Supplementary Reports Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

1 July 2021

6.5 Far North Holdings - Paihia Waterfront Development

File Number: A3244613

Author: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Authoriser: Shaun Clarke, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Paihia Waterfront Development Project, and to obtain confirmation that Council does not intend to intervene in FNHL’s delivery of the Paihia Waterfront joint PGF/Council funded project as planned.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The project concepts have been in gestation since the 1990’s but progress has been delayed due to external factors.

· The COVID-19 Response & Recovery Program gave fresh impetus to the project, with MBIE providing $8m of Provincial Growth funding.

· Extensive public consultation has been undertaken with support and objections to the project being received.

· Hapu are discussing the project at a meeting to be held on 7 July 2021.

· The design has been modified to address some of the previous concerns expressed, whilst still ensuring waterfront infrastructure is protected.

· FNHL have asked Council to provide clear direction on how it wishes FNHL to proceed.

· The Council budget to support this project in the draft Long Term Plan is $5,845,158.

tŪtohunga / RecommendatiON

That Council:

a) notes the routine review of the Far North Holdings Limited Statement of Intent which was considered at the 16 June 2021 Assurance Risk and Finance Committee

b) notes the critical infrastructure at risk on Paihia Waterfront and the value of the Provincial Growth Funding ($8m) to support a solution

c) notes the inclusion of Council budget ($5,845,158) in the Long Term Plan to support this development and that this is a pre-condition of MBIE funding

d) confirms that it does not intend to intervene in FNHL’s delivery of the Paihia Waterfront joint PGF/Council funded project as planned.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The concept of developing the breakwaters and foreshore was driven by the storm events in the 90’s and the desire to create a safe and efficient operation of the Paihia Waterfront and Paihia Wharf facilities.

Plans were prepared and the necessary consents were sought between 2006-2011, and finally granted in 2011. Upon gaining the consent, FNHL decided that due to the then global crisis it was not in a position to proceed with the development. The project has remained on hold till the Government were searching for projects under their COVID-19 Response & Recovery Program by the Crown Infrastructure Partners.

PGF agreed to funding for some elements of the project not the entire consented plan.

Funding of $8 million was granted to fund the following:

· Northern breakwater between Motumaire Island and Taylors (approx. 170mtrs)

· Outer western breakwater

· Inner western breakwater and beach abutment

· Outer west breakwater

· Dredging of the navigation channel

Council agreed to commit a further $5.845million, (subject to final LTP confirmation), to be used to complete the balance of the planned work being:

· The eastern breakwater

· Horotutu beach replenishment

· Promenade/foreshore park development

The items remaining consented and not being built under this current project are:

· The reclamation adjacent the maritime building

· The eastern attenuator

· The relocated heli pad.

The Master Plan is detailed in Attachment 1.

Public Consultation

Since August 2020, meetings involving interested parties have been held including four public meetings and dialogue with hapu and the community as detailed in Attachment 2.

The project has been canvassed at various community group meetings, and Council has been informed by FNHL that the substantial majority of those present supported proceeding with the project.

In October 2020, the Paihia Waterfront Steering Group was established upon the request by FNHL for public input into the promenade design and theming. Community groups and organisations were invited at the earlier public meetings to oversee the project on behalf of the community.

Attached as Attachment 3 is a list of all the parties invited to the meetings.

The Terms of reference for the group agreed the following objectives

1. Agree on a process for the broader community to have input into the design and development of the “Promenade area”.

2. Consult with the community on whether reclamation area in front of the Maritime Building would meet the needs of the community. If so, consider all aspects of how this may best be funded

3. Create a conduit between local Community Groups and FNHL to deliver the project.

The Group has held seven meetings over the period, including the meeting of the 17^th May 2021 which had a large number of attendees opposing the proposal.

Hapu Consultation

FNHL have had several meetings with hapu, both direct FNHL/hapu meetings, and in conjunction with the steering group. There is a segment of hapu that are uncomfortable with the proposal and some adamantly opposed. This was highlighted at the meeting on Monday the 17^{th of} May 2021.

