Care centre variation bewilders one and all

Two-and-a-half years after first seeking to tighten rules governing new residential care centres in suburban neighbourhoods, Hamilton City Council has finally adopted its controversial "Variation 13".

Now it's a case of the residents who doggedly supported or just as passionately opposed this variation to the district plan figuring out exactly what the detail-intensive rule change will mean in practice.

By the conclusion of yesterday's meeting, councillors had steered such a zig-zagged line that even those in the public gallery with vested interests on either side of the debate were unsure whether to celebrate or commiserate.

"We're still trying to work it out," admitted one perplexed residential care supporter.

Another fretted that councillors may have inadvertently passed some poorly worded clauses that they themselves disagreed with, while a third said the uncertain outcome only begged the question of why the council had engaged in the process in the first place.

But the clearest sign of how much the final script of the variation had changed through years of workshops, reports, submissions and meetings was that Mayor Bob Simcock – who adamantly opposed Variation 13 at the start of the saga – was quite comfortably able to vote for it yesterday.

Indeed, it was his eloquent address midway through proceedings which most encouraged Te Hurihanga supporters.

Mr Simcock said the variation was a response to concerns and fears, and mostly a reaction to the mismanagement of processes by the Justice Ministry.

But he noted the process of moving people into community care had been going on for 20 years.

"There are over 500 support houses in Hamilton which never draw complaints," he noted, before recommending the variation as "the best model the council can come to".

But not everybody was happy.

Councillor Roger Hennebry said it was not enough for the variation to "play a numbers game" and set rules for managed care facilities with 8-10 residents, or more than 11 – but allow those with no more than seven residents to still automatically take root as a permitted activity.

"This is not going to solve the fundamental problem," he said.

"We are not making any gains at all under Variation 13. The people feel disenfranchised over something they feel is not suitable for suburban areas." Mr Hennebry twice failed to find a seconder for motions which would have restricted residential care facilities to commercial or industrial zones.

The new variation requires written advice – "as a minimum" – for neighbours when a managed care facility is about to be established as a permitted activity.

And "public safety" must now be considered as a potential effect for consideration where a facility is classified as a "restricted discretionary activity".

But on the other hand councillors weakened a clause which would have made it tougher to establish care facilities, downgrading a requirement for 25 square metres of outdoor living area per occupier to 20, at the urging of Councillor Daphne Bell. She said that would make it too onerous for agencies to provide care facilities.

And a requirement for facilities established as permitted activities to have to provide a comprehensive management plan was defeated 6-5, with Councillor Peter Bos saying it imposed unnecessary costs on agencies and was unenforceable.

Mr Simcock summed up the exercise as "a long and complex business". "While residents felt they should have greater control, most of the frustration came from seeing the Ministry of Justice mishandle the management process with Te Hurihanga," he said.

"The solution should always have been about getting management to be more responsive and doing a better job. We are actually a very tolerant community. But it's good to have this out of the way."

- © Fairfax NZ News