Tom

Pandaland or Wasteland?
By Andrew Frame

Max Patmoy’s idea to put Pandas in Marineland was out there.

Way out there, beyond optimal panda swimming depth. Realistically, it never had much of a chance to succeed. Even so, his idea did make it to national television on “Campbell Live”. While it looked like a “slow news day” item, it did show two things:

1. Marine Parade no longer has the number of family tourist attractions it used to; and,
2. Max has had at least one more idea than the current Napier City Council on the matter.

Mayor Barbara spoke briefly in the segment, giving a Council viewpoint on how they think: “We need another attraction along Marine Parade”. Then why has so little been done? In fact, over previous years, the number of things to see and do along Marine Parade has actually decreased.

The Highlights:

Ocean Spa. Built in 2003 it is a huge leap forward from the old Swann Memorial paddling pool it replaced at the northern end of the Parade. Heated pools and a gym provide locals and visitors a health sanctuary with a stunning sea view. The War Memorial Centre next door is also a great improvement from its old rotunda format and hosts a number of events and conferences each year.

The Aquarium. As a result of the recent closure of Marineland and the Can-am Cars/Bumper-boat attraction closing down many years go, the Aquarium is now essentially isolated at the southern end of Marine Parade. It does provide a highlight to the end of any tour of the parade. The long overdue upgrade brought it back into focus as a modern environmental attraction.

The Lowlights:

The Soundshell (in the “Campbell Live” segment, being used by Napier’s resident loudspeaker and bugle-toting evangelist) is massively under-utilised. Barring evangelism and the odd skate-boarding – or just plain bored – teenager, so little happens at this most central and scenic site. It was built for such a purpose, so why does it get ignored? This whole area could be absolutely pumping day and night with music, people and activities – our very own “Party Central” for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. But where are the events?

Only recently have the council considered re-surfacing the Soundshell/Sunbay’s forecourt at the behest of the Art Deco Trust (so now they MUST do it, I guess) to make it more level and return the paving shapes and colours to their former glory. I have seen a picture of my mother and her brother roller-skating there in the 1950’s, before cracking, movement and Norfolk Pine roots made skating (and walking, in some places) an issue best investigated by ACC.

Marineland is dead, long live Marineland! Napier’s previously premiere tourist attraction died on this council’s watch. It was losing money through dwindling visitor numbers, investment and attention, so it was closed to the public and now makes no money at all. I’m still unsure of this thought process, as I’m sure members of the public and visitors would be more than willing to part with their money (not the full former entry fee, necessarily) to see the remaining seals and penguins up close and learn about the wildlife recovery programmes Marineland still runs. It would at the very least help subsidise operations.

The Council has been mulling over possible uses for the remains of Napier’s king of family attractions for some time now without anything solid progressing. Max’s idea has been the only concept to get any major media airtime.

Grass! Between the playground and Danish Delight ice cream hut that neighbour Marineland, there is the millennial artwork that also featured in the “Campbell Live” item and then just … um… grass for half a kilometre. Usually green, sometimes yellow-brown and very occasionally hosting a gypsy fair or sideshow, the space is usually deserted … and not very appealing to tourists unless they’re a hirsute quadruped named Eunis who likes to say “Baa” a lot.

Before it became a touring sheep’s paradise, this space used to be the “Can-am Cars” go-cart track, bumper boats pool and a large dog-boned boating lake. This was a great summer oasis for families and very popular. But during the mid 90’s the site lost its popularity, fell into disrepair and the entire site was shut down.

The bumper-boat pool was used to house the larger fish during the Aquarium’s upgrade, after which, it and the boating lake were torn up and filled in. Nothing has replaced or has been planned for the site, except for an unrealised grand water feature to accompany the aquarium. The number of hotels/motels that sprung up in the meantime offering sea views would doubtlessly quash any opportunity to return this area to any major use.

The Indifferent:

The Pathway running between the parade and the sea does provide a wide, flat walking and cycling route with a nice view. Compared to the Marineland, which was in its last stages of decline while the pathway was under construction, it was lavished with council and media attention.

But who would come to Napier just to walk a fancy footpath? It’s hardly the Great Wall of China or Milford Track – more a reward for tourists and locals than a tourist attraction.

Iconic Napier:

The Tom Parker Fountain, Pania of the Reef, Flower Clock, Sun-dial and Sunken Gardens and Veronica Sun-bay remain as they always have – pretty, lasting and iconic Napier.

We’ll never see or expect a Disneyland or its like in Napier, as destinations as a whole become more of the focus. But isn’t it sad to see Napier’s tourist strip go largely ignored and regress? If it felt like the attractions there were stuck in the 80’s, its simply because that was the last time Marine Parade was given any major attention or fresh ideas.

Good on Max for coming up with something. It shows what a member of the public can do with initiative. Now if we could just get the Napier City Council to do the same, or listen to those who do.

He announced that the Crown would work with the Regional Council and local iwi toward the establishment of a Regional Council Planning Committee. According to his statement, this mechanism “will allow iwi to effectively contribute towards planning for the use of natural resources and environmental outcomes through regional plans and regional policy statements.” Further …

“A single Planning Committee would allow iwi the participation they’ve been seeking, while fitting into existing Regional Council and resource management processes. This makes it an effective solution for the region and for iwi, and one that the Government will endorse in negotiations.”

The Regional Council has been working behind the scenes toward this outcome for about a year, holding confidential stakeholder briefings on the process back in November 2009. Here is the presentation made at the time, indicating the Council’s goals in trying to influence a process that is ultimately to be negotiated between the Crown and as many as nine Treaty Settlement Groups in Hawke’s Bay. In a worst case scenario, policy-making regarding management of the region’s natural resources could have been fragmented across  as many as seven “river boards” each dealing with several iwi.

Said HBRC Alan Dick of the announcement (download here in full, with Q&As): “The Crown’s proposal importantly recognises the care and governance of natural resources as a key issue for both claimant groups negotiating Treaty settlements and the wider region. The Council looks forward to working with the Treaty claimant groups so that we can arrive at the best possible outcome for our regional community.”

Now the Crown and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will discuss with iwi how the proposed Committee could work. It is expected that it will have equal representation of Regional Councillors and iwi representatives, and will develop and oversee policies and plans that the Council approves.