Hapu have asked for a hui on the Marae to discuss and share all the current and updated information on the development when it is available. Hapu are holding this hui on 7 July 2021 at Waitangi Marae.

Design modifications

FNHL have reviewed the consented designs and have removed the inner western breakwater and will now only construct the groyne out from Nihonui Point to create the beach abutment. Ongoing design work is still to be completed for the eastern groyne/abutment to overcome issues of underlying soil strengths and the location off the existing deck.

Work remains ongoing with the final promenade and landscaping design which will come out of the community’s input in conjunction with the professional landscapers.

Waterfront Protection.

One of the major benefits and probably financially the greatest benefit will be the protection of the Paihia Waterfront, associated infrastructure and property from severe weather events. With rising sea levels and climate change, the risks and consequences of major damage and cost will continue to increase.

FNHL have continued to review with BECA the breakwater heights and associated foreshore protection and have carried out a review of three different scenarios. From this work, it has been identified that if the northern breakwater were constructed 800mm above MLWS (mean low water spring) height the visual impact is only for 8 hours of the day between 0mm and 800mm, that the new Horotutu Beach, as currently designed would be able to withstand the wave conditions and retain its protection to the foreshore. But, such lower height would only marginally improve sea conditions in the area of the wharves.

In the event that rising sea levels and or storm events were in fact causing damage beyond that that is forecast in the modelling then the opportunity still exists to raise these breakwaters to further improve the protection.

A summary by BECA of this scenario is attached as Attachment 4.

In the period since 1996 the cost of storm repairs has been calculated to be $718,200 (Attachment 5). With the expected rising sea levels and increased storm severity we estimate there to be a quadrupling effect on costs. Therefore, over the next 20 years, repair costs are estimated to be in the order of $2.87 million, excluding any ancillary costs for either business interruption, loss of productivity and community inconvenience and connectivity.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

The project has many benefits.

· it will offer substantially improved protection of the waterfront from adverse weather effects

· it will provide enhanced public facilities and infrastructure to the centre of Paihia, the major transit points out into the Bay of Islands.

· in the longer term it will save ratepayers funds from the costs for future repairs and storm damage to essential infrastructure.

· It will protect private property from adverse weather effects.

The Paihia Waterfront project has been resurrected by FNHL through a successful PGF funding application responding to Government’s Covid recovery economic stimulus. FNHL have no benefit from this apart from the protection of the wharf asset it holds. There is no commercial gain to FNHL and no intention to build any additional infrastructure on the back off this.

The project will provide some protection to waterfront infrastructure.

FNHL have asked Council to provide clear direction on how it wishes FNHL to proceed.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The Council budget to support this project in the draft Long Term Plan is $5,845,158. This is 42% of the project cost.

The issue of asset ownership and maintenance obligations still need to be resolved.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Paihia Waterfront - MASTER PLAN - May 2021 - A3244640 (under separate cover)

2. Schedule of Community Dialogue - A3257206 ⇩

3. Identified Stakeholders Invited to Meetings - A3257204 ⇩

4. Summary by BECA - A3257207 ⇩

5. Paihia Waterfront Damage Repair Costings - A3257205 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The report has low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Funding to be included in LTP.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	This project has local significance.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	Significant comment from Iwi/Hapu expected. Consultation detailed in report.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	As detailed in report.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As detailed in report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 July 2021

SUMMARY BY BECA

1. Paihia Waterfront Project

2. Summary of Review of Breakwater Crest Level

FNHL (Far North Holdings Ltd) are progressing the Paihia Waterfront project, which was granted consent in 2011. The consented scheme includes offshore breakwaters and abutments/groynes, as well as a renourished beach.

FNHL’s primary objectives for the project are:

n Improved public beach and promenade amenity;

n Less energetic wave environment along the Paihia waterfront to help protect existing coastal assets and the proposed beach and abutments against storm waves.

Taking onboard comments and concerns from the community and stakeholders, FNHL has asked Beca Ltd to review the consented breakwater crest levels.

The review was based on a high-level comparison of the influence of the breakwaters and crest height on estimated wave heights and wave runup at Paihia (Horotutu Beach). The review also considered the change in rock volume with different crest heights.

