Agenda of Sport and Recreation Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Sport and Recreation Committee MEETING

6 March 2017

Order of Business

(NOTE: The commencement time for this meeting coincides with the commencement time for the Planning and Strategy and Council meetings. The format for the meeting will be that the Planning and Strategy 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 meeting the Planning and Strategy meeting will resume to consider its business. At the conclusion of the Planning and Strategy meeting, the Council meeting will resume to consider its business.)

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. Presentation - Gravel and Tar Race Page 7

5. Presentation - Winter Festival Page 27

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 29

“That the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 5 December 2016 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

7. Sport Manawatu 12 Month Report - 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 Page 35

Report, dated 13 February 2017 from the Senior Property & Parks Planner, Aaron Phillips.

8. Options for the Palmerston North City Council to obtain additional Lane Space at peak times at either Council-owned or other Pool facilities Page 71

Report, dated 14 February 2017 from the Leisure Asset Officer, Rob Bellad-Ellis.

9. Venue's Activity Report Page 81

Memorandum, dated 20 February 2017 from the Manager - Venues PN, John Lynch.

10. Palmerston North City Dog Park Page 95

Report, dated 1 November 2016 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

11. Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange Page 125

Report, dated 16 February 2017 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

12. Committee Work Schedule Page 145

Committee Work Schedule dated March 2017.

13. 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 Sport and Recreation Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 05 December 2016, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta (in the Chair), 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, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Councillor Duncan McCann left the meeting at the adjournment at 12.37pm. He entered the meeting again at 2.04pm during consideration of clause 28. He was not present for clause 27.

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am

The meeting resumed at 11.48am

25-16

Public Participation at Meetings

Memorandum, dated 10 November 2016 from the Committee Administrator, Penny Odell.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee set aside a public comment section of not more than 30 minutes at the commencement of each ordinary meeting of the Committee to provide members of the community the opportunity to comment.

Clause 25.1 above was carried 16 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, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

26-16

Sport Manawatu 12 Month Report - 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016

Report, dated 9 November 2016 from the Senior Property & Parks Planner, Aaron Phillips.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council receives Sport Manawatu’s 12 month report for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

Clause 26.1 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 12.37pm

The meeting resumed at 1.38pm

When the meeting resumed Councillor Duncan McCann was not present.

27-16	Public Comment
	Public Comment was received from Nats Subramanian of Take me to the World regarding a tour to Manawatu by the Indian Cricket Academy.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Tangi Utikere. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Public Comment be received for information.
	Clause 27.1 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Councillor Duncan McCann entered the meeting at 2.04pm

28-16	Swimming Pool Management of Lane Space and Opening Hours Report, dated 24 November 2016 from the Leisure Assets Officer, Rob Bellad-Ellis. In discussion Elected Members requested that an investigation into further options within its own facilities, such as extended opening hours, be reported back to the Committee.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That Officers investigate options with other Pool owners with a view to either the PNCC or private users obtaining the use of additional lane space at peak times as described in Option 2 of the report dated 24 November 2016 and entitled “Swimming Pool Management of Lane Space and Opening Hours”.
	Clause 28.1 above was carried 12 votes to 4, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty and Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Vaughan Dennison. 2. That the Chief Executive be instructed to investigate options to increase capacity within Council’s existing facilities including costings and potential cost recovery and be brought back to Committee by March 2017. Clause 28.2 above was carried 14 votes to 2, 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, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Leonie Hapeta and Lorna Johnson.

29-16

Dittmer and Victoria Esplanade Reserves Powerco Easements

Report, dated 1 November 2016 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council resolves to grant an easement to Powerco for the installation of electrical cables from the proposed new cycle/pedestrian bridge at the Dittmer Reserve (legally described as Sec 1701 Town of Palmerston North Gazette Notice 593626) as shown in Attachment 2 of the report titled “Dittmer and Victoria Esplanade Reserves Powerco Easements”, dated 1 November 2016.

2. That Council exercise the delegated authority of the Minister of Conservation to grant an easement to Powerco for the installation of electrical cables from the proposed new bridge at the Dittmer Reserve as shown in Attachment 2 of the report titled, “Dittmer and Victoria Esplanade Reserves Powerco Easements”, dated December 2016.

3. That Council resolves to grant an easement to Powerco for the installation of electrical cables at Victoria Esplanade along the southern side of the boundary to Park Road (legally described as Sec 1536 Town of Palmerston North) as shown in Attachment 3 of the report titled, “Dittmer and Victoria Esplanade Reserves Powerco Easements”, dated 1 November 2016.

4. That Council exercise the delegated authority of the Minister of Conservation to grant an easement to Powerco for the installation of electrical cables at Victoria Esplanade along the southern side of the boundary to Park Road as shown in Attachment 3 of the report titled, “Dittmer and Victoria Esplanade Reserves Powerco Easements”, dated 1 November 2016.

5. That Council note that the requirements of Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 have been satisfied in relation to consultation with Iwi over granting an easement over Dittmer Reserve and an easement over the Victoria Esplanade for the installation of carrier pipes for electrical services.

6. That Council note that the requirements of Sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 have been satisfied in relation to public notification for the granting of easements over Dittmer Reserve and an easement over the Victoria Esplanade for the installation of carrier pipes for electrical services.

Clause 29.1 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

30-16

2017 Winter Festival

Memorandum, dated 21 November 2016 from the Manager - Community Engagement, Ian Littleworth.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Memorandum, dated 21 November 2016, and entitled “2017 Winter Festival”, be received.

Clause 30.1 above was carried 14 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Against:

Councillors Susan Baty and Karen Naylor.