After these three-way discussions, the newly-elected Regional Council will receive a recommendation on the Joint Planning Committee in October.

As envisioned, the new policy body represents a major enhancement of the role of Maori in the region’s resource planning. Said Taro Waaka from Ngati Pahauwera: “This is an opportunity, a breakthrough whereby we can get some meaningful discussion, meaningful input by sitting beside councilors influencing things at a higher level.”

Here’s a bit more detail from last week’s announcement:

“The joint Regional Planning Committee would be charged with reviewing and making changes to the Regional Resource Management Plan. The Plan deals with regional issues such as water quality and quantity, air quality, coastal resources, indigenous vegetation and wetlands, gravel management and natural hazards.”

“The joint Regional Planning Committee would receive priorities for plan changes and any required technical information from the Council. The Committee would then work through the process of developing and consulting on a draft plan change, before refining it and referring the plan change back to the Regional Council for approval and public notification. All work of the Committee would be carried out in accordance with the Resource Management and Local Government Acts and maintain the rights of all parties to participate in the resource management process.”

“The joint Committee would not hear resource consent applications which would continue to be heard by specially appointed hearings panels.”

The Treaty of Waitangi guarantees the right of iwi to self-management of their resources in a context of partnership with the Crown. On a national scale, post Treaty Settlements, it is estimated that approximately 70% of NZ’s production forest land will be owned by iwi, and up to 30% of NZ agri-business will have an iwi dimension. Further, approximately 80% of iwi are dependent on the primary sector for their livelihood.

Of special interest here in Hawke’s Bay will be the evolution of water strategy within the framework of a Joint Regional Planning Committee.

As last year’s HBRC presentation notes, the Crown and National-led Government “acknowledges the need to dovetail Iwi partnerships alongside democratic governance.” If all goes to plan, “co-governance” is on the horizon. Clearly the days of cursory consultation with Maori are about to end.

Tom Belford

I am pleased to be nominated by Claire Vogtherr, local business, education and civic leader, and by Bruno Chambers, farmer, environmentalist and chairman of the Te Mata Park Trust.

I am standing because I regard the current Council as asleep at the wheel, falling behind over the last decade in both of its major functions — protecting our environment and promoting a more vibrant and diversified regional economy. These challenges require new ideas, more vigorous action, and fresh faces.

I am standing for one of the four Hastings ward seats on the Regional Council, currently occupied by Councillors von Dadelszen, Rose, McGregor and Remmerswaal.

Liz Remmerswaal is an ardent voice for the environment, and has my full support.

Of course BayBuzz will continue to publish through the election window, bringing issue analysis from me and the many other voices who publish in BayBuzz. Our newspaper and website are open to all candidates for advertising, and our website includes a section — Election 2010 — with links to other candidates’ online resources.

I look forward to a spirited campaign.

Tom Belford

Put simply, Napier’s newest Inter-city bus stop is a disgrace.

Earlier this month Intercity moved its bus stop from the former railway station, to outside the Marineland site on Marine Parade. The new bus stop is just that, a bus stop. It doesn’t have booking facilities, shelter, a phone, or toilets, but you should see the size of the swimming pool out the back!

I remember when Civic Court, the current home of Tourism Hawke’s Bay, was Napier’s main bus station, a large portion of which was under cover. Then it moved to where Countdown now resides on Dickens Street, then in Station Street just down the road from the Police Station and finally the old railway station. All of which had seats, shelter, toilets and even the odd snack bar.

Unhappy (as well as cold, hungry and um, ‘highly pressurised’) travellers have started a petition to go to both Intercity Bus Lines and the Napier City Council who are still arguing over who is to blame for the new “facility”.

The Council claims it gave Intercity the choice of the Dalton Street covered bus stop (minor cover at least and more central, but nothing more) or the Marineland site, because it was close to two public toilets (classy!) and had space out front to park the busses (because its not like thousands of visitors can go there any more). If Intercity wanted to use part of the Marineland building as a ticketing office and rest / comfort stop, the bus company would have to pay for it. This facility would be primarily making money for Intercity after all. Otherwise, said NCC’s Neil Taylor “We’d have to raise rates to pay for that”.

Napier City Council continually champion the fact their annual rates increases are some of the lowest in the country, but there must come a time when money needs to be spent. “You have to spend money to make money.” “If we do what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we’ve always gotten.” “Inspirational third quote involving money” and all that.

This wouldn’t be a financial commitment to the level of Hastings’ Sports Park, Splash Planet, Nelson Park and other monetary black holes. It would be a reasonably small facility, but it would be somewhere passengers could at the very least escape the elements or make phone calls to arrange further transport or accommodation.

Until Napier Airport’s runway is extended and we are inundated with swarms of medium sized jet planes unloading thousands of tourists flying on highly discounted tickets (did you sense a hint of cynicism there? – Air NZ expressed some time ago that they were in no hurry to send jets here, runway extension or otherwise) buses are still the primary form of mass public transport bringing visitors to the region and Intercity is still one of the industry’s biggest players.

Aren’t the buses and their passengers worth far more than a stop outside a closed tourist attraction where the only shelter is a public toilet in a nearby car park? Napier says it prides itself on tourism, to any passenger arriving on an Intercity bus today it certainly wouldn’t look like it.

Naturally, those on the selection panel are pleased with their work (media release here) … and as best I can ascertain at this point, deservedly.

I sought reactions from three people I thought would offer the best judgment as to whether this new Board would nurture Cranford back to the kind of institution that the community wants.

The first two, probably more than anyone, are seen by the informed community as embodying the values and spirit most treasured by the families who have witnessed firsthand the care Cranford has provided in the past.

First, Dr Libby Smales, Cranford’s original guiding force: “It looks like a well put together board. Let’s hope they have the necessary energy and wisdom to get things up and running asap. Given the significant skill loss over the last 2-3 years, in the context of a national and international shortage of experienced hospice/palliative care staff, this will be a challenge. The community really needs to be reassured, to have a good hospice again, and feel safe; the hurt and harm done to too many people needs acknowledging and healing. For many reasons I care deeply about Cranford and am happy to help in any way I can.”

