Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

6 March 2017

Order of Business

(NOTE: The commencement time for this meeting coincides with the commencement time for the Council meeting and Sport and Recreation Committee meeting. The format for the meeting will be that the Planning and Strategy Committee and Council meetings will open, take apologies and adjourn immediately to allow the Sport and Recreation Committee to consider its business. At the conclusion of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting the Planning and Strategy Committee will resume to consider its business, following by the Council meeting.)

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

4. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 8 February 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

5. Amendment to the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Administration Manual Page 13

Memorandum, dated 13 February 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

6. LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals Page 27

Memorandum, dated 13 February 2017 from the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

7. City Centre Streetscape Plan Bus & Parking Trials Page 41

Memorandum, dated 20 February 2017 from the City Planning Manager, David Murphy and the Roading Manager, Jon Schwass.

8. Pedestrian Facilities and Safety (NZTA) - March 2017 Page 47

Memorandum, dated 20 February 2017 from the Senior Transportation Engineer, Glenn Connelly.

9. Committee Work Schedule Page 85

Committee Work Schedule, dated 22 February 2017.

10. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Paddy Clifford), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), General Manager, City Enterprises (Ray McIndoe), General Manager, City Future (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager, City Networks (Ray Swadel), General Manager, Customer Services (Peter Eathorne), General Manager, Libraries and Community Services (Debbie Duncan), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson) and Strategic Communications Manager (Mark Torley) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Governance and Support Team Leader (Kyle Whitfield) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell and Rachel Corser), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

< add officers who are authors of reports or their substitutes > because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

<add third parties, e.g. authors of third party reports being considered>, because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 08 February 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) for lateness and Councillor Tangi Utikere (on Council Business).

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 9.51am during consideration of clause 4. He was not present for clauses 1 to 3 inclusive.

1-17

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 1.1 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Did not vote:

Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

2-17

Public Comment

Public Comment was received from:

- Ms Penny Cowie regarding fluoridation of Palmerston North water supplies, specifically to Longburn and Bunnythorpe. Ms Cowie had personal experience growing up without fluoridated water and believed that everyone should have it.

- Mr David Parham regarding river crossing in Staces Road. Mr Parham believed better access was needed between the suburbs of Whakarango and Aokautere.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the public comment for information.

Clause 2.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

3-17

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 21 November 2016 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 3.1 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Abstained:

Councillor Rachel Bowen.

4-17	Report Back on Appeal Court Decision Regarding Fluoridation of Water Supplies Memorandum, dated 30 November 2016 from the Water & Waste Services Manager, Robert van Bentum and the Water Asset Engineer, Dora Luo. The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 9.51am. The Committee sought further information regarding the cost of introducing fluoride into the Longburn and Bunnythorpe water supplies.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Lorna Johnson. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That Council confirm the current practice of fluoridating all Palmerston North water supplies, except for Longburn and Bunnythorpe, in line with Ministry of Health guidelines.
	Clause 4.1 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Lorna Johnson. 2. That Submitters on fluoridation of Palmerston North water supplies since the 2013/14 Annual Plan be advised on Recommendation 1 and 3, noting that Council has installed a non-fluoride dispensing tap at the Papaioea Bore for public use.
	Clause 4.2 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Jim Jefferies. 3. That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back on the cost implications to introduce fluoridating water supplies in Longburn and Bunnythorpe.
	Clause 4.3 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

5-17

Conference Opportunity - Industrial Waters Conference April 2017.

Memorandum, dated 16 January 2017 from the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Grant Smith.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee send elected members to attend, with expenses paid, to the Industrial Waters Conference 2017 being held in Palmerston North on Tuesday 18 April to Thursday 20 April 2017.

2. That registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser, by 12 noon Tuesday 14 February 2017.

Clause 5-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

6-17

Conference Opportunity - Cities 4.0 Summit Melbourne March 2017

Memorandum, dated 26 January 2017 from the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

Note:

On a motion that: `The Committee approve the attendance of an elected member to attend, with expenses paid, to the Cities 4.0 Summit 2017 being held in Melbourne, Australia on Tuesday 21 March 2017 to Thursday 23 March 2017’ and that: `in the event the Committee approves the attendance of an Elected Member or members at the above training, then registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser, by 12 noon Tuesday 14 February 2017’ the motion was lost 1 vote to 14, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

7-17

Sister Cities 2017 Conference

Memorandum, dated 21 December 2016 from the Governance & Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Grant Smith.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee send two elected members to attend, with expenses paid, to the Sister Cities 2017 Conference in Invercargill from Thursday 4 May to Saturday 6 May 2017.