31-16

Committee Work Schedule

Committee Work Schedule, dated December 2016.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive its Work Schedule dated December 2016.

Clause 31.1 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 2.53pm

Confirmed 6 March 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: Sport Manawatu 12 Month Report - 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016

DATE: 13 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Aaron Phillips, Senior Property & Parks Planner, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee receives Sport Manawatu’s 6 month report for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	As part of their contract Sport Manawatu are required to provide a 6 month reports on their activities.
OPTION 1:	Council receives Sport Manawatu’s 6 month report for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016.
Community Views	Community views have not been sought on Sport Manawatu’s 6 month report. Sport Manawatu provide examples of community feedback within their report.
Benefits	Sport Manawatu’s activities support Councils outcomes.
Risks	No risks are identified.
Financial	There are no financial implications for accepting Sport Manawatu’s 6 month report.
OPTION 2:	Council requests additional information from Sport Manawatu.
Community Views	Community views have not been sought on Sport Manawatu’s 6month report. Sport Manawatu provide examples of community feedback within their report.
Benefits	Greater clarity for Council on the activities further information is requested on.
Risks	No risks are identified for this option.
Financial	There are no financial implications in requesting further information other than additional Council officer time preparing a further report.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Sport Manawatu’s contract outcomes were set through the Community Funding Policy 2012 and its 2015 outcomes review. The outcomes were derived from the various Council strategies written to define how the vision of “Palmerston North is recognised as a vibrant, caring, innovative, sustainable and prosperous city” and the goals of “Palmerston North is a socially sustainable city where people want to live because of its safe and easy lifestyle and its many social, cultural and recreational opportunities” and Palmerston North is an economically sustainable city which attracts, fosters and retains businesses and jobs” would be achieved through external community agencies. The outcomes, derived from the Active Recreation and Events Strategies, that Sport Manawatu are contracted to deliver are: · People are more active, more often. · The Councils (PNCC and MDC) are able to work collaboratively with Sport Manawatu to help achieve the Council’s strategic aspirations. · The sport sector is able to build its capacity and capability whilst becoming more self-sustaining. · The sport sector has access to up-to-date, specialist, relevant, information and advice. · Arena Manawatu is the City hub for indoor community sport. · Manawatu is the best place in New Zealand to ride a bike. · Palmerston North has an excellent reputation for hosting national sports events. · There is a joined-up programme of community and high-performance cycling events in the Manawatu.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 This is the first report from Sport Manawatu under their new three year contract with PNCC. The contract is worth $461,500 (excl GST) per year of which $200,000 per year is distributed to sports events providers under the Sports Events Partnership Fund.

1.2 The contract is to deliver the following outcomes:

1. People are more active, more often.

2. The Councils (PNCC and MDC) are able to work collaboratively with Sport Manawatu to help achieve the Council’s strategic aspirations.

3. The sport sector is able to build its capacity and capability whilst becoming more self-sustaining.

4. The sport sector has access to up-to-date, specialist, relevant, information and advice.

5. Arena Manawatu is the City hub for indoor community sport.

6. Manawatu is the best place in New Zealand to ride a bike.

7. Palmerston North has an excellent reputation for hosting national sports events.

8. There is a joined-up programme of community and high-performance cycling events in the Manawatu.

1.3 This report covers their activities for the six months from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Sport Manawatu provided local public services as sought by Council under the 2012 Outcomes for Community Funding which were reviewed in 2015.

2.2 The services contracted to Sport Manawatu were advertised and proposals received for a three year funding agreement based on outcomes for 2016 to 2019. The funding process took place in late 2015. Sport Manawatu were successful in securing funding for $461,500, up $16,680 or 3.7% from the $444,820 in funding awarded under the previous contract in 2012.

2.3 The contract is bulk funded, and while a general outline of example activities is agreed in the contract it is up to Sport Manawatu to allocate the resources to achieve the outcomes.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option One: Council receives Sport Manawatu’s 6 month report for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016.

3.2 Option Two: Council requests additional information from Sport Manawatu.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 The following table considers the outcomes, and indicators of success from the Sport Manawatu Contract.