Second, Kerryn Lum, Libby’s successor as Medical Director of the Hospice: “I am encouraged by the breadth of skills and experience in the new Board, although I don’t know all of them personally. There is still a lot of damage to be repaired, both within Cranford and its team, and in the community. The new Board has a challenge ahead of them, and I wish them all the best.”

Given the draining battle these two have fought over the future of Cranford, I’d call their statements “encouraging optimism.”

And lastly, Kevin Atkinson. Of the elected officials on the selection committee (which included Mayors Yule and Arnott), Atkinson, as the former elected chairman of the DHB, has the most thorough understanding of the issues involved, including the philosophical, and how those link to effective governance. He is full of praise for the new Board members, considering them “all passionately committed” to the community’s ideal for Cranford. And he is particularly confident about the leadership the new chairman, Ken Gilligan, will provide.

On the strength of what these three say, I think the community can be reasonably confident of the direction Cranford Hospice will take when its in-patient service re-opens in a few months. If this were simply a re-arranging of the deck chairs, nothing would have been gained. The Board members selected seem to represent the perspective many in the community have hoped for.

What a struggle it has been to get to this point, as the comments of Libby Smales and Kerryn Lum indicate. Hats off to them for persisting in their cause.

Tom Belford

Here is the new Board:

Ken Gilligan – Chairman

Ken is currently a member of the Maritime New Zealand Authority. He was formerly general manager and managing director of the Port of Napier from 1982 to 1999. Prior to this, Ken was CEO of the New Zealand Ports Authority and had a 20-year career working in a number of government departments. Ken is currently a director of City Medical Limited (Napier) and a trustee of the Napier Family Centre Financial Trust. He recently completed a term as a Director of Unison Networks Ltd and 9 years as chair of the Hawke’s Bay Power Consumers Trust. Ken also served 5 years as chair of the Energy Trusts of New Zealand Inc from 2003 to 2008.

Hayley Anderson

Hayley is the general manager of the Hastings Health Centre a role she has held since 2002. She carries out this role in conjunction with her own health consultancy she set up in April 2010.

Hayley has a wealth of knowledge in the health sector as well as a Masters of Management. She is currently contracted also to Telarc/Quality health as accreditation coordinator and lead auditor.  Hayley originally trained as a nurse and has acted as Director of Nursing for Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and was the manager of Heretaunga Health Village for many years. Hayley has led many health initiatives as well as being a board member of the Hawke’s Bay PHO until 2008.

Tim Bevin

A fellow of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, with a post graduate certificate in Addiction Studies, Tim has been a Hawke’s Bay GP and part time medical officer for Hawke’s Bay District Health Board Addiction Services for 27 years. He is also medical advisor for Te Poutama Tautoko Addiction Programme, chairman of the directors of City Medical, and a director of the Hawke’s Bay PHO. Tim is also deputy chairman of Springhill Trust.

Judie Webster

Judie has been involved with Cranford Hospice since 1993 on the Cranford Committee, the Friends of Cranford Garden Group and for the past 14 years has been the chair of the Cranford Committee which promotes public awareness of the hospice and assists with fundraising. Judie trained as a teacher and also worked as a play therapist at Napier and Hastings Hospitals.

David Pearson

Managing partner of BDO Napier, David has been with BDO and other accountancy firms for 28 years. His expertise is in business advisory services, information technology and corporate restructuring. He is currently the chair of Eastern Institute of Technology Council, trustee of Sport Hawke’s Bay and chair of Otatara Trust.

He has held a number of public positions and is a former Hawke’s Bay cricket representative.

Michael Konig

Michael is currently the chair of Presbyterian Support Services and also manages his Hastings based business Sunshade. He has held a number of managerial CEO roles and was most recently chief executive of EnzaFoods New Zealand Limited.  He is actively involved in providing mentoring advice for young businesses. Michael is a member of Round Table and Rotary and is a member of the Village Baptist Church in Havelock North. He has been a board member of PSEC since 2003. He holds degrees in science and pharmacy as well as an MBA.

Frane Rosandich

Frane Rosandick is a family group care and protection co-coordinator for Child Youth and Family services. He was chairperson for Parentline HB Inc for the last seven years until it merged and became a division of Family Works PSEC. Frane has volunteered at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison within the ‘Whare Tirohanga Maori focus” unit for the past 10 years and he is currently a member of the PSEC board.

The key word here is “much” — reportedly the so-called Cowie Report includes specific appraisals of how individual Councillors on the Hearings Committee handled their responsibilities. More on that another time. BayBuzz has made an Official Information Act request for the full report, for the reasons given in our post of July 19. We do not regard today’s partial disclosure as satisfying the public accountability to which the Council’s consent process should be held.

Here is the “abridged” report released by HBRC. And here is the Council’s media release assuring us that everything’s fixed, not to worry.

What is most assuredly not fixed is the Regional Council’s Resource Management Plan, which is faulted in the Cowie Report as follows:

“Existing minimum flows, and particularly allocatable volume provisions in the RRMP need to be reviewed urgently. If this is not resolved by the time the consents granted start to expire in 2013, the council will look incompetent and will face very strong criticism. Reviewing these provisions is a substantial undertaking for the council, and it may face Environment Court appeals. This work is provided for in the LTCCP, which is essential.”

I’ll say! This is just one more example of a Council that has been asleep at the wheel, and is now trying desperately to catch up.

After referring to the fact that science work to provide a “starting point” for revised minimum flows and allocation volumes is now underway — only as a result of recent public pressure, it should be noted — the report continues:

“It is very important that the science regarding flow requirements be used as a key input to decision making, but they certainly should not be the sole input. Section 5 of the RMA requires a balance be struck between environmental considerations, and the social and economic needs of the community. This is a political judgment the council will need to make taking account of all relevant considerations, not just what the science inputs recommend.”

And there the report is getting to the nub of the matter — the politics of “balancing” various interests under the RMA. Undoubtedly, where or how the balance should be struck will be a campaign issue for Regional Council candidates.

Tom Belford

For example …

“Taupo scheme in disarray” claims this week’s front page headline. This lead story is about failed attempts of the Lake Taupo Protection Trust to make successful deals that — for example, by retiring land from farming — would reduce the nitrogen loads into the catchment. Unfortunately, the deals that have been entered at a cost of $24 million (a third of the funds available) have achieved only 10% of the nitrogen reduction goal.