The findings of the review are:

n Observations on site and recent wave modelling (MetOcean, 2020) show that wave conditions at the beach and wharf are a combination of waves travelling into the Paihia basin through the western entrance (between Nihinui Point and Motumaire Island), the northern entrance (between Motumaire and Taylor Islands) and the eastern entrance (between the Lookout and Taylor Island).

n As documented in previous reports (MetOcean, 2020; Beca, 2021), the wave modelling has showed up to-30% reduction (0.1-0.2m) in wave heights at the wharf and beach with the Northern and Western Breakwaters. This is a modest reduction in the existing 0.5m-0.7m wave heights^{^[1]} estimated at the wharf and beach.

n The modelling results show that, even with the Western and Northern Breakwaters, waves would continue to travel into the beach and wharf from the west and east, around Motumarie and Taylor Islands.

n Based on the comparative review, discussions with FNHL regarding the review, and a simplified wave and rock volume analysis, protection of Horotutu Beach and waterfront against up to a 1 in 100 year storm could be provided by:

– Northern and Western breakwaters with crests reduced to approximately 800mm above low water level (approximately m to m PSD^{^[2]}) to minimise visual impacts. The low breakwaters incrementally reduce wave heights at the wharf and beach. Waves continue to enter the basin around the eastern side of Taylor Island.

– Some widening of the renourished beach, which is contained by abutments, consistent with the parameters of the existing consent. The beach reduces wave runup, helping to protect State Highway 11 and the proposed waterfront park. The review indicates that runup levels could be accommodated by the beach and lowering the breakwaters does not materially increase the expected wave climate, based on modelling.

– The combination of renourished beach, abutments and low breakwaters, with monitoring and management to adapt to future conditions, provides a marginally more conservative approach than an option without breakwaters.

n Detailed analysis and design of the structures in accordance with technical guidance will be required to determine the final crest and beach levels, as for any proposed scheme.

n Future climate change could be addressed through monitoring of the breakwaters and beach over time, as well as regular review of actual sea level rise, sea conditions and future updates to climate change predictions (national studies and guidance are published regularly). The breakwater crests can be raised by additional placement of rock in the future, as identified through the monitoring and reviews.

1. REFERENCES

Beca Ltd, 2021. Detailed Scheme Layout Report.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd, 2021. Paihia Wave Modelling Report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 July 2021

Attachment 5

Paihia Waterfront Damage Repair Costings

January 1996 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 2,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 3,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 2,000.00
Total	$ 12,000.00

June 1996 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 7,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 20,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 6,400.00
Total	$ 38,400.00

March 1997 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Road reinstatement 150 metres length	$ 200,000.00
Footpath	$ 5,000.00
Sewerage	$ 10,000.00
Water	$ 6,000.00
Fibre	$ 15,000.00
Telecom and Power	$ 20,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 7,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 20,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 57,600.00
Total	$ 345,600.00

1998-2000 Annual Events
Road sweeping and debris clearance @ $5k per year	$ 15,000.00
Project Management and supervision
Total	$ 15,000.00

July 2001 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Seawall repair	$ 6,000.00
Footpath	$ 3,000.00
Sewerage	$ 2,000.00
Water	$ 1,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 7,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 10,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 6,800.00
Total	$ 40,800.00

2002-2005 Annual Events
Road sweeping and debris clearance @ $5k per year	$ 20,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 4,000.00
Total	$ 24,000.00

June 2006 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 2,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 3,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 2,000.00
Total	$ 12,000.00

March 2007 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 2,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 30,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 7,400.00
Total	$ 44,400.00
2008-2010 Annual Events
Road sweeping and debris clearance @ $5k per year	$ 15,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 3,000.00
Total	$ 18,000.00

January 2011 Cyclone Wilma
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 2,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 3,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 2,000.00
Total	$ 12,000.00

2012 Annual Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance @ $5k per year	$ 5,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 1,000.00
Total	$ 6,000.00

April 2013 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 10,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 60,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 15,000.00
Total	$ 90,000.00

April 2014 Storm Event
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 2,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 3,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 2,000.00
Total	$ 12,000.00