1. Outcome: People are more active, more often
Example Outputs (key tasks)		Indicators of success		Officer Comment on results
Sports starting or increased activity campaigns.		Sport Manawatu baseline data on priority sports increases. Greater use of Council facilities – hours of community use of Arena, sports field bookings.		· Participation data will be provided at the 12 month report. · Arena Manawatu Community hours of use were not available at the time of writing the report but will be provided in the Committee meeting. · The Green Prescriptions and Whānau Triathlon continue to deliver excellent results and make good use of Council provided facilities. · The Give Sport A Go trail sessions at the Central Energy Trust Arena showed solid participation and an opportunity for families to have a go at various activities together as shown in images in the report and observed by a Council Officer that went along. · Swim for Life, Kelvin Grove Touch and Sportstart programmes were also delivered.
2. Outcome: The Councils are able to work collaboratively with Sport Manawatu to help achieve the Council’s strategic aspirations.
Example Outputs (key tasks)		Indicators of success		Officer Comment on results
Presentations to committees of Council as required. Prompt responses to consultation and advice requests. Regular communication of their work and issues encountered.		Council staff report proactive partnership with Sport Manawatu staff. Council staff report they are well informed of Sport Manawatu activities and issues.		· Sport Manawatu’s Chief executive met quarterly with General Managers of City Future, City Networks and City Enterprises to monitor the contractual relationship. · Sport Manawatu are participating the Active Recreation Strategy review. · The monthly short reports ensure Council staff, management and elected officials are up to date with Sport Manawatu work. These reports are shifting to a quarterly rotation to reduce the reporting workload on Sport Manawatu staff. · The Regional Sports Facilities Plan work is underway and being led by Sport Manawatu. · Sport Manawatu are working with Arena Manawatu to develop Sports House.
3. Outcome: The sport sector is able to build its capacity and capability whilst becoming more self-sustaining
Example Outputs (key tasks)			Indicators of success			Officer Comment on results
Training and information seminars. Databases and directories. Programmes and/or work with clubs and groups to improve their sustainability.			Evidence of up-skilling in the sector. The proportion of Sport Manawatu total funding coming from Council decreases. Sport Manawatu work with clubs and groups to improve sustainability where required			· Up-skilling activities reported on included various coaching development initiatives. · Ongoing advice with assessments and strategic planning support. A number of sports were identified for capability support. Basketball is the focus of a “Whole of basketball plan”. · Volunteer development and recognition work continues well.
4. Outcome: The sport sector has access to up-to-date, specialist, relevant, information and advice
Example Outputs (key tasks)			Indicators of success			Officer Comment on results
· Database of clubs · Database of Facilities · Website · Experienced and skilled staff available. · Pushing out SportNZ Knowledge Library			Public can access information # hits on website. # hits on facilities database # of trainings completed. Description of staff work with clubs on information provision and advice.			· Sport Manawatu office hours are 8 am to 5 pm week days. · Website has been redeveloped. · The October newsletter was distributed to 1,300 stakeholders.
5. Outcome: Arena Manawatu is the City hub for indoor community sport.
Example Outputs (key tasks)			Indicators of success			Officer Comment on results
Developing and supporting increased use of Central Energy Trust Arena Manawatu^{^[1]}			Arena community hours of use increase.			· 6 events at Arena are listed as having had Sport Manawatu assistance. · Work with futsal appears strong. · There is excitement at the potential of the Glory League System of cameras to support a number of codes to take their sports to their supporters and deliver extra value to their players.
6. Outcome: Palmerston North is the best place in New Zealand to ride a bike
Example Outputs (key tasks)	Indicators of success				Officer Comment on results
Learn to cycle initiatives Cycling promotion campaigns Cycle routes are promoted Active Transport promotion Bikes in Schools	Participation in organised events or activities. Counts of cyclists through roading cyclist monitoring programme No of Schools that have cycle initiatives.				· The Active Transport Advisor has been busy including working with Active Fmailies and delivering learn to ride training. · 6 more schools worked on NZTA Grade 2 Cycle skills. · A joint calendar of cycling events is being considered through a Cycling Steering Group.
7. Outcome: Palmerston North has an excellent reputation for hosting national sports events.
Example Outputs (key tasks)	Indicators of success				Officer Comment on results
Events are secured and retained. Event support activities provide added value experiences.	Arena hosts 50% of the events. Participants report having a good time in Manawatu in post-event surveys. Number of North Island and national school events. Maintain or increase the economic benefits from events both: · Directly supported by Sport Manawatu (SPF) and · North Island or national events not supported by Sport Manawatu. · Evidence of Tikanga and Te Reo Māori are incorporated into national secondary school events.				· It has been a busy 6 months with 11 national, 2 Trans-Tasman and 1 international event held in the last 6 months. · In addition to the regular secured major events high numbers of hockey and futsal players featured. · The economic impact calculated for the $87,000 (excluding Badminton as no economic impact recorded) allocated from the Sports Events Partnership fund in the first 6 months was $3,405,000. This is on track to deliver similar results to last year.

8. Outcome: There is a joined-up programme of community and high-performance cycling events in the Manawatu

Example Outputs (key tasks)

Indicators of success

Officer Comment on results

High performance cycling event supported.

Community cycling events occur.

National media coverage.

Community cycling event and activity participation numbers.

· Tour de Manawatu assisted.

· NZ National Schools Cycling Championships assisted.

5. Financial Review:

5.1 Sport Manawatu accounts are presented at the 12 month report.

6. OTHER:

6.1 Sport Manawatu have revised their monthly Short Reports to a quarterly report in order to reduce reporting workloads. The monthly reports were an initiative of Sport Manawatu and a change to a quarterly Short Report will still mean Council is well informed.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Sport Manawatu continue to be excellent communicators, work proactively and cooperatively with Council and fulfil the expectations set for supporting and working towards the Community Outcomes.

8. Next actions

8.1 Thank Sport Manawatu for their work in the past 6 months.

9. Outline of community engagement process

9.1 Sport Manawatu conduct surveys of their events and programmes in order to inform reviews and planning for future programmes.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

Sport Manawatu 6 month report 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 ⇩

Aaron Phillips

Senior Property & Parks Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: Options for the Palmerston North City Council to obtain additional Lane Space at peak times at either Council-owned or other Pool facilities