2. That registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Governance and Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield, by 12 noon Wednesday 15 February 2017.

Clause 7-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

8-17

Committee Work Schedule

Committee Work Schedule dated February 2017.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated February 2017.

Clause 8.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 10.38am

Confirmed 6 March 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: Amendment to the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Administration Manual

DATE: 13 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Peter Ridge, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATION TO Council

1. That the Council determines that no consultation is necessary because the proposed changes are very minor and do not significantly affect any particular group of stakeholders.

2. That the Council amend the Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual as shown in appendix 1 by tracked changes, to come into effect on 3 April 2017.

1. ISSUE

Officers have identified a number of minor amendments to the Administration Manual for the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw. The Bylaw requires that any such amendments to the Administration Manual are made by the Council by resolution. This memorandum outlines the proposed amendments and recommends that the Council resolve to amend the Administration Manual accordingly.

2. BACKGROUND

The Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw and the associated Administration Manual were adopted in 2015. This is the fourth Bylaw that Council has reviewed to include an Administration Manual. This is the first time that Council has needed to amend an Administration Manual using the process outlined in the Bylaw.

3. Proposed amendments

The amendments relate to the information requirements for various permits issued under the Bylaw. As a result of the review in 2015, a new single permit form was developed to cover the range of activities for which permits may be required. To accommodate this multi-function permit form the information requirements for the different activities were described on the reverse side of the application form in the Administration Manual.

As officers have been implementing these changed processes, it has become apparent that some additional information is necessary from applicants to enable officers to make a decision.

The proposed changes include:

· Adding the words “if applicable” to the disclosure statement on the front of the application form. This recognises that for some permits, there may be no application fee.

· Adding references to the relevant clauses of the Bylaw to each of the headings under Permit Information Requirements. This makes it easier for the reader to identify which part of the Bylaw the permit relates to.

· Replace the words “that will be placed” with “proposed to be placed” in the third requirement for footpath permits.

· Revising the second information requirement for Mobile Trading permits, to note that applications will require clear maps for each proposed location.

· Adding a third information requirement for Mobile Trading permits, to note “The dates, times, frequency and duration the mobile trade will take place.”

The amended Administration Manual is attached showing tracked changes

4. Analysis

The Bylaw states that “before amending the Administration Manual, the Council must consult appropriately with any person that it considers may be affected by the proposed amendments and give those persons a reasonable opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed amendments before they come into effect.” The advice from officers is that the proposed amendments are very minor and that consultation is not necessary before the Council makes the changes. The proposed changes do not affect any applicant’s existing rights, but rather align the permit form with the information that officers require of all applicants to make an effective decision. Consultation is unlikely to be necessary or useful in this situation.

5. NEXT STEPS

If the Committee agrees to recommend to the Council that the Administration Manual is amended, and the Council confirms that recommendation, then the amended Administration Manual will be published to the Council’s website.

Council officers will then update the forms being used for permit applications to include the new information.

Attachments

Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual - Amended ⇩

Peter Ridge

Policy Analyst

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals

DATE: 13 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council decides whether to support the following remit proposal at the LGNZ metro sector meeting: “That LGNZ advocates to central government to provide co-ordination and policy requirements for local authorities to enable them to assist New Zealand meeting its commitment under the Paris Agreement”.

2. That the Council decides whether to support the following remit proposal at the LGNZ metro sector meeting: “That LGNZ advocates to central government to amend the Litter Act 1979 to enable local authorities to legally issue infringement notices where there is evidence of an offence.”

1. Introduction

1.1. Local Government New Zealand’s Remit Policy offers the opportunity for councils to propose remits that are supported by at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five councils.

1.2. The Policy states that:

1) Remits must be relevant to local government as a whole rather than exclusively relevant to a single zone or sector group (or an individual council).

2) Remits should be of a major policy nature (constitutional and substantive policy) rather than matters that can be dealt with by administrative action.

1.3. Councillors have the opportunity, therefore, to identify issues which they would like to progress through this process. Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to demonstrate the relevance and importance of the issue.

1.4. Councillors were invited to forward proposals and background information for any potential remits to the Strategy and Policy Manager by 1 February2017. One remit proposal was received from Councillor Barrett. A second remit proposal, identifying a sector-wide issue, has been provided by the Head of Environmental Protection Services, Graeme Gillespie. This report provides background information on these proposals to inform a Council decision about whether to proceed with them to the metro sector meeting in May 2017. If the Council agrees to proceed with one or both remit proposals, this material will be provided in a background paper for the metro meeting.

