31 May 2022
Media: NZME (Rotorua Daily Post and BOP Times)
Topic: Storm follow-up
Enquiry
I've been to see the Allerbys at 29 Western Rd this morning who have the Ngongotahā Stream threading through their back yard. They had a nervous night last night after the stream rose quickly, but thankfully the rain stopped when it did.
They just made a couple of comments which I'd like to put to the council for reaction if possible, please.
***
Lee-Ann Allerby said the work the councils had done since 2018 by putting boulders along the steam bank on their side of the stream had worked "amazing" but hoped they would continue to do more work as more boulders on the other side of the stream to protect the walking track would be good.
Herb Allerby said there were several unsteady blue gum trees at the rear of their property on council land that needed to be removed as they could easily fall down and block the stream.
One had toppled over in high winds and stretched across the stream on Sunday but thankfully the Allerbys worked to clear it away so it didn't block the stream this week.
Questions:
- Will more work to be put boulders along the stream banks be done?
- Will you take a look at the blue gums at the rear of the property?
Response
Reporter was told that the BOP Regional Council should also be contacted for this query given the work they have led in relation to flood mitigation in the Ngongotaha Stream catchment. The placement of boulders, for instance, was part of work undertaken by the regional council, along with other work outlined by Stavros Michael in his response the media enquiry:
From DCE Infrastructure and Environment, Stavros Michael:
Since the flooding of 2018 the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has undertaken extensive stream repairs and maintenance works including tree removals, replanting and reinforcing embankments.
A package of engineering interventions have been agreed with the community including diversion, overflow channels and raising parts of the local roads to increase stormwater capacity. These interventions are being progressed by the regional council.
The floodway and further high flow bypasses are being worked on as fast as possible and as access to private land is obtained.
The regional council and Rotorua Lakes Council will be providing another update to the community in the next few weeks.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Reserves proposal
Enquiry
Re this release: https://www.rotorualakescouncil.nz/our-council/news/news?item=id:2i78nokz517q9sx9i5uy
(Pg 8 of Guidance on Land Disposal - SPF 14 Oct 2021)
[Questions] for the council org:
- Why did the council eliminate Waitawa Pl Reserve, Ranginui St Reserve, Pūruru Reserve North, 61 Kawaha Point Rd and 434 Pukehangi Rd from the final list of reserves considered on May 12 SPF?
- Why were the reserves on Turner Drive and 117 Clinkard Avenue added to the final list between this report (in the release) and the May 12 SPF report? What changed?
- Did the council begin investigating reserves for housing (temporary or otherwise) after MHUD's briefing to the ministers / on advice from MHUD?
For the mayor:
- I note the reason for discussing this report in public-excluded in May 27 2021 was to "protect information where making available would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest." The mayor also mentioned in the meeting it was to protect commercial interests (“I think you have to trust us on this one to make sure we are protecting the commercial interests.” ) How would this the release of this report and discussion around it at that time damage the public interest and or commercial interests?
Response
See below in response to your enquiry. You can attribute the answers to DCE District Development Jean-Paul Gaston. The mayor is out of the office today but I got hold of her to check she’d seen your enquiry and she provided some comment which I’ve included below:
Why did the council eliminate Waitawa Pl Reserve, Ranginui St Reserve, Pūruru Reserve North, 61 Kawaha Point Rd and 434 Pukehangi Rd from the final list of reserves considered on May 12 SPF?
An assessment of reserves was part of implementation of the Open Space Level of Service Policy adopted last April following community consultation. Reserve sites identified as not meeting the objectives of the policy for various reasons were subsequently considered for potential use for housing.
Sites were eliminated for various reasons such as constraints relating to infrastructure like stormwater and/or as a result of engagement with mana whenua and/or the sites being identified as not having reserve status.
This was part of due diligence undertaken before a proposal was finalised. That finalised proposal is what’s now out for community consultation.
Why were the reserves on Turner Drive and 117 Clinkard Avenue added to the final list between this report (in the release) and the May 12 SPF report? What changed?
Part of Glenholme/Clinkard reserve – Had a redundant toilet block on it which was removed earlier this year. This meant that site was then no longer required for reserve purposes so it was included in the proposal that went to SP&F.
Part of Turner Drive Reserve – Larger than required as a neighbourhood reserve so part of this reserve was also included in the proposal that went to SP&F this month.
Did the council begin investigating reserves for housing (temporary or otherwise) after MHUD's briefing to the ministers / on advice from MHUD?
Council was asked by the Minister to look at whether it had any land holdings itself that could potentially be made available for housing, including potentially for temporary housing.
Reserve sites identified as not meeting the objectives of the Open Space Level of Service Policy for various reasons when reserves were assessed as part of implementing that policy, were subsequently considered for potential use for housing. Some that were initially considered were subsequently discounted for various reasons and two others were added for the reasons above.
Mayor Chadwick has provided the following comment:
The May 2021 report related to the potential use of council-owned land for temporary housing. Staff have confirmed for me that the reason for going into confidential at that time was to "protect information where making available would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest", so my comment regarding commercial interest was made in error.
In May 2021 the discussion was very much in the preliminary stages and preliminary discussions often don’t reflect what is eventually put forward for consideration and decision-making. We don’t go out to the community with half-developed proposals and cause unnecessary confusion or concern, as happened when information was leaked before the proposal to use some reserve sites for housing was finalised. That does not serve the public interest. There is an amount of due diligence that has to first be done to ensure there is a fully developed, viable proposal before making it public.