DATE: 14 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Rob Bellad-Ellis, Leisure Asset Officer, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Chief Executive enter into negotiations with the Ashhurst Aquatic and Fitness Centre management to extend the existing contracted hours for public use during the winter months when the Lido Aquatic Centre outdoor pool is closed, subject to reaching agreement with swimming clubs willing to relocate their activities from the Lido Pool to the Ashhurst School Pool.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	There have been concerns over lack of lane space for swim clubs in the indoor lane pool at the Lido Aquatic Centre between 4pm and 8pm during week days in the winter months.
OPTION 1:	Contract with Ashhurst Aquatic and Fitness Centre for an extension of opening hours during the peak demand times
Community Views	The PN Swimming community members are generally supportive, although the details of the arrangement will need to be worked through.
Benefits	Sufficient lane space could be made available during peak times to satisfy the needs of the community for the foreseeable future.
Risks	The Ashhurst pool has capacity at the time required; identifying which clubs will be moved to relieve pressure at the Lido pool may cause tension.
Financial	Considerable additional financial outlay of approximately $34,000 per year might be expected, based on the present rate of $87/hour for 3 extra hours per weekday over the winter months.
OPTION 2:	Extending opening hours of existing Council owned facilities
Community Views	There have been submissions from individuals interested in lane swimming in previous years to extend the opening hours of the indoor lane pools to allow for late night access to the pools to avoid the overcrowding at earlier times. This already occurs at the Lido, which runs additional sessions every weeknight to 9.30pm. Not widely supported by the swim clubs due to negative impacts of the training late hours on younger children. The Freyberg Pool is currently used for canoe polo training after 8pm when the pool is closed to the public.
Benefits	A good option for members of the public interested in lane swimming later in the evening. An option for the older squads in the swim clubs. One group has expressed an interest in earlier opening times on Saturdays. This has been tried in the past but was stopped due to lack of numbers. This could be revisited on a trial basis.
Risks	Will cause conflicts with existing canoe polo users.
Financial	There is an additional cost of providing life guards and overheads in keeping the facility open later. This totals $20,800 for one additional hour per weekday for a winter season per pool. Analysis of the additional costs is noted in Appendix A
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Active Recreation Strategy for Palmerston North. Increasing participation in Active Recreation. This will occur by making facilities more available for both individual lane swimmers and swim clubs. Groups and organisations take a more proactive role in maintaining, managing and developing their facilities. By entering into a lease arrangement with AAFC the pool will be utilised more fully and PNCC will reduce the issue of lane space availability without the need for building a new indoor pool facility before the scheduled time.

Rationale for the recommendations1. Rationale for the recommendations

Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 There is a concern amongst present users that the availability of heated, indoor swimming lane space in public pools is restricted, particularly during the winter months at peak times. This in turn is impacting on the satisfaction levels of users, particularly the swimming club users and the private swimming instruction providers. The opening of outdoor pools in summer relieves most of the congestion.

1.2 The lack of pool space for certain sports such as water polo and underwater hockey cannot be addressed in Palmerston North as there is no existing venue of sufficient depth (1.8m overall) to allow these sports to take place. Sport Manawatu is in the process of investigating options.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 A survey has been carried out by CLM to assess the usage rates throughout the day (weekdays and weekends) of lane usage at both the Lido and Freyberg pool complexes, with particular emphasis on the number of swimmers per lane. These results, which indicated numbers were approaching the acceptable limit per lane but rarely exceeding it was reported to the Committee at its meeting of 5^th December 2016. The accepted National Standard for lane occupancy allows use by up to eight swimmers in a 25metre pool lane, but CLM limits use wherever possible to a more comfortable maximum of five.

2.2 Arising from that meeting Council resolved that

· That Officers investigate options with other pool owners with a view to either the PNCC or private users obtaining the use of additional lane space at peak times as described in Option 2 of the report dated 24 November 2016 and entitled “Swimming Pool Management of Lane Space and Opening Hours”.

· That the Chief Executive be instructed to investigate options to increase capacity within Council’s existing facilities including costings and potential cost recovery and be brought back to Committee by March 2017.

3. Description of options

As directed by Council, an investigation has been carried out to determine the availability of additional lane space at all three local school pools which meet the criteria for winter use (indoor and heated). These are:

· Palmerston North Boys High School Pool

· West End School Pool

· Ashhurst School Pool,

And also

· Extending opening hours of either or both of the Lido and Freyberg Pools (Discussion notes included in Appendix 1)

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Palmerston North BHS Pool

This is a 25m, 6 lane heated indoor pool owned and maintained by the Ministry of Education through the School. It is used solely for school activities such as competitive swimming, training, water polo and canoe polo by school teams and any spare capacity is reserved for school use. On approach, they have indicated that they do not see any opportunity to allow additional Council availability. Not recommended for PNCC consideration.

4.2 West End School Pool

This is a 25m, 6 lane heated indoor pool owned and maintained by the Ministry of Education through the School, but managed in its day-to-day operations by a private company, West End Aquatics / Nicholls Swim Academy, which has recently been joined in partnership by Hilton Brown Aquatics. This company has their own designated Swimming classes and sessions, does not offer any after-hours or private use facility, and has no interest in doing so. This company also runs a 50 metre pool in Marton. Not recommended for PNCC consideration.

4.3 Ashhurst School Pool

This is a 25m, 6 lane heated indoor pool owned and maintained by the Ministry of Education through the School, but managed in its day-to-day operations by a private company, Ashhurst Aquatic and Fitness Centre (AAFC). The PNCC already has an agreement in place with the Ashhurst School through which an annual subsidy is paid by Council to the School in order to offset the running costs of the pool. In return, the School contract with AAFC requires AAFC to reserve a number of lanes for open public use for a minimum of 345 hours during the year. The pool is currently open for public use well in excess of 345 hours. AAFC have indicated a willingness to discuss extending their opening hours from the present 5.15pm closure. There will be cost implications for this, but these are not finalised at this stage. This is the recommended option because the pool meets the requirement of being an indoor heated pool suitable for lane swimming, an agreement is already in place to allow public access to the pool and there is capacity for additional use within the critical time slot between 5pm and 8pm. The estimated cost for the additional use is in the order of $34,000. This is based on an hourly rate of $87 for 15 hours per week for 26 weeks. The implications of not being in the main Urban area are not seen as a severe limitation, and Palmerston North residents already travel to Ashhurst on a regular basis to use the Pool.