2. Remit Proposals

Proposal One

2.1 The proposal put forward is ‘that LGNZ advocate to central government to provide co-ordination and policy requirements for local authorities to enable them to assist New Zealand to meet its commitment under the Paris Agreement’.

Background

2.2 In December 2015, an international climate change agreement was made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as the Paris Agreement.

2.3 The Government ratified the Paris Agreement on 4 Oct 2016 and submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the UNFCCC. New Zealand is now committed to achieving a 30% reduction (below 2005 levels) in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

2.4 The New Zealand Government has stated it will meet this target through a mix of domestic emission reductions, the removal of carbon dioxide by forests and participation in international carbon markets. The NDC (attached as Appendix One) describes the details of this commitment.

2.5 In 2015 the Mayor of Palmerston North signed the New Zealand Local Government Leaders Climate Change Declaration. Included in the purpose of this declaration is the desire to “encourage Government to be more ambitious with climate change mitigation measures” (attached as Appendix Two).

2.6 The Government has acknowledged the role local authorities could play in working towards meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. In 2016 the Government issued a statement that “[e]ach part of the country will be affected differently by climate change so preparing for and managing the risks is the job of local government. Councils are best placed to know what is right for their region, and must incorporate climate change into their plans, projects and decision-making.” (New Zealand’s Action on Climate Change, September 2016).

2.7 The Ministry for the Environment provides resources for local government to respond to the effects of climate change. However, there is no requirement for local government to contribute specifically to the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments made in the NDC.

Discussion

2.8 This remit proposal meets the requirements for remits to be both relevant to local government overall, and to be of a significant policy nature.

Proposal Two

2.9 The proposal put forward is “that LGNZ advocates to central government to amend the Litter Act 1979 to enable local authorities to legally issue infringement notices where there is evidence of an offence.”

Background

2.10 The indiscriminate disposal of rubbish is an ongoing and increasing problem for local authorities. The primary statutory instrument for the abatement and control of litter is the Litter Act 1979 (“the Act”).

2.11 Section 14 of the Act creates authority for the issue of infringement notices, which has been used by local authorities in respect to indiscriminately dumped refuse. The practice of many local authorities is to issue an infringement notice, with an infringement fee of up to $400, where a search of the material reveals the likely owner of the material.

2.12 An examination of section 14 reveals that this approach is beyond the authority of the Act. Section 14(1) limits the issue of an infringement notice to situations where the Litter Control Officer observes a person committing an infringement offence, or has reasonable cause to believe such an offence is being or has just been committed by that person.

2.13 Infringement notices cannot, therefore, be issued in respect to refuse or litter deposited beyond the present or immediate past. This means that local government does not have an effective statutory tool to address the indiscriminate disposal of rubbish. The only measures available are the issue of a warning letter, or prosecution for an offence against section 15 of the Act. The former is seen as an ineffective deterrent in the absence of the ability to issue an infringement, and the latter extremely costly on councils.

2.14 This limitation could be simply address through amendment of the Act to remove the word “just” from section 14(1). It would then read “Where a Litter Control Officer observes a person committing an infringement offence or has reasonable cause to believe such an offence is being or has ~~just~~ been committed by that person, an infringement notice in respect of that offence may be issued to that person by that Officer.”

2.15 The current dispute and review mechanisms in respect to infringements would ensure protection from unjust fines.

Discussion

2.16 This remit proposal meets the requirements for remits to be both relevant to local government overall, and to be of a significant policy nature. While the proposed remedy is a relatively simple one, managing the illegal dumping of rubbish is a significant issue for local authorities. The recommended action is an amendment to legislation, and therefore beyond the scope of ‘administrative action’ (as specified in the remit criteria).The lack of authority for councils to issue infringement notices for dumped refuse unless the offence is observed applies to all local authorities.

3. Conclusion

3.1. If the recommendations are adopted then a report will be prepared for the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2017.

Attachments

1.	Appendix One: New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contribution ⇩
2.	Appendix Two: New Zealand Local Government Leaders Climate Change Declaration ⇩

Julie Macdonald

Strategy & Policy Manager

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: City Centre Streetscape Plan Bus & Parking Trials

DATE: 20 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: David Murphy, City Planning Manager, City Future

Jon Schwass, Roading Manager, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That resolutions 80.5 and 80.6 made by the Council at its meeting held on 27 June 2016 and which adopted recommendations 42.10(d) and 42.10(e) made by the Planning and Policy Committee at its meeting held on 20 June 2016 and which related to bus and parking trials associated with the City Centre Streetscape Plan be revoked.