From the Trust’s website:

“Over the next 10 years, the Lake Taupo Protection Trust administer a public fund to encourage and assist land use change, purchase land or nitrogen in the Lake Taupo catchment and fund research and other initiatives that assist land owners to reduce the nitrogen impact of their activities on Lake Taupo …

The Trust is charged with developing a programme of work that will reduce the amount of manageable nitrogen leaching into the lake by 20 per cent.

It will use the funds to encourage and assist land use change, to purchase land/nitrogen in the Lake Taupo catchment and to fund any other initiatives that assist land owner to reduce the nitrogen impact of their activities on Lake Taupo.

The Trust reports to the Government (MfE), Ngati Tuwharetoa, the Taupo District Council, and Environment Waikato.”

Each of those four parties has two representatives on a “Joint Committee” which in turn appoints up to eight members of the Trust. The backgrounds of the trustees (all from the private sector) suggest a group suited to the task they have been given.

But it doesn’t seem to be working.

Read that and imagine: HB Regional Council’s Holding Company. Maybe a Holding Company that owns a “Waterco” (as the HBRC intends) that in turn owns and manages a water harvesting scheme in Central Hawke’s Bay. Is there any reason to think “Waterco” would do its job any better than the Lake Taupo Protection Trust?

I’m not picking on the Holding Company concept. I’m simply suggesting that maybe the Lake Taupo situation holds lessons for how — or how not — to delegate critical public responsibilities.

Here in Hawke’s Bay, successfully achieving the Regional Council’s ambition — leveraging its financial strength to produce better returns through regional infrastructure investments — will require a convergence of sound underlying strategy, appropriate governance structure, and excellent selection of people.

The Lake Taupo experience suggests that our Regional Council — struggling even now with the comparatively modest predicament of Venture Hawke’s Bay — should not underestimate the risks and challenges associated with the investment strategy it has embraced.

Tom Belford

P.S. Another story with HB relevance deals with Ag Minister Carter expanding the scope of the Community Irrigation Fund (important news for HBRC’s water harvesting feasibility study?); and yet another talks about the Agricultural Research Group on Sustainability (ARGOS), which has a mandate “to examine the environmental, social and economic sustainability of NZ farming systems.” [Any Hawke's Bay players in this one?] Heaps more edifying than reading HB Today!

At the Council’s recent Environmental Management Committee meeting, member Morry Black asked for a copy of this report, among others, and was told by CEO Andrew Newman “certainly, they’re all in the public domain anyway.”

But now the HBRC is telling the DomPost that the report will be withheld from the public to “protect the privacy of natural persons.”

The problem is, the “natural persons” are Councillors! As elected officials, they have no right of privacy where their public performance is concerned. The Council, apparently believing their Hearings Committee is sick, called in a “doctor” to review the situation, paying him with ratepayer dollars for his diagnosis.

Now it appears the HBRC doesn’t like his evaluation. “Gold star” reports tend to get released, don’t they?!

The Hearings Committee is chaired by Councillor Christine Scott and includes Councillors von Dadelszen, McGregor and Remmerswaal.

The consents process which the Hearings Committee superintends is crucial to all of the constituencies served by the Regional Council. The report at hand discusses that process and the Councillors involved. That discussion and the recommendations flowing from it belong in the public domain. The need to ensure the integrity of the process and the accountability of the elected Councillors who run it easily trumps any mis-applied notion of privacy.

After all, we’re not talking about the Councillors’ sex lives or financial affairs here, we’re talking about their stewardship of a critical public function. The public has every right to judge them on an informed basis on their execution of this responsibility.

The Regional Council would be better off publishing the report itself, giving it whatever positive interpretation they can muster. Step up to the issue, Regional Council … one way or the other, this report will see the light of day.

Tom Belford

Go look at some great art amongst HB’s many excellent galleries. And to extend the pleasure, take your wallet.

In this article, Wheelers and Dealers of Art, Roy gives his take on the galleries he finds most interesting and what you can expect to find in them.

Tom Belford

A good dealer is much more than a kind of high-class vacuum cleaner salesperson. The best dealers are in the business because of a genuine love of art. They do have a strong influence upon what happens in local art as they help to shape the market by what they exhibit.

Much depends on their judgement and integrity as they sometimes walk the line between what they know is good and what they know is saleable – not always the same thing. I recall one artist who works quite slowly resisting the urging of his dealer to speed up production.

There are a number of local artists who are full-time professionals, but most rely on other jobs for a living. However, they still need to sell work. To be any good at art you have to work at it continuously. A growing stack of unsold work against the studio wall is a heavy disincentive to keep going and good quality art materials are expensive.

Besides, talk is cheap. Anyone can tell you that your work is great, but when they reach for their cheque book or credit card that is probably the most sincere compliment that you can get.

Dealers will generally cater for a certain style or niche of art in their gallery and should work at building up the trust and confidence of viewers interested in that style.

Here are some of the most interesting local dealer galleries and the sort of artworks you would find in them.

Black Barn, although part of the winery complex, is a fully operating, professional gallery. It was founded with the idea of bringing work from the very best of contemporary New Zealand artists to Hawke’s Bay. Their stable of nationally known artists makes impressive reading and it includes Shane Cotton, Karl Maughan, Paul Dibble, John Reynolds, Dick Frizzell and Freeman White, as well as local artists such as Martin Poppelwell. For most of the year individual artists are exhibited each month, but over winter there are changing displays from the storeroom.

Statements in Napier has a high profile location and gets more pavement traffic than the other dealer galleries. It features mainly good middle of the road, contemporary art with glassware, ceramics, jewellery and sculpture on sale as well as paintings. Artists who show there include Piera McArthur, Geoffrey Fuller, Garry Currin, Esther Smith, Francois Aires, Brent Forbes and Rosemary Mortimer. After fourteen years in the business, Statements also has the distinction of being easily the longest operating local gallery.

For many years Judith Anderson was a leading dealer in Auckland and she uses her contacts and experience to bring some of our most interesting and challenging artists to her Maraekakaho Judith Anderson Gallery. Luise Fong, Paratene Matchitt, Peter James Smith, Derryn George, Michael Smither and James Robinson are some of the sculptors and painters who show there.