4.4 Extension of opening hours of either or both of the Lido and Freyberg Pools

This option has been investigated and research has shown that both venues have already increased their opening times through private bookings made and paid for by private clubs and users. The Lido operates through to 9.00pm on week nights, and Freyberg through to 9.30pm. Some spare capacity may be available during these times, but this fluctuates according to numbers. The cost is estimated to be $20,800 for one additional hour per weekday for a winter season per pool. (5 x 26 x $160)

Refer to Appendix 1 for more detailed analysis and cost breakdowns.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Three pools met the basic criteria of required facilities. Of the three, Ashhurst School Pool is the recommended option because the pool meets the requirement of being an indoor heated pool suitable for lane swimming, an agreement is already in place to allow public access to the pool and there is capacity for additional use within the critical time slot between 5pm and 8pm.

6. Next actions

6.1 Council will begin discussions with the management of the Ashhurst Aquatic and Fitness Centre to allow swimming clubs who currently use the Lido pool to access the the Ashhurst School Pool from the current closing time of 5.15pm until 8pm and negotiate the cost of doing this.

6.2 The next action will be to work with all swim clubs and organisations in order to best allocate and utilise any additional hours negotiated with the Ashhurst Aquatic and Fitness Centre.

6.3 If necessary, negotiate with CLM to extend the current hours of use for the Lido Aquatic Centre indoor lane pool and the Freyberg Community Pool to allow more Public use outside the presently designated hours.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 There have been submissions to previous Draft Annual Plan processes from individual lane swimmers complaining that lane space is at a premium and that the minimum of two lanes for public usage has not been adhered to. This has been taken up with CLM who manage the pools on behalf of Council and monitored more closely.

7.2 In August 2016 a coach from the Dannevirke Swimming Club approached Council regarding the issue of lane space at the Lido Aquatic Centre and expressed a desire for a redistribution of allocated lanes between the swim clubs. This is an operational matter for CLM to manage, however it was agreed that the issue should be reported to the December 2016 Sport and Recreation Committee at the same time as the results of the winter lane usage survey.

7.3 Prior to the December 2016 report a meeting was facilitated by Sport Manawatu to invite the swim clubs and other stakeholders to a meeting to discuss the issues they face in the City regarding access to lanes for swimming. Eleven people representing seven clubs attended. The concerns were noted and a follow up meeting was to be held in January 2017. This has not occurred at the time of writing but will happen in the first half of 2017.

7.4 Regular meetings have been held with CLM as issues have arisen with lane usage. CLM carried out the survey of pool usage on behalf of Council.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>	No	Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>
Are the decisions significant?	No	Are the decisions significant?
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No	If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No	Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No	Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes	Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No	Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

Appendix 1

ADDITIONAL OPENING HOURS AT THE LIDO AND FREYBERG POOLS

It has been proposed that an extension to the present opening hours of the Lido and Freyberg Pool Complexes might provide a solution to the concern of peak-time over-crowding of pool lanes in the City, although research shows that these peak-time numbers (at a usual maximum of 5 swimmers per lane) are still below the Nationally acceptable limit of 8 swimmers per 25m lane. Customer satisfaction with the facilities provided remains high (see previous report tabled 5 December 2016), but surveys undertaken over the Summer months still indicate a preference by swimmers for a maximum of three swimmers per lane for casual use, and an unattainable single swimmer per lane for those training for events.

The pools are both managed under a contractual agreement with CLM, who run the day-to-day operations of the pools and provide the required staffing levels and essential maintenance.

Present public opening hours for the Lane pool at the Lido are:

Monday – Friday 6.00am – 8.00pm, Saturdays and Sundays 8.00am – 8.00pm

In Summer, the opening of the outdoor pools relieves any congestion of the indoor pools.

Present public opening hours for the Freyberg pool are:

Monday – Friday 6.00am – 7.00pm, Saturdays and Sundays 8.00am – 6.00pm.

The extension of these hours, either earlier or later, has been discussed as a possible solution to accommodate maximum demand mainly between 3.30pm and pool closing.

CLM have been approached to provide a more detailed breakdown of the estimated cost of each additional hour of opening. This is as follows:

· Additional Staff Wages $25 / hour / person, min 2 required

· Additional Pool testing $2.60 / hour

· Additional cleaning $5.00 / hour

· Additional Power $76.50 / hour

· Additional Gas $15.30 / hour

The normal standard hourly charge-out rate for additional hours is $160.00, which would be seen as the figure CLM would charge, as it covers a second staff member (required for security) and a small profit. This totals $20,800 for one additional hour per weekday for a Winter season per pool.

There is some doubt, however, that additional hours of opening will have the desired effect of providing more lane space for public use. Privately-funded after-hours activities are already scheduled as club events at both the Lido and Freyberg Pools, running from 7.00pm to as late as 9.30pm. These hours are not seen as appropriate times for anyone of say Intermediate School age or under, particularly on a night before a school day, and similarly an early-morning start is not seen as appropriate for younger users. This restriction is therefore likely to limit possible later use by any Learn to Swim classes or most sports, Surf Lifeguard training and many community activities, which will continue to try to operate in the period between 3.30pm and 7.00pm when most lane congestion occurs.

It should be noted that individual lane swimming per se is not the sole criterion for consideration – most lanes (often up to 4 out of 6 at the Lido) are booked for group use, mainly Learn to Swim classes or Club activities and training sessions between the hours of 3.30pm and 7.00pm, and these activities place the greatest strain on the facility. This strain can take the form of capacity issues, general crowding, noise, water disturbance and other concentration-breaking behaviour for the serious swimmer. Unfortunately, for many swimmers there is little choice of alternate times due to work/school commitments.

Scheduled after-hours events taking place at the Lido (on weeknights only):

Monday – Friday 8.00pm to 9.00pm : Dannevirke Swim Club (despite the name, they are PN-based, and are not necessarily present on days other than Tuesdays and Fridays, notwithstanding their Monday to Friday bookings, as numbers fluctuate).