2. That the 90º parking arrangement contained within the City Centre Streetscape Plan be assessed via a traffic safety audit.

3. Note that the need, location and design of any physical parking trials will be determined based on the findings and recommendations of the traffic safety audit.

1. ISSUE

The City Centre Streetscape Plan (CCSP) was considered and endorsed at the June 2016 Planning and Policy Committee. During that meeting, additional resolutions were proposed and carried regarding trials of the proposed 90º parking, parking reductions and trials of bus routes. These were to be undertaken prior to approval of the final designs for Programme 244 Square East Streetscape Upgrade, the first stage of the CCSP.

Officers have encountered difficulties in delivering these resolutions and this memorandum provides a summary of those issues, along with a recommended way forward.

The relevant Planning and Policy Committee resolutions adopted by the Council are:

Resolution 80.5 That the Chief Executive be authorised to request that Horizons Regional Council work with Palmerston North City Council to trial bus routes for 12 months as the Streetscape Plan was developed to assist with future design of the bus terminal.

Resolution 80.6 Parking (including reduction and 90 degree parking) be trialled for 12 months before any approval. The bus and parking trials to be done concurrently.

2. BACKGROUND

Resolution 42.10 (d) – Bus Route Trial

Officers have held discussions with Horizons Regional Council officers regarding opportunities to alter bus routes to emulate the increased use of The Square which would result from the bus terminal layout changes proposed in the CCSP.

There is little opportunity under current service contracts and schedules to make alterations to the routes without incurring financial penalties or without putting service reliability at risk on some routes.

It is considered that given the current scheduling of the terminal upgrade in the current Long Term Plan (construction in 2018/19 financial year), there will be opportunities to continue the development of the bus terminal proposals and incorporate a review of the increased frequency/alternative route structure trials due to commence in February 2017. The trials and any subsequent permanent service improvements are a key factor in determining the number of bays required within the terminal, and hence the layout and extent of the terminal.

Limited testing of the interaction between buses and 90º parking can be undertaken using out of service or specially chartered buses in controlled trials, should any parking trials be deemed necessary.

Resolution 42.10 (e) – Parking Trial

Initially, the trial of 90º parking was anticipated to occur between Main Street and Church Street on the eastern side of the Square. This would have facilitated the trial in directly emulating the parking layout as recommended in the CCSP and allowed any temporary enabling works to be repaired or removed during the subsequent construction phase. However, officers were conscious that such works would effectively prolong the period of uncertainty and disturbance for retailers directly adjacent to this section of road.

Furthermore, a trial in this location may have provided a false representation of the streetscape works, with the parking changes being trialled without the corresponding increases in footpath/amenity space. The trial, if undertaken on The Square, would require the removal of the median island and gardens, which involves a significant degree of disruption and cost. Refer to Figure 1 which superimposes the City Centre Streetscape Plan layout on the existing streetscape cross-section. This disruption would affect the same traders who will experience some inconvenience during the construction of the main streetscape upgrade. Furthermore, the existing road widths are greater than those proposed under the CCSP and to accurately model the proposed changes a temporary kerb or wheel-stops would be necessary, generating further cost.

Figure 1: City Centre Streetscape Plan Layout & Existing Streetscape Cross-Section

Two alternatives options are:

a) Undertake the parking trials in Broadway Ave.

b) Commission a traffic safety audit before determining the need for parking trials.

A physical trial of 90º parking could be carried out in Broadway Avenue, between the Regent Theatre/Downtown Shopping Centre pedestrian platform and the Trade Aid/Visique pedestrian platform.

The kerb-to-kerb distance on Broadway is 1m narrower than the proposed CCSP roads, meaning spaces will be slightly shorter than those suggested. However, all other dimensions (space width, carriageway width between parking spaces) will match the CCSP recommendations. Opportunities exist to mount a camera within the Regent or Downtown buildings to monitor parking behaviour during the trial.

The primary concern with undertaking the trial in Broadway Avenue is that retailers and landlords may consider that the street is being used as a ‘guinea pig’ for investment which will first occur in other parts of the CBD, given that no LTP programme exists to upgrade Broadway Avenue (beyond the current $304k in Programme 1259). Physical works would be minimal, involving only remarking of spaces and realigning parking sensors. However, any new layout takes some time for drivers to get used to and some degree of disturbance would be inevitable.