2015-2020 Annual Events
Road sweeping and debris clearance @ $5k per year	$ 30,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 6,000.00
Total	$ 36,000.00

May 2021 (Typical Annual Event)
Road sweeping and debris clearance	$ 5,000.00
Abutment repairs near wharf	$ 2,000.00
Damage to neighbouring businesses	$ 3,000.00
Project Management and supervision	$ 2,000.00
Total	$ 12,000.00



Total repair estimate for events 1997-2021	$ 718,200.00


Note figures don't include loss of earnings for local businesses during events or loss of productivity due to delays on the state highway network. Figures don't include resilience works NZTA have undertaken to protect the foreshore e.g. rock armouring. Figures don't include damage to wharf facilities or vessels using the wharf during storm events.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

1 July 2021

6.6 Remits for Consideration at 2021 LGNZ AGM

File Number: A3259790

Author: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Governance Support

Authoriser: Caroline Wilson, Manager - District Administration

Purpose of the Report

To provide Council with an opportunity to consider its position on each of the remits for consideration at the 2021 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting.

Executive Summary

· 7 remits are included on the 2021 LGNZ AGM agenda.

· An additional 5 remits were received but have either been declined or deferred directly to National Council.

· His Worship the Mayor will be attending the LGNZ AGM with voting rights on behalf of Far North District Council.

· Adopted remits become LGNZ Policy.

· The AGM is scheduled for 17 July 2021 in Blenheim.

· The Far North District Council vote is worth 5 votes in accordance with the LGNZ constitution.

Recommendation

That the Far North District Council:

a) supports the following 2021 Local Government New Zealand Remits:

i. Rating Value of Forestry Land

ii. Funding of Civics Education

iii. Carbon Emission Inventory Standards and Reduction Targets

iv. WINZ Accommodation Supplement

v. Liability - Buildings Consent Functions

b) abstains from voting on the following 2021 Local Government New Zealand Remits:

i) Tree Protection

1) Background

Each year LGNZ calls for proposed remits to be considered at their Annual General Meeting. Nominating Councils must have endorsement from 5 other Councils. The AGM votes on these proposals and adopted remits become LGNZ Policy.

Zone 1 supported a remit proposed by Northland Regional Council recommending that Central Government establish and improve the Maritime Rules for recreational vessels in relation to personal floating devices, vessel registration, and licensing of skippers.

A special Zone One meeting was called but Far North members were unable to attend as it conflicted with a Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. – This remit isn’t included in the attachment but is noted as being referred directly to National Council for action. The Screening Committee are able to refer a remit directly to National Council if:

1. The remit is already LGNZ policy

2. Already on the LGNZ work programme or

3. Technical in nature.

There were an additional 5 remits submitted. The LGNZ Remit Screening Committee has referred them to National Council for action rather than at the AGM. Remits can be referred directly to National Council if they are already part of the LGNZ work programme or are technical in nature.

His Worship the Mayor will be attending the LGNZ AGM and will be able to put forward the view of the Far North.

2) Discussion and Options

The list of the proposed remits are listed below with a comment from staff. Subject matter staff expert staff have provided comment, where applicable, as to whether each remit aligns with existing FNDC policy or processes.