Tuesday and Thursday 8.00pm to 9.00pm : PN Surf Lifesaving Club training.

These two activities use all six available lanes, but two (or more) lanes could possibly be made available on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays by restricting the Swim Club access to 4 lanes, as happens on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Scheduled after-hours events at Freyberg:

Mondays and Fridays 7.00pm to 9.00pm Canoe Polo during peak season (June to October)

Tuesdays, Wednesday and Thursdays 7.00pm to 9.30pm Canoe Polo all year round

Saturdays – last Saturday of each month is Ladies Only Night from 6.00pm to 8.00pm Oct – April.

Canoe polo is not lane-based, and the full length and breadth of the pool is used, precluding any simultaneous use by others.

Note: Neither of these lists includes one-off or special events such as parties, family celebrations, community events or other private bookings which are accommodated at various times.

From this it is apparent that there is actually very little scope for increasing use through extending opening hours, as most of the concentrated use is by young people who can only reasonably be expected to make use of the hours between 3.30pm and, at the latest, 9.00pm. Some flexibility exists for either earlier or later opening times over weekends, but these have proved to be less than popular in the past (from anecdotal reports). Spare capacity exists at Freyberg between 7.00pm and 9.00pm on Mondays and Fridays, but unfortunately only over summer, when there is little pressure anyway.

INITIAL THOUGHTS AND NOTES

The other option is to attempt to increase lane availability in Winter (in Summer, the opening of the 50m outdoor pool at the Lido removes all congestion of the indoor pools through the provision of an additional 6 lanes throughout the day). A Winter increase in lanes can only be provided through:

· Providing a new, heated, indoor pool venue. This would be a long-term, very expensive proposal, and is not seen as anything like a viable option at this stage, although the present LTP new-build date of 2030 may need to be reassessed.

· Coming to an agreement with Private Pool owners to allow use by Clubs of any spare capacity in their pools at peak times, particularly between the hours of 3pm to 9pm. The use of Linton Camp Pool is not considered, as NZDF security provisions preclude any private use, although this is apparently not rigidly enforced for special cases. The Ohakea Base Pool is similarly restricted.

· A Regional Strategy provided through Sport Manawatu. Marton, Foxton, and Feilding have indoor heated pools and may provide alternate venues. Distance might be seen as a problem, but groups are apparently already travelling as far as Levin or Wellington on a regular basis. Marton Pool is operated by the same company as operates the West End School pool, with similar caveats on use.

· None of the “special” sport uses – Water polo, Underwater Hockey or Diving - is possible at any indoor heated pool in the City, as no existing pool is deep enough over the full length or width to accommodate these sports. Users will continue to be forced to travel to other venues or to practice and play in less than ideal conditions.

· All of the Clubs contacted, whether Sports or Learn to Swim clubs, were adamant that the social responsibility of their activities was paramount, and that their function was primarily an important life-preserving training aid of considerable benefit to the Community.

Attachments

Nil

Rob Bellad-Ellis

Leisure Asset Officer

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: Palmerston North City Dog Park

DATE: 1 November 2016

AUTHOR/S: Jason Pilkington, Leisure Assets Planner, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council endorse Waitoetoe Park as the preferred site for a Palmerston North Dog Park.

2. That the specific site location and details of the dog park are determined within the wider context of preparing and adopting the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan.

3. That Council note that a draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan will be brought to Council by June 2017.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity

To develop a dog-friendly, fully accessible, off-leash area for dogs and dog owners to socialise, exercise and train together.

OPTION 1:

Community Views

Benefits

Risks

Financial

Waitoetoe Park

In general the local community has been extremely positive at the prospect of further development of the dog off-leash area at Waitoetoe Park.

Currently a dog off-leash area under the Dog Control Bylaw, distance from neighbours, existing facilities and opportunities associated with the site, connected to the Manawatū River Pathway (right bank), existing noise bund, large land parcel, existing popular place for dog-owners to meet up and socialise, relatively central and accessible, additional works provide benefits to other park users.

In the river flood plain, potential for vandalism.

$70,000-$90,000 (assuming scale identified by the community during Linklater Reserve Development Plan consultation).

OPTION 2:

Community Views

Benefits

Risks

Financial

Riverside Drive (Horizons Regional Council land)

There is a very small local community potentially affected by a dog park at this site and they were not consulted at this stage. Officers would engage them for their views if Council decide to pursue this option for a dog park.

Very few neighbours, easy access, large land parcel, connected to Riverside Pathway, higher usage might decrease current vandalism at site.

Vandalism, concerns with the intersection, dogs in an area with horses and stock, not an existing popular dog walking area, site is in existing Horizons flood plain, existing leases on the land.

$120,000 – $140,000 (assuming scale identified by the community during Linklater Reserve Development Plan consultation. Additional costs associated with this site stem from running/providing water and constructing toilet facilities).

OPTION 3:

Community Views

Benefits

Risks

Financial

Coronation Park

Officers to engage local views if Council decide to pursue this option for a dog park.

Relatively central location, parking and access, existing facilities, lines of sight.

Close to sports fields and children, requires amendment to Palmerston North Dog Control Policy, user conflicts, not a current or known dog walking area, size.

$70, 000 -90,000 (assuming scale identified by the community during Linklater Reserve Development Plan consultation).

Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction

City Goals: the recommendation will foster an increase of recreational opportunities.

Active Recreation Strategy: the recommendation will increase both opportunities and participation in active recreation.

Manawatu River Framework: identification of suitable spaces for dog parks (along the Manawatū River).