A further option is available which would involve having the 90º parking assessed via a traffic safety audit, undertaken by a consultancy with significant traffic safety capability. This option would remove the potential disturbance factor, although if the audit did not give a high level of confidence to the success of the change in orientation, a partial or reduced trial could be undertaken to provide further confidence to Council and provide the opportunity for the community to experience 90º parking. A potential option is the Square side of Square-East, although this would only involve 90º parking in one direction of travel.

Given the potential complications associated with the trial a traffic safety audit is the recommended option.

Trial Periods

The resolutions require that both trials occur over a 12 month period. Should the traffic safety audit recommend that a physical trial be undertaken, it will be important that any trial is undertaken for as long as practically possible in order to inform the design of Programme 244 Square East Streetscape Upgrade scheduled for 2017/18.

Parking Reduction

The parking trial as defined by Resolution 42.10 (e) also included trial of the reduction in parking numbers related to the implementation of the CCSP.

The CCSP aims to make the public space around The Square and Broadway Avenue a welcoming, quality, pleasant space. The distance people will walk from car parks is relative to the quality of experience on offer e.g. shoppers are comfortable parking at The Plaza and walking some considerable distances within the mall as the environment is of a high quality; or people will walk longer distances between car parks and shops in Wellington CBD as the extent of retail offer is that much greater. To trial the reduction in parking numbers without the associated environmental improvements and increases in pedestrian oriented space would not give an accurate representation of the potential benefits of the CCSP.

Revocation

The recommendation is that resolutions 80.5 and 80.6 regarding parking and bus trials associated with the City Centre Streetscape Plan are revoked.

3. NEXT STEPS

Assess the 90º parking arrangement contained within the CCSP via a traffic safety audit. Undertake a physical trial of the 90º parking arrangement contained within the CCSP, should the safety audit recommend this as a next step.

Initiate the detailed design for Programme 244 Square East Streetscape Upgrade ($1,895,000) utilising the $193,000 allocated in the 2016/17 financial year.

Attachments

Nil

David Murphy

City Planning Manager

Jon Schwass

Roading Manager

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: Pedestrian Facilities and Safety (NZTA) - March 2017

DATE: 20 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Glenn Connelly, Senior Transportation Engineer, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee note the progress and actions regarding pedestrian safety and crossing facilities on State Highways in Palmerston North to be formally raised with the New Zealand Transport Agency, in particular on:

· State Highway 3 between Roberts Line and Stoney Creek Road

· State Highway 3 on Princess Street fronting UCOL

· State Highway 57 on Aokautere Drive fronting the Summerhill Shopping Centre

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Planning and Policy Committee at its 7 March 2016 meeting considered a report titled ‘Pedestrian Facilities Update on Remedial Works and Improvements’ dated 22 February 2016 from the Senior Transportation Engineer (Glenn Connelly).

1.2 The Committee in consideration of that report resolved that the Council seek quarterly updates of progress to improve pedestrian safety on State Highways from the road controlling authority; the New Zealand Transport Agency (The Agency). Reference Resolution 8-16 below.

8-16 Pedestrian Facilities Update on Remedial Work and Improvements

8.2 That a quarterly report be placed on the Committee Work Schedule that provides an update on the NZTA progress and plan for future work related to improvement of pedestrian safety, with the next report due to the June 2016 Planning and Policy Committee meeting.

1.3 Arising from submissions to Council’s 2015/25 Ten Year Plan, the Road Planning Team Leader (David Lane) reported to the Planning and Policy Committee’s 1 August 2016 meeting regarding pedestrian safety on State Highway 57 adjacent to the Summerhill Shopping Centre. The report was titled ‘Aokautere Drive Pedestrian Facilities’ and dated 22 July 2016. Consideration of this report led to the Committee recommending a technical investigation is carried out, as per Resolution 53-16 below.

53-16 Aokautere Drive Pedestrian Facilities

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the Chief Executive be instructed to undertake a technical investigation of pedestrian facilities in Aokautere Drive by the Summerhill Shopping Centre to Pacific Drive and report back in February 2017.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Pedestrians are vulnerable in the road network and their safety warrants special attention. This includes pedestrian safety on highways within Palmerston North which are under the jurisdiction of The Agency.

New Zealand Transport Agency - General

2.2 The Agency has jurisdiction for State Highways 3, 54, 56 and 57 in Palmerston North as shown in Figure 1 on the following page. Highways are coloured red and labelled with the State Highway shield.

2.3 The Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) maintains all footpaths on public roads within the City including those on State Highways. The Agency may do work on footpaths and / or pram crossings but this is generally only when it is associated with other road carriageway work; for example when an intersection is upgraded.

2.4 The Agency generally deals with issues of pedestrian safety on a case by case basis, usually when raised by the public or by stakeholders. They are not aware of any site that has a significant history of pedestrian crashes in the Palmerston North region.