Paper works Gallery is probably the least well known of this group of galleries, but it is well worth taking the flight of stairs to its first floor rooms in Tennyson St. Napier.  Its stock in trade is, as the name indicates, mainly but not exclusively, works on paper … i.e. drawings, screen prints, etchings and lithographs. For the buyers this means works by leading artists at much lower prices than you might pay for paintings by these artists.  The stock list is an Aladdin’s cave of contemporary New Zealand artists: Michel Tuffery, Philip Trusttum, Eion Stevens, Matt Couper, Tony de Latour, Gary Waldrom, Bill Hammond and Philippa Blair to name a few of them. You could lose hours here just browsing.

So why buy an original art work? For investment? Forget it … unless you really know what you are doing or take very good advice. The days of buying an up and coming McCahon or Hotere for a song and then cashing up years later are largely gone. If you buy wisely though, your purchase should hold or even accrue in value, which is more than you can say for a new car. But investment is a terrible reason for buying an art work.

Much more importantly, if you buy well, you will have a friend for life on your wall. Like a good friend, it will challenge and inform you, charm and entertain you and even niggle you occasionally. It will be something distinctive and individual in your home and will reward you every time you look at it.

So, go ahead, take the plunge! Go on.

Question 1: What should we do if there are lapsed water take consents (i.e., the right to abstract water has ceased due to non-use or minimal use) for waterways or groundwater bodies that are deemed already fully or over-allocated?

Answer: Hold on to the water … don’t reallocate it. A no-brainer. [Here's the staff paper.]

Question 2: How well are water consent holders complying with requirements to faithfully report their water use?

Answer: It’s getting better. [Here's the staff paper.]

HBRC staff are more systematically badgering consent holders to get their reports in. And better still, automatic measurements fed in by telemetry are increasingly eliminating the “human factor.” As installation of telemetry proceeds, measurement of water use will be more reliable and complete, facilitating both policy development and strong enforcement of allocation limits, as well as better farm management.

Question 3: How often must bans be imposed on water abstraction due to low flows in waterways?

Answer: In the 2009-10 low flow season, there were 1,142 ban days. [Here's the staff paper.]

April had the greatest number of ban days (366). May had the greatest number of low flow sites (18 out of 30 sites monitored). Of course, from year to year, this depends on seasonal climate conditions, with bans generally triggered in the November-April window (e.g., drier 2008-09 had 1,926 ban days). But obviously the volume of actual water takes matters as well.

In over-allocated rivers, like the Tukituki, it is estimated that around 40% of water allocated is actually used (which takes us back to the importance of Question 2 … accurate measurement). If all the water allocated was actually used, “all hell would break loose” as Councillor Tim Gilbertson observed. Such far higher volume of actual water use in low flow periods would obviously trigger more bans on all abstraction.

For farmers, ban days are critical as a measure of the security of their water supply. If farmers’ certainty of water supply falls below 80%, that’s a serious threat to their business viability.

Question 4: Purely from a health perspective, what is the quality of water at key recreational sites around the Bay?

Answer: Compared to 2005, six sites in 2010 were improved, one was worse, twenty-three were unchanged. [Here's the staff paper.]

So what does that mean about water quality today … in 2010? From data presented by staff, it appears that seven are graded very poor or poor, nine as fair, six as good and six as very good. Mediocre, I’d say.

Hopefully all of this water data will be published in the Regional Council’s forthcoming State of Our Environment 2009 Report.

In any event, water stands front and centre as the Regional Council’s greatest resource management challenge going forward. Too bad the present Council is just waking up to it.

Tom Belford

While the workplan doesn’t indicate specific regional councils or rivers to be reviewed, MPs Foss and Tremain seem confident that Hawke’s Bay will be examined. Says Craig Foss in a comment to BayBuzz: “…it is a fair bet that the management of major rivers in the various regions will get their attention. At the very least, Regional Councils which are charged with managing the country’s fresh water resources will, I am sure, be having a check of themselves to make sure they are filling their role as intended by Parliament.”

Only today at the Regional Council’s meeting of its Environmental Management Committee was there a great deal of boasting about the Council’s multi-disciplinary approach to the acknowledged pollution of the Taharua/Mohaka by dairy farmers. Unfortunately, the major action steps are unlikely to be decided before year’s end, given that apparently dairy farmers cannot be consulted between the onset of calving season and Christmas. Would any other major polluter be given such a “holiday?”

Councillor Gilbertson, while praising the approach of the HBRC staff, noted that it was unfortunate that this effort to address the Taharua/Mohaka had to be “triggered by a crisis.” It wasn’t clear whether he was referring to the public pressure we alluded to in our last post, or to the fact that HBRC’s own hearings committee, chaired by Councillor Christine Scott, only this very term gave consent to doubling the amount of nitrate fertiliser allowed on Taharua catchment dairy farms!

Here’s the full announcement as made on the Backing the Bay website of MPs Craig Foss and Chris Tremain:

Auditor General to audit fresh water management

Local Tukituki MP Craig Foss is very pleased that the Controller and Auditor General is proposing to start a performance audit on Freshwater quality in New Zealand: (the) Effectiveness of management responses.

“The stunning rivers of Hawke’s Bay are treasures. The Tukituki River has been under stress in recent years due to droughts, grazing, nutrients and pollution. We must be constantly vigilant that to ensure that all parties are doing their fair share to maintain the Tukituki.”

The AG has stated that: Deteriorating fresh water quality has been widely identified as one of the most critical environmental issues for New Zealand. This deterioration creates economic risks, social and cultural risks, and environmental risks. Regional councils are responsible for managing freshwater quality through administering the Resource Management Act. The audit will examine the effectiveness of management responses designed to maintain or enhance water quality.

Craig Foss says “I look forward to the beginning and findings of this audit. Whatever the outcome of the audit, I am sure that all involved will re-focus their attention of ensuring the Tukituki is able to be enjoyed by our children as many of us have enjoyed it in the past.”

Chris Tremain noted: “I have been concerned about changes to water quality at the headwaters of the Mohaka River. I welcome this initiative by the Auditor General as an additional tool for accountability to help protect our Hawke’s Bay rivers.”