#	Remit	Recommendation	Rationale
1.	Tree Protection	Abstain	Far North District Council recognises the tree protection issues that Auckland Council are seeking advocacy of Local Government New Zealand. The biodiversity, amenity and cultural value of trees in urban environments are diverse. The management of the urban areas and indigenous vegetation are also matters that are subject to national policy direction. This includes management of indigenous biodiversity as well as urban development. Finding an appropriate suite of measures that both address a resource management purpose as well as fit the expectations of urban communities is challenging. Territorial Authorities in the regions, such as Far North District Council that have large areas of indigenous biodiversity, may better understand the full range of issues for management of urban trees subsequent to addressing our responsibilities under higher order planning documents. This includes the biodiversity provisions of the Northland Regional Council Regional Policy Statement and the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity, that remains under development. The latter instrument contains a policy aimed at providing for restoration and enhancement (Policy 11). Implementing this policy, as represented in the draft instrument, may become resource and cost intensive for our council. We are particularly interested in how the urban targets for vegetation cover will play out and be encouraged within our district. As we are currently undertaking a consolidated review of our District Plan, we plan to incorporate the requirements of the NPS-IB and other national direction into our proposed District plan, with notification planned at the end of 2020. As well as this, we are currently undertaking projects based on the directives from the Regional Policy Statement for Northland, which in part aligns with the national direction. With a focus on these matters alone, we see that conflicts between the NPS-IB and NPS-UD could arise, through the implementation of urban targets for vegetation cover and the allocation of suitable land for urban growth to meet the expected demands for housing and business land for our district. Consequently, we would advise that we would withhold support for the remit for urban tree protection until such time that our full suite of responsibilities under higher order planning documents is understood.
2.	Rating Value of Forestry Land	Support	Most of the forestry impact in our area is on State Highways rather than FNDC roads. This was the topic of debate in 2012, with responses from the forestry sector leading to the creation of our targeted roading rate.
3.	Funding of Civics Education	Support	This is an important part of engaging our future generations in the activities of local government and the democratic process.
4.	Election Participation	Support	The Electoral Commission has far greater resources and powers to engage with our voting population. It does not remove the need for local authorities to conduct the elections, but rather moves the requirement for the CE to foster participation back to the authority that is best able to do this. It will not prevent Council from promoting the elections at a local level.
5.	Carbon Emission Inventory Standards and Reduction Targets	Support	FNDC recently completed a carbon footprint which is being used to inform its work programme going forward. This work programme is aiming to reduce FNDC’s carbon footprint in alignment with the targets set in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Act of net zero carbon by 2050. However FNDC’s forward planning on capital works into future long term plans could be misaligned with the governments adaptation and mitigation plans that will result from the advice from the climate change commission. This could also be accentuated by FNDC using, what might be considered in retrospect, a non-standard approach to capturing and measuring it’s carbon footprint. The lack detail on the impacts on local government is a concern from this perspective. With this FNDC supports emission standards across the local government sector and also supports asking LGNZ to focus on the implications of the climate change response (zero carbon) act as the first package of advice from the climate change commission to the government has not enough detail that will allow local government to forward plan for mitigation both within the Council and with the communities it represents and advocates for.
6.	WINZ Accommodation Supplement	Support	As the review seeks to ensure that households are able to access funds that will meaningfully improve their financial position and wellbeing, officers cannot see an issue with this remit and that it would have anything other than a positive impact on people faced with financial challenges. From a zoning perspective, officers believe this is a positive step in ensuring the WINZ Accommodation Supplement system is reflective of our districts current and future urban / rural areas. Officers see no reason why Council would not vote in support of this remit bearing in mind Councils wellbeing focus (particularly social and economic wellbeing).
7.	Liability – Building Consent Functions	Support	This provides protection to the Far North District Council and ratepayers. It means that Council and ratepayers will not be responsible for liability or costs for Kāinga Ora / Consentium properties.

Reason for the recommendation

To allow Council to determine their positions on each remit for His Worship the Mayor to put forward at the LGNZ AGM.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications in endorsing (or not), remits at the LGNZ AGM.

There is a cost in representatives attending the meeting in Blenheim, however these costs are already covered by arrangements to attend the LGNZ Conference in July this year.

Attachments

1. 2021-07-01 2021 LGNZ Conference Remits - A3259768 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Staff have commended on how each proposed remit aligns with existing council policies and processes.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	These are matters considered to have national impact that we have opportunity to comment on from a district perspective. The views of the Community Boards have not been sought due to time constraints.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Some of the remits will have a higher impact or require a higher level of engagement with Māori than others in which staff have considered when providing comment.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	This report seeks the Council’s views on matters considered to have potential impact across the nation.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provision in formulating a view on these remits.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

[1] These are the significant wave heights, the average of the highest 1/3 of the modelled waves, typically used in coastal science and engineering applications. Wave heights larger than this average will occur at the site.

[2] Paihia Sounding Datum, equivalent to Lowest Astronomical Tide, the lowest tide predicted under average weather conditions