2.5 The Agency monitor crash statistics on an ongoing basis and would address any matter should it arise. They also have their contractors regularly monitoring network performance albeit this has a focus on rural / high speed roads where the risk of injury is higher.

2.6 The Agency is obliged to consider funding for all safety works in terms of their priority and likely benefits. This typically means that the Agency targets its funding where an objective assessment identifies that there is a safety issue and it should be treated as priority.

Figure 1 State Highways in Palmerston North

2.7 The Agency have and continue to be supportive of other parties, such as PNCC, who may wish to promote and fund pedestrian safety improvements on State Highways that may not be a current priority for the Agency.

2.8 The following specific issues have and / or continue to be discussed with the Agency.

State Highway 3 / Roberts Line

2.9 The Agency completed a strategic business case called ‘Accessing Central New Zealand’ at the end of 2016. Workshops with stake holders in association with the strategic business case identified issues along State Highway 3 (Napier Road) from the urban area at Keith Street through to Stoney Creek Road. The Agency given the importance of these issues is looking to accelerate the business case process and progress straight to a detailed business case. This will look at issues along the State Highway 3 corridor, and in particular the safety issues at the three intersections at Roberts Line, James Line and Stoney Creek Road. The Agency has advised they will work closely with Palmerston North City Council and other stakeholders to identify infrastructure improvements that will address safety and operational issues.

2.10 The Agency have indicated that the detailed business case will be completed between April and August 2017; after which design will occur with construction potentially commencing in December 2017.

UCOL Crossing on Princess Street

2.11 The matter of pedestrian safety for people using the refuge island outside UCOL on Princess Street was considered as part of the Campus Development Plan for UCOL; developed in conjunction between by the Council’s City Future Unit and UCOL. Mark Read of Beca Consultants, who was working for Council on secondment, produced a draft report titled ‘Princess Street Pedestrian Facility Assessment’ dated 18^th August 2015 (copy attached) to help inform the development of the Campus Development Plan. The Beca Report considered facilities provided for pedestrians on Princess Street between Grey Street and Broadway Avenue.

2.12 Beca’s Princess Street assessment, by way of context, noted that there had been one reported pedestrian crash on Princess Street between Grey Street and Broadway Ave within 10 years. Furthermore that crash modelling, as per the New Zealand Transport Agency’s ‘Economic Evaluation Manual’ suggests that one pedestrian crash would occur every 11 to 14 years depending on the number of people crossing the road.

2.13 There were also a considerable number of pedestrians crossing Princess Street in various locations along the block as shown in Figure 2 on the following page. The highest number of pedestrians crossing Princess Street occurred at the existing refuge island (Section 4).

2.14 The assessment of pedestrian facilities referenced the New Zealand Transport Agency’s ‘Guidelines for the Selection of Pedestrian Facilities’. The comments for each of the options considered follow in paragraphs 2.15 to 2.23 with direct excerpts from the report identified in quotes.

Median Refuge and Kerb Extensions

2.15 “Under the NZ Transport Agency’s guidelines both the median refuge and kerb extensions are appropriate treatments for pedestrians crossing this section of Princess Street. There is sufficient width to maintain two lanes in each direction without creating a hazard. The level of service for the current pedestrian facilities as measured within the New Zealand Transport Agency’s guidelines is Very Good. An average pedestrian delay would be expected to be between 5 and 10 seconds.” (Reference Section 3.1.2).

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph & Pedestrian Movements

Zebra Crossing

2.16 “Princess Street between Grey Street and Broadway Avenue is a four lane, two way, median divided road with a wide shoulder for parking. The need for pedestrians to cross more than two lanes of moving traffic and high traffic volumes mean a zebra crossing is not an appropriate pedestrian facility for this situation.” (Reference Section 3.1.3)

2.17 Further to this, zebra crossings on multi-lane roads present a significant risk to pedestrians. Whilst a driver in one lane may yield, a driver in the next lane could continue to travel through; potentially at speed with the view of between driver and pedestrian obscured by the stationary vehicle.

2.18 A zebra crossing would therefore be inappropriate.

Traffic Signals

2.19 The existing refuge island is approximately 125m in each direction from the traffic signals at Grey Street and the other set at Broadway Avenue. This is within accepted parameters for pedestrian convenience. Guidelines suggest that it is reasonable for pedestrians to use an adjacent signalised intersection when they are within 150 metres. Red arrows to provide partial protection for pedestrians from turning traffic have recently been installed at the Princess Street / Broadway Ave intersection. The Princess Street / Grey Street traffic signals also have red arrows to protect pedestrians crossing the road.