We lay people can only hope that means: Put an end to dairy farmers in the Taharua catchment polluting our rivers!

Alongside this engagement process, a program of scientific monitoring and analysis is taking place. This work shows that nutrient levels have indeed been rising in both surface and groundwater. Here are some observations from a report to be delivered Wednesday to the Environmental Management Committee of the Regional Council:

Shallow groundwater has elevated levels of nitrate (median 8.3 mg/l, range 4 mg/l to 12 mg/l).

Deep groundwater nitrate ranges from <0.002 mg/l to 1.9 mg/l and is not considered elevated.

The two shallow bores closest to the Mohaka confluence show increasing nitrate concentrations with time (increasing trend). Surface water quality of the Taharua River continues to increase in nitrate, with concentrations at the central Twin Culverts site approaching 4 mg/l. The lower site at Poronui station, although continuing to increase, is less than 2 mg/l. Typical nitrate levels in upper river sites are less than 0.1 mg/l.

The report continues:

Food value and water clarity is optimal for trout upstream of the Taharua confluence.

Food value and water clarity is less than optimal for trout downstream of the Taharua confluence resulting in smaller trout. This supports the anecdotal evidence Council has received of a reduced fishery within the Taharua River and in the Mohaka downstream of the confluence with the Taharua.

Lesson #1: Believe the fishermen. The same lesson applies to the Tukituki.

Then the report says:

Relationships with catchment landowners and farm managers are constructive, despite the instability of recent receiverships and ownership/personnel changes. New owners are actively involved in the TSG [Ed: stakeholders group], however one of the landowners has lodged a pre- application that would seem to go against good practice and existing consent requirements.

Lesson #2: No matter what constructive engagement or “education” is offered, some farmers just don’t (won’t) get it. Hopefully the Regional Council will ultimately set the bar at the most ecologically-protective level, not at some “most acceptable to the most people” lowest common denominator level.

Finally, the report says:

A summary of current understanding of the Taharua problem and the evolution in understanding over the past 10 years is being finalised.

Ten years! To rouse the Council to action on the Taharua, it took Iain Maxwell (then) of Fish & Game to shoot underwater video of the polluted Taharua, which BayBuzz published online in August 2009 (see here), supported by Kathy Webb then writing in the Dominion Post (see here), and constant agitation by Councillor Liz Remmerswaal (here, for example). Fishermen had been complaining for years. Even MPs Tremain and Foss evidenced concern before the Regional Council, as BayBuzz reported here way back in  December 2007.

Who says the Regional Council has been slow off the mark on this one?!

Tom Belford

Some highlights:

• May of 2010 was the warmest global average for that month on record;
• Each of the months of March, April and May 2010 were the warmest on record; and,
• The year-to-date (Jan-May) temperature is the warmest first five months on record.

So when should we — I mean us, right here in Hawke’s Bay — actually start worrying about the impacts of global warming? And what should we worry about more … dealing with the inevitable impacts here in our region, or taking steps to reduce our own contribution to the problem?

The latest regional planning exercise to take note of global warming is the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) project. It says: “The full effects of climate change will not be felt within the existing timeframe and planning horizon of the overall HPUDS. The long term effects (on a 50 to 100 year time frame) will nevertheless be potentially significant and have a bearing on all land use planning decisions made in the present day.”

Despite saying “It’s not really our job,” the HPUDS study does discuss some regional implications of global warming:

Coastal erosion — “The at-risk areas for coastal erosion are typically within about a 75 metre band, measured landward of mean high water springs. Climate change is expected to have an effect on coastal erosion trends as a result of rising sea level and increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms. This may cause a ‘roll back’ of the beach crest — with the position of the shoreline, including the beach crest, adjusting to a new equilibrium point further inland but higher in elevation.” [Should we save Westshore or Haumoana? Both? Neither?]

Drainage — “Rising sea level will mean an increasing likelihood of saltwater intrusion and salination of shallow groundwater in areas that are pump drained. The extent and degree of pump drainage required, especially in Napier, will increase over time as sea level rises.” [75% of Napier's urban stormwater is pumped out now, with consequent energy use and infrastructure investment.]

Drought — “An increasing frequency of drought can be expected in the whole of the East Coast, including Hawke’s Bay.” [Has any BayBuzz reader seen a serious analysis of the impact of drought on HB's primary production future? I'll bet not.]

Flooding — “In respect to flood risk, global warming is expected to result in an increased frequency and severity of major storms … Without substantial improvements being made to existing flood protection works, the community living on the flood plain will, over time, have to accept an increasing level of risk as the risk of flooding will be further exacerbated by sea level rise … Urban development will need to take seriously the potential for increased flooding and ensure that sites are chosen where the risk of flooding is relatively low, or can be effectively managed.”

These are pretty big issues. And they all have implications for decisions being taken by our councils right now.

But hey, they appear far off in the future … well beyond the political life (and therefore concern) of most current local officeholders. So maybe they (and we) just shouldn’t worry about them.

After all, it seems like it’s not even within the capacity of our councils to deal with current issues like footpath maintenance, routine stormwater discharges, swimming pool maintenance, wood burner pollution, and smelly sewage treatment.

God forbid the challenges get even bigger and Mother Nature is in charge … with no Minister in Wellington to appeal to for an extension of deadlines, or no “mediation” process for councils to work out deals on non-complying consents.

Perhaps we’re better off if our current councillors do not meddle in the global warming issue. After all, their generation didn’t sign up for the global warming portfolio. Think of the damage they might cause! They’re more suited to road-building, grandstand construction, sidewalk signs, carparks and dog control.

Let’s leave the big issues for HPUDS-II — 2046 to 2075. No, I’m tired of being a “sky is falling” kind of guy … we have time … let’s push them back to HPUDS-III!

Tom Belford

“New national air-quality standards which require regional councils to reduce air pollution come into effect today.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council must monitor air quality, publicly report whenever the air in the region exceeds the standards, and plan to improve air quality so they comply with the standards by 2013.

Home heating is the major source of air pollution in Hawke’s Bay, accounting for around 90 percent of the fine particles (PM10) in the air in Napier and Hastings, a study presented to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council found.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the day after this report the Regional Council fell into deep sleep, as in ZZZZZZZZZZ!