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 During the 2014/15 Annual Plan submissions, the community identified the need for a fenced, off-leash dog socialisation and training area within an existing park in Palmerston North. The site would need to be accessible, have basic utilities and dog agility equipment, be far enough away from neighbours so as not to cause noise issues and yet be central enough to attract users. The Linklater Reserve was initially identified as the recommended site option.

1.2 In June 2016 Councillors were informed that the Linklater Reserve would be an expensive site, if Council was to ensure suitable accessibility. Council then directed Officers to consider alternative sites and report back by December 2016. Officers have completed a detailed analysis of alternative sites and developed a recommendation to fill the current gap identified by the Community.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 During the development of the 2014/15 Annual Plan Councillors heard a number of submissions from members of the public in favour of the development of a dog park in Palmerston North. In response, Council provided funding in the 2014/15 Annual Plan for the development of a dog park.

2.2 Officers engaged the services of Opus to assess a number of sites for a dog park. To achieve this Opus completed background research on dog parks across New Zealand and engaged with some key Palmerston North stakeholders. Eighteen sites were subjected to some basic criteria, and three stood out across the city: The Linklater Reserve, Waitoetoe Park and Summerhill Reserve.

2.3 Officers engaged with the community while consulting on the Linklater Reserve Development Plan. During this consultation period (including an open-day which attracted more than 1000 residents) residents identified a fenced, off leash dog socialisation and training area as a key feature for that reserve. The funding for the dog park was therefore incorporated into the Linklater Reserve Development Plan, and therefore no separate Programme for the dog park was required. Within the context of the Linklater Reserve Development Plan, the funding for the dog park would become available in the 2017/18 financial year.

2.4 Once the Linklater Reserve became more firm as the dog park site, Council received some complaints from neighbours regarding potential noise from barking dogs. In order to address potential noise issues, Officers contacted Acousafe Engineering for advice. Acousafe advised that a 200m distance to neighbours from the dog park was desirable, in most general circumstances. In order to meet the 200m distance to the complainant’s house, and to meet the requirement for accessibility, an expensive access way was required.

2.5 The financial and physical limitations on the site were thereby considered too restrictive. A report on the dog park location was then put to Council on 13 June 2016 recommending that alternative sites for the dog park be investigated. The Council resolution was, “That the Chief Executive assess alternative site options for the location of a dog park, given that the Linklater Reserve is constrained, and report back to the Committee by December 2016”.

2.6 In light of the noise complaint and the recommendation by Acousafe engineering, further analysis revealed that Summerhill Reserve (initially identified by Opus) was also too close to neighbouring houses to be considered a dog park site.

2.7 Officers then revisited the possible sites, taking into consideration the recommendations from Acousafe Engineering regarding noise and distance to neighbours, for potential dog park locations. The best three were identified, and Acousafe were then contracted to provide a noise assessment for each site (see Attachment 1). All three site locations in the options received a positive noise assessment. The only location from the earlier Opus work to remain a viable option was Waitoetoe Park.

3. Description of options

3.1 When considering whether a physical area would be suitable for a dog park a number of criteria were considered. They were:

· Size and shape of area (over 3000 square metres, not too awkward a shape)

· The area is already a popular dog area and a dog off-leash area under the bylaw

· Noise – distance to residential properties (200m distance, in general)

· Accessibility/amenity (parking, toilet, ease of access for elderly, etc.)

· Visual impact on the surroundings

· Safety – sight lines, moderate numbers of people in the area, etc.

· User conflict

Note: these are only the physical limitations on site selection, and are not full design considerations for a dog park.

3.2 In the early analysis of parks, Opus identified 18 potential sites. This was prior to being made aware of noise restrictions by Acousafe Engineering. These sites were:

· Drainage Reserve area off Rugby Street;

· Ashhurst Terrace walkway;

· Frederick Krull Reserve and Walkway;

· Schnell Wetland Walkway;

· Poutoa Walkway;

· Titoki Walkway;

· Manawatu Riverside Walkway and Bridal Track excluding the section between the Fitzherbert Bridge and the Palmerston North Holiday Park;

· Mangaone Stream Walkway (except where it passes through the Awapuni Racecourse);

· Pari Reserve and Walkway (previously known as Mangaotane);

· Upper Celano Park;

· The Ruamahanga Wilderness Area;

· Edwards Pit Park;

· Waitoetoe Park;

· Tutaki Road (Old Domain);

· Riverside Drive (Horizons Regional Council);

· Durham Street Park;

· Linklater Reserve;

· Awatea Terrace Reserve;

· “Railway” land;

· Turitea Wetland Reserve;

· The Upper Circuit of the Ashhurst Domain, except for those parts of the walkway which pass through Prohibited Public Places or Dog on leash areas;

· Upper Coronation Park.

3.3 In addition to the criteria and initial analysis produced by Opus, Officers included an additional consideration: 200 metres to neighbouring houses minimum distance. None of the listed parks met the criteria initially, and so could not reasonably be expected to meet the new addition (200m distance to neighbours). It was therefore decided to add two more areas that could meet the 200m restriction:

· Upper Coronation Park;

· Riverside Drive.

3.4 Option 1: Waitoetoe Park. The entire 10,500 square meter reserve is part of the Manawatū River Framework. The site is close to toilets, there is suitable on-site parking and issues with accessibility to the site are manageable. The preferred site is 200 plus metres away from neighbours.

3.5 Waitoetoe Park and the area encompassed throughout is a site of significance to Rangitāne. In particular the Ahimāte Pa was situated directly adjacent to the beach access entrance point. Further up towards the Higgins landsite and landfill area is the Rangitāne Pa site, and between these two sites on the opposite side of the Manawatū River is the Kuripaka Pa site.