2.20 The Princess Street Pedestrian Report indicates that “Traffic signals would be considered where there is a drop in the level of service provided by the existing pedestrian’s facilities or a crash risk. As mentioned above the level of service currently being provided by the median refuge and kerb extensions is Very Good. There is also not an observed or predicted safety risk that would warrant installation of traffic signals at this location.” (Reference Section 3.1.4). The Agency is therefore unlikely to fund pedestrian traffic signals outside UCOL.

2.21 Council could consider funding traffic signals themselves at an approximate cost of $100k to $120k. In this case approval would be need from the Agency who would be obliged to consider the balance between safety and efficiency of motorists on the State Highway. Pedestrian signals could be coordinated with the traffic signals at Grey Street and Broadway Ave to minimise delay to motorists however this would introduce delay to pedestrians; typically a pedestrian phase on an arterial would be managed to minimise delay to motorists and run every one to two minutes.

2.22 Traffic signals would therefore not only increase delay for motorists but also to pedestrians, who rather than wait for the traffic signal phase may just cross Princess Street as the currently do; using the centre island or median as a refuge. There is a demand for pedestrians to cross Princess Street over its length; whilst one third of surveyed pedestrians currently use the existing centre island traffic signals are unlikely to attract more use if they are have greater delay. New traffic signals would be of greatest benefit for those who are less mobile or less confident although the existing Grey Street and Broadway Avenue traffic signals cater for these users.

Replace Parking with Landscaping

2.23 Beca’s assessment also suggested replacing some car parking near the existing centre island with landscaping to promote use of the island, as some pedestrians casually cross Princess Street using the flush median. This could require the removal of parking; whilst UCOL would be most affected the parking may also be of interest to other land owners and / or businesses. Any controls to restrict pedestrian movement would therefore need to significant and robust in context with the degree of inconvenience; for example carpet roses and / or potentially fencing.

Conclusions & Recommendations – Princess St

2.24 Beca concludes in the assessment that the crash record does not warrant significant intervention, and that pedestrian use of the current centre island and pedestrian behaviour is good. Furthermore that the existing pedestrian facilities are the most appropriate type of facility for this location and that the other assessed options are unlikely to improve the situation for pedestrians.

2.25 The assessment recommended that further investigation of pedestrian movements be undertaken to help better understand pedestrian use and behaviour in the area.

2.26 The draft Beca assessment provides a sound basis to consider pedestrian facilities and safety on this stretch of Princess Street and it is being used to inform the development of the UCOL Campus Development Plan. The draft assessment will be shared and discussed with the Agency.

Summerhill Shops & Crossing Aokautere Drive (State Highway 57)

2.27 A report titled ‘Summerhill Drive Walking and Cycling Improvements’ (The Summerhill Drive Report) written by ViaStrada dated November 2016 was commissioned by Council to investigate pedestrian and cycle facilities in the Summerhill Drive area. The report covered the sections of road on Tennent Drive, Summerhill Drive and Aokautere Drive from the area surrounding the Summerhill Drive / Tennent Drive Flyover to Pacific Drive.

2.28 The Committee’s concern, as outlined in Resolution 53-16, relates to pedestrians crossing Aokautere Drive near the Summerhill Shopping Centre and the Institute of the Pacific United New Zealand (IPU). This is referred to as Segment 7 in the report and is only one of the eight segments of road considered.

2.29 The following comments provide background and context. The Summerhill Drive Report acknowledged that there has been consistent urban growth in the area which is expected to continue. It noted that the area has substantial development; that there are eight existing intersections plus the shopping centre and IPU entrances within the 1.4 km of Aokautere Drive between Titirangi Drive and Old West Road.

2.30 Increased development is a catalyst and fundamental requirement of reducing the speed limit in accordance with the Land Transport (Setting Speed Limits) Rule 2003. The speed limit on Aokautere Drive was reduced from 100 kph to 80 kph around the year 2000 and subsequently reduced further to 70kph in 2008/09.

2.31 The Summerhill Drive Report recommends the following.

Raised Median

2.32 The installation of an extensive tree lined raised median or median islands which would provide additional protection for pedestrian waiting in the middle of Aokautere Drive was promoted in the Summerhill Report (see Drawing No 997/46 Sht 5 and 6 attached). This is depicted in Figure 3 below. Breaks with turning bays are suggested to cater for all existing turning movements.