And so now, five years after doing nothing to meet the new standard, our Regional Councillors, Mayor Yule, MP Craig Foss and other “leaders” in the Bay boast that they recently managed to get the Environment Minister to postpone the deadline for five years (they sought a seven year delay). Indeed, as reported here by BayBuzz, Mayor Yule considers the delay one of the top three achievements of his present term.

It seems that once the Regional Council woke up after all these years (during which period most other Regional Councils acted to meet the standard), there just wasn’t enough time or installation capacity physically available to meet the deadline by phasing in healthier home heating options. Hence, “Duh, we need an extension!”

So now our community — especially our children and the elderly — will bear the health and productivity consequences of PM10 pollution for five more years than we needed to. The health impacts are increased asthma and all sorts of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. The productivity impacts are lost work and school days.

At no point in our regional leaders’ lobbying to delay the deadline did anyone attempt to quantify the economic cost of the projected health and productivity losses in the region associated with failing to meet the healthy air standard. Whereas in Christchurch studies estimated the average non-complying woodburner generated health costs alone of at least $2,700 every year.

Meanwhile, we’re off to a great start this PM10 season … already Hastings as exceeded the permitted pollution standard ten times.

Thanks for your leadership on this one Regional Councillors, Mayors and MPs.

Tom Belford

One’s first reaction – especially if not a resident of the area – might be one of sympathy, tempered by a sense that “They should have known better.” And when the issue of what to do about it arises, perhaps the ratepayer’s gut reaction is … “It’s not up to the rest of us to bail them out.”

Another response might be, “Engineering can’t solve the problem … global warming with its predicted sea level rise and more intense weather events will inevitably win the day … that coast is toast!”

When the issue first arose, neither the Hastings nor Regional Councils were keen to step in with a rescue plan … presumably reflecting some of the attitudes just expressed, and sheltered politically by DoC’s “Let nature take its course” stance.

However, HDC, closer to the political pressure of an aroused coast constituency, and not ultimately in a regulatory role (as the Regional Council might be) was cooperative enough to keep the ball in play … at least through the 2010 election window.

“Cape Coast” residents seized the opportunity, proposing a plan that – they insist – provides an effective engineering solution to the erosion threat at little or no incremental cost to Hastings ratepayers. Indeed, a solution they say would transform the “Cape Coast” into a vibrant recreational and scenic asset for locals and tourists alike.

And yesterday’s announcement by the Regional Council and Venture Hawke’s Bay that their bid for Government funding for the ‘Landscape Trail’ through the scenic Tukituki Valley south of Hastings has been successful would seem to lend some credence to the coastal community’s aspirations. Funding of $1.89 million for the Landscape cycle trail — some of which passes along the endangered “Cape Coast” — has been approved by the Minister for Tourism.

For the current BayBuzz Digest, the coast’s advocacy group, Walking on Water (WOW), provided this timely article making the case for restoration … Last Chance: Cape Coast Rescue Plan.

What do you think?

Tom Belford

A win-win proposal to bring closure to the longstanding problems at Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton has been submitted to Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional annual plans by community group WOW Incorporated.

In April last year local residents were given three options:  ‘do nothing’, ‘managed retreat’ or ‘hard engineering’. Doing nothing invites destruction, embarrassment and a massive ongoing clean up cost for the region. Managed retreat, the progressive removal of up to 200 homes over the next 5-10-years, would also have huge social and economic impact, essentially ripping the heart out of these communities.

The WOW plan for protection, a field of groynes and low level crest strengthening would however restore confidence and hope, open up opportunities for community growth and development and for Cape Coast tourism and hospitality to contribute significantly to visitor growth in the region.

WOW’s grand plan to have both local authorities working together to ensure the Cape Coast has a vibrant future is outlined in twin submissions: Hard engineering not a hard decision, the framework for a detailed plan to Save the Cape Coast and A Cape Coast Community Vision a forward looking statement of intent to rebrand, beautify and invigorate the community (see www.capecoast.co.nz).

WOW was advised by the Joint Councils Working Group on erosion that support for our groyne field depended on giving equal consideration to ‘managed retreat’. Our subsequent research shows ‘retreat’ will clearly cost far more than any groyne field.

Part of the $12.7 million cost for stage one of managed retreat; about 40 homes plus the 4 Square/Gannets Bar commercial centre, includes $4 million for alternative access roads, which the Hastings District Council is now prepared to put toward the groyne field.

Managed retreat is a complex beast. For a start, it terminally undermines property values, then forces residents to relocate as the sea rips away the land, littering rubble, concrete and rusty steel along our beaches.

We’re also mindful that the literal flow-on effect of removing the 21 most at-risk beachside homes would in fact accelerate inundation of properties on the opposite side of Clifton Rd. They are the last line of defence, preventing the sea rolling into vineyards, orchards, farmland and a proposed housing development which are all below sea level.

WOW, with its internationally respected coastal engineer, is planning the staged construction of seven groynes between the Clifton Rd Reserve down to the existing groyne at the Tukituki river mouth. Any downstream impact will be carefully managed and be capped off by the existing groyne, which in itself provides ample evidence that groynes are effective.

In stark contrast to managed retreat or do nothing, this carefully engineered will deflect rogue wave action, build gravel volume back on our beaches, and prevent further erosion.

Construction can be achieved for $4 million, or just under $5.5 million including maintenance, if we have to pre-fill all groynes with metal. WOW likes the natural fill approach, keeping gravel on our own beaches that might otherwise be harvested by the Awatoto shingle plant, while Hawke’s Bay Regional Council prefers pre-filling. A compromise may yet be reached.

The question everyone keeps asking is, ‘how are you going to pay for the groynes?’ If you add $2 million (half the replacement roading cost pledged by Hastings District Council) to the $3 million promised in a lawyer’s letter from a local benefactor, we already have $5 million. The remaining $2 million from Hastings will be held over for a stage two protection plan for Te Awanga and Clifton.

From the outset WOW asked the councils to cover the full cost of resource consent but concedes it may have to dig deeper to avoid debates about money delaying our protection plan or derailing it altogether.

Ahead of making any contribution both councils have engaged an independent planning consultant to determine if our protection plan can pass muster. So far the number looks to be around $674,000, for new ecological, architectural, gravel movement, legal and planning reports, a series of peer reviews, the final engineering designs and consent filing costs.

