officers estimate between $90,000 and $110,000 depending on location and access to services	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/776	Dianne Trlin, Avalon Public Hall Society Inc	Request for grant to help with repairs and maintenance	Stages 1 and 2 - 2017/18	Contribution towards estimated costs of up to $58,000 for Stages 1, 2 and 3	This project is not eligible under any of the contestable funding schemes. Avalon Public Hall Society currently receives a rates rebate and this arrangement has been going on for years. Other options they could pursue for funding are DIA, Infinity Foundation, Pub Charities.
DAP17/805	John Russell, Naenae College	Request for contribution to the upgrade of hard surface sport and recreation facilities	One-off	Contribution towards estimated costs of up to $280,000 for Stages 2 and 3	This project is not eligible under any of the contestable funding schemes. Other options they could pursue for funding are DIA, Infinity Foundation, Pub Charities.
DAP17/810	Ellen Blake, Living Streets Aotearoa	Request for dedicated budget of $50,000 per year to continue footpath audits and provide wheelchair friendly footpath routes	2017/18 and beyond	$50,000 per year	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/871	Rhys Jones, Wahine 50 Charitable Trust	Request for funding to assist the Trust in the general costs of the 50-year commemorations	2017/18	$20,000	They would need to apply to the events fund and potentially other funders such as DIA.
DAP17/960	Julie Thomson, Volunteer Hutt	Request for Council to fund the shortfall between the annual running cost of $53,422 and the 2016/17 income of $19,338 from grants and community members’ fees	2017/18	$34,000	There is a budget line for them in 2017/18 for $5,000. They would need to apply for funding outside of Council.
DAP17/969	Ian Dallas, Wellington Rugby Referees Association	Request for funding from each council in the region to assist with operational costs of running the WRRA	2017-2020	$8,000 per year for three years	This is not eligible under current funding schemes and they would need to apply externally and/or seek assistance from the sports clubs.
DAP17/983	Graeme Ross, Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful	Request for funding to allow reinstatement of the Riddiford Gardens flower beds by Queens Drive	Annually	Not stated	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/1116	Jan Milne, Hutt Valley Tennis	Request for support to achieve a fair and reasonable financial settlement with Mitchell Park Squash Club	2017-2019	Removal of $200,000 in 2017/18 and replacement with $250,000 in 2018/19	This is not eligible under current funding schemes and they would need to apply externally.
DAP17/1124	Graeme Hall, Great Harbour Way Te Aranui O Poneke Trust	Request for accelerated capital funding for the Eastern Bays shared path	2017-2022	Requested an update of costs for design options 4 and 5 for inclusion in current and future budgets	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/1131	Candace Williams, Wingate Business Group	Street camera proposal for Peterkin Street and large parts of Eastern Hutt Road	One-off	$30,000 from Council to match the Group’s contribution	This project would not be eligible under any of Council’s contestable funding schemes as funding is ineligible for capital projects. This project could, however, be considered under the new community panel funding in 2017-2018.
DAP17/1222	Alison Black, YOUth Inspire – Mayors Taskforce for Jobs	Request for increased funding that aligns with their expansion to the Naenae and Taita areas as well as capacity to build a Youth Employment Strategy	2017/18	$150,000 from Council to match the Todd Foundation’s contribution	Officers recommend that the YOUth Inspire grant be increased to $140,000 in 2017/18. This funding can come from the existing Youth Partnership Fund. From 1 July 2018 they will apply for additional funding ($70,000) via the new Community Funding Strategy. Increasing funding to $140,000 will ensure Council’s contribution is on par with other major funders (Todd Foundation and MSD), enable the positive outcomes being achieved in Wainuiomata to extend across the city with a North East focus, and ensure Council’s investment is tagged specifically to positive employment, training or education outcomes for 90 disengaged young people per year (45 in Wainuiomata and 45 in the North East and citywide).

Ward	Number of submitters
Central	203
Northern	73
Western	179
Petone	180
Eastern	155
Wainuiomata	104
Eastbourne	146
Outside of Lower Hutt	21