Figure 3 Summerhill Drive – Median Island Concept

Rationalise Right Turn Bays

2.33 The Summerhill Report also recommended the rationalisation of the right turn bays for turns into Pacific Drive and Ruapehu Drive within the proposed raised median. This will improve visibility for turning motorists and provide an opportunity for another crossing facility (centre island) near Pacific Drive (see Drawing No 997/46 Sht 25 attached).

Relocate & Reduce the Crossing Distance of the Existing Facility

2.34 Relocation of the pedestrian crossing facility outside the Summerhill Shops was also recommended; 80m to the west with additional island work to allow pedestrians to cross a single lane of traffic at a time. This is a significant improvement over the existing facility as the crossing distance would be reduced from 7.5m and 10.5m either side of the island to 5.5m or less. This improves pedestrian convenience, reduces exposure (time a pedestrian is in the traffic lane) and may also help moderate vehicle speeds.

Side Road Refuge Islands

2.35 Improvements to the refuge island on Ruapehu Drive near Aokautere Drive are recommended along with the installation of a new refuge island on Pacific Drive.

Lower Speed

2.36 The Summerhill Drive Report also recommends consideration of lowering the speed limit. This is particularly important if the pedestrian facilities do not require motorists to yield to pedestrians or slow substantially; such as would occur if traffic signals or a roundabout were installed. The Agency would need to review the speed limit in accordance with legislation and then set the speed limit via bylaw, which typically would take six months or longer. A lower speed limit increase delay to the motorists and the Agency would have to consider this against any improvements for pedestrian safety.

Roundabout

2.37 The Summerhill Drive Report suggested that a roundabout could be installed at the Aokautere Drive / Pacific Drive interaction as it would have the benefit of slowing traffic and providing a gateway to development (see Drawing No 997/46 Sht 26 attached). A roundabout however would introduce delay and the Agency would need to consider this along with any safety benefits.

Traffic Signals

2.38 The Summerhill Report by way of background referred to the ‘Aokautere Overbridge’ project of 2007/08 which reviewed pedestrian connectivity in the area. An option to install traffic signals with pedestrian facilities at the Ruapehu Drive intersection was considered. The Agency however at that time was of the opinion that the traffic volumes were not sufficient to warrant the installation of traffic signals. Traffic volumes have increased from 7,000, to 8,000 vehicles per day in 2007/08 to approximately 9,500 vehicles per day now in 2015. Traffic signals would introduce delay for highway traffic and pedestrians. Accordingly pedestrian traffic signals would need to be considered in relation to whether pedestrians would wait and use them as well as balancing the safety and efficiency of the highway.

Conclusions - Summerhill

2.39 The Agency typically only fund facilities that have demonstrated safety risks. They are likely however to support Council funding improvements as long as they are not inconsistent with the intended function of the highway and have an appropriate balance between safety and efficiency.

2.40 Improving the existing islands has merit and has been priced at $230k although the extent of islands could be reduced to lower this cost and achieve significant benefits. The lower speed limit would also have merit in reducing the potential severity of any crash. A lower speed limit however would need to comply with legislation and have support from the Agency.

2.41 A roundabout or traffic signals would require specific assessment. Initial investigations indicate; based on the crash history, volumes and risk, that they would not be a priority for funding by the Agency.

2.42 The relevant section of the Summerhill Drive Report and plans are appended to this report.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 The Agency is developing the detailed business case for Napier Road (State Highway 3) in 2017 which will include consideration of pedestrian issues; including those near the Roberts Line intersection.

3.2 Beca’s report ‘Princess Street Pedestrian Facility Assessment’ dated 18^th August will be discussed with the Agency.

3.3 Improvements to Summerhill Drive pedestrian facilities have been identified and have merit. The installation, alteration and / or funding of the medians, islands and turn facilities are to be discussed and agreed with the Agency along with the possibility of reducing the speed limit; either now or in the future.

Attachments

1.	Princess Street Pedestrian Facility Assessment ⇩
2.	Summerhill Drive Walking and Cycling Improvements - Report: pages 12-15 ⇩
3.	Summerhill Drive Walking and Cycling Improvements - Plans: Sheets 5 and 6 ⇩
4.	Summerhill Drive Walking and Cycling Improvements - PLans: Sheet 25 - 26 ⇩

Glenn Connelly

Senior Transportation Engineer

Duncan McCann (Chairperson)
Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Leonie Hapeta
Susan Baty	Jim Jefferies
Rachel Bowen	Lorna Johnson
Adrian Broad	Karen Naylor
Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke	Bruno Petrenas
Vaughan Dennison	Tangi Utikere
Lew Findlay QSM