Current thinking is that process may be streamlined if we go direct to the Environment Court. Meanwhile we’re still negotiating the diverse and often arbitrary interpretations of the National Coastal Policy Statement, the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan and the Resource Management Act.

Over the past year we’ve been told hard engineering is prohibited, and even that local authorities have no say in the matter. At times we had to question whether our weekly committee meetings, endless reports, community consultation and high level discussions with the Joint Councils group were simply a waste of time?

WOW remains positive and convinced there is in fact sufficient flexibility in the law to allow hard engineering … if it is proven to be a ‘last resort’ and ‘the best practicable option’.

To better understand the central government position we called a meeting with local MPs Craig Foss and Chris Tremain, attended by local businesses and the Hastings executive team.  They were surprised at the progress WOW had made, were pleased to see we were looking to partner with Hastings District Council, and offered their full support if that could be formalised.

Subsequently we received letter from both the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for the Environment stating that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hastings District Council do in fact have full ‘discretion’ in the matter.

In other words local councils can save the Cape Coast if they want to. Clearly it would be simpler, cost less and be nowhere near as painful, if they worked together to back the WOW vision.

Timing is essential and WOW would like to get a heads of agreement signed before we get too far into the local body election silly season. One of the hurdles may be a public notification and submissions process to ensure there are no objections from locals and the wider community.

From a ratepayer perspective, the worst possible news is, that unless we can find the final half million dollars required, rates may have to go up by the cost of a cup of coffee for the next 25-years ($3 annually). I am hopeful that ongoing WOW fundraising may yet reduce the ratepayer cost to zero.

To keep things in context, what we’re proposing is a massive improvement on the recommendations of the original Tonks Report which favoured ‘managed retreat’ with its then unknown costs and impacts.  This was pitched as the lesser of two evils; the greater being 13 groynes at $18.5 million, 90 percent of which would be borne by coastal dwellers, at up to $300,000 per property.

The councils asked for community consultation and input, both of which have been provided through WOW. We’ve also evolved and refined the groyne field option and made it practical, acceptable and affordable.  What we’re giving back is a detailed proposal that will solve the erosion problem at negligible cost by building volume back on our beaches and giving the Cape Coast a fighting chance for a vital future.

Moreover, our plan complements perfectly the proposed development of the National Cycleway / Rotary Pathways Trust Cycleway along our beachfront. Indeed, to further enhance that vision, every effort must be made to protect the cycleway from high swells and turbulent wave action.

The Cape Coast, with its awesome natural assets, rich historical heritage, fishing, boating, kayaking, surfing, walking and cycling; the farmyard zoo, museums, award winning restaurants, cafes, wineries, and of course the gannets, represents the best the Bay has to offer.

There doesn’t seem to be any practical reason why local authorities would want to turn their back on this an opportunity to save an iconic coastal community, when the social, environmental, business and engineering case, and the long term benefits to the wider region, are so patently clear.

If Hastings is the ‘Heart of Hawke’s Bay’ then the Cape Coast, as a centre for tourism, hospitality and the creative arts, can be seen as ‘giving Hawke’s Bay an edge’. However the literal edge is fraying and WOW is asking local councils to work together with the community to ensure it doesn’t unravel any further.

Keith Newman
Spokesperson, WOW

He examines the international legal regime, or non-regime as the case may be, that applies to oil spills and accidents; the technical “state of the art” with respect to deep sea drilling; the regulatory and supervisory frameworks that are in place in “experienced” countries like Norway and the US; the lessons — legal, economic, environmental — of past oil disasters; the track record of Petrobras, which holds the NZ exploration rights; the difficulties of monitoring production volumes and associated royalty payments … and then applies all of this context to NZ’s meager institutional capability and policy framework to engage “Big Oil.”

It’s a sobering article, with dozens of links to authoritative articles, studies and sources the world over.

If you care to do any serious thinking about how or whether NZ should get into the deep-water oil drilling business, this article — journalism at its best — should be required reading.

Tom Belford

Unfortunately these two themes clashed somewhat at the Council’s meeting on Wednesday.

Let’s take vigilance first.

In a fresh display of official alarm, Councillors caned its own business unit, Venture Hawke’s Bay, for running a budget deficit of $495,000 as the fiscal year ends (VHB’s budget had an approved deficit of $117K). At times during the Council discussion, it wasn’t entirely clear where Councillors were directing their ire … VHB’s exited management, HBRC CEO Andrew Newman to whom the unit reports, or VHB’s advisory board, chaired by the HBRC’s own Neil Kirton.

But whoever’s fault it was, Councillors were angry … so mad that they turned down the CEO’s recommendation that a $250,000 loan be provided to “clear the books” in the current fiscal year and start afresh with a clean slate (the balance would be offset by $250,000 in reserves VHB also carried on its books). Instead there will be another “full report” on what went wrong and why … with heaps more table-thumping to come. And then HBRC will cover the loss.

With VHB making extensive quarterly reports to the full Regional Council for at least the last year, it’s hard to see how this situation evolved. CEO Andrew Newman gives his explanation of the unfolding saga in his briefing memo to the Council (Download here).

By one accounting, the “surprise” in all this is $128,000 ($495K, minus approved $117K, minus $250K reserves)  … still a deficit demanding explanation and accountability, but a pimple — you spending watchdogs — compared to, say, nearly $2 million in “odour remediation” at the Hastings wastewater treatment plant.

As for efficiency …

The Council also “received” (that’s Council-speak for “accept staff report, thank staff, go back to sleep”) a report entitled Local Government Shared Services: Present and Potential Collaboration in Hawke’s Bay (Download here).

The two main insights of this paper:

1) No such collaboration would occur unless the various council staffs buy into the idea (now there’s a mystery unraveled!); and,

2) Start small.

Be still my heart! I’m not sure Hawke’s Bay can stand the excitement and turmoil this report is going to generate.

In true inter-Council collaborative fashion, the cover memo to the report noted: “It is understood that both Napier City and Hastings District Councils will also be considering papers on the topic in the near future and ongoing discussions among the Chief Executives will continue.”

So each of the councils is preparing its own paper on collaboration. Isn’t that the problem?!

Tom Belford