3.6 It was therefore important that options were discussed early with Rangitāne in order to respect the cultural sensitivity associated with this site. Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees and Tanenuiarangi Manawatū Incorporated (TMI) did not have any concerns regarding a dog park at this site. Ngāti Hineaute Hapū Authority had concerns regarding the placement of the dog park in the vicinity of the Ahimāte Pa site. The initial site options are located on the aerial map below. It should be noted that the option on the old Allied Concrete Works concrete pads (on the right in the aerial photo) came too far into the Ahimāte Pa Site proper for Ngāti Hineaute. The option on the west (on the left of the aerial photo) was not ideal regarding distance to neighbours, as described by Acousafe Engineering during an on-site visit.

3.7 A site visit was conducted with a Ngāti Hineaute representative (Chris Whaiapu) and a suitable area for future site location was agreed. It was agreed that the any future location should sit out of the Ahimāte Pa site proper but not so far south as to move into the Rangitāne Pa site area. The map below describes the indicative area negotiated with Ngāti Hineaute. Please note that the circles in the aerial below are only indicative areas as worked through with representatives.

The photo below shows the potential dog park location as seen on the ground, with the back turned to the Manawatū River facing the Waitoetoe Park carpark.

3.8 Waitoetoe Park is currently a Dog Exercise Area under Section 8.2 (m) of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011. This area allows dogs to exercise off leash but must remain under the control of the owner. Opus identified Waitoetoe Park as a potential site for a dog park, and the area is already extremely popular with dog owners from across the city; and has been for a number of years.

3.9 Waitoetoe Park was recently under consultation in order to develop the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan. Consultation has revealed significant support for this location for a dog park. The site received a positive noise assessment. The noise assessment was carried out on 2 potential sites, one of which was found unfavourable through the community engagement process. The current recommended site provides an additional 100m distance to neighbours (300 metre total distance to the nearest neighbour) and would therefore be even more appropriate when noise/disturbance generated by dogs’ barking is taken into account.

3.10 Option 2: Upper Coronation Park. The 3,000 - 4,000 square meter area rests on the upper portion of the Coronation Park adjacent to Railway land. There is suitable parking, the site is 200 plus meters away from neighbours and there are toilets at the opposite end of the park. This site would have a high degree of accessibility from the car park to the dog park.

The aerial below shows the indicative area for a potential dog park location at Coronation Park. The Tremaine Ave properties are approximately 200 metres from the location.

The photo below shows the potential site from the car parking area looking north-east. Tremaine Ave is to the right, and the Palmerston North Railway Station is to the left of the view.

3.11 The site was anecdotally a popular dog off-leash area at one point in the past. Coronation Park however is currently identified as a sports field, and as such dogs are prohibited on this park under Section 6.1 (d) of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011. Accordingly, if this site was to be developed as a dog park, there Council would need to amend the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011.

3.12 This site received a positive noise assessment, as per Attachment 1, Section 4.1.

3.13 Option 3: Riverside Drive. This 14,000 square meter site is owned by Horizons Regional Council and is currently leased for grazing. Council has suitable car parking in this area. The site links to a pathway that forms part of the Manawatū Riverside Pathway. There are no toilets or easy access to water.

3.14 This section of the Manawatu Riverside Pathway is a Dog Exercise Area under Section 8.2 (m) of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011; however the Horizons land would revert to a Dog on Leash Area under Section 7.1 (b) of that policy, if it became a public space.

3.15 The current lease expires in 2021. Any dog park on this location prior to 2021 would have to be negotiated with the existing leaseholder. The site is on Horizons flood plain, and Horizons have indicated a willingness to negotiate with Council.

3.16 The intersection at Riverside Drive and Te Matai Road does not provide clear site lines for cars coming through that intersection. Improvements to this intersection are about to be undertaken.

3.17 This site received a positive noise assessment, as per Attachment 1, Section 4.2.

The aerial below shows the indicative area where a dog park location might be established. The park sits just outside the Manawatū River Walkway.

The photo below shows the car parking area and some of the surrounding Horizons Regional Council land where a dog park location could be established.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Criteria and Weighting. Officers examined a number of sites across the City. The table below shows the weighting and scale system used on each possible site to assess suitability. Each criterion was evaluated with 1 being the highest score and 3 the lowest. Community views were considered separately (but were also considered as part of the “Current Use” category in the table below).

4.2 A total of 22 parks across the city were subjected to the criteria and three emerged as potential sites. Some criteria were considered critical: distance to residential neighbours and size/shape. Therefore, if a site was too close to neighbours (as stipulated by Acousafe Consulting and Engineering) and would likely cause noise issues, it was eliminated as a choice. Similarly, if a site was considered too small (below 3000 square metres) or the shape too awkward, it was eliminated as a viable option.

Park	Current use	Bylaw or existing “fit”	Size/ shape	User Conflict	Residential Distance	General Safety (CPTED)	Existing Facilities	Accessible	Visual Impact	Traffic	Centrality	Total
Waitoetoe Park	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1	2	13
Coronation Park	3	3	2	3	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	19
Riverside Drive	1	2	1	1	1	3	2	1	1	3	3	19

Note: 1=highest score; 3=lowest score.

4.3 On the other hand, sites that scored well on the accessibility rating (including existing facilities and car parking) were more likely to be preferable. This was because of the importance of accessibility for a dog park site that came through in the consultation work done during the Annual Plan submissions and the Linklater Reserve Development Plan related to a dog park.

4.4 The recommended Waitoetoe Park site does not appear as if it should score a 1 with regards to accessibility and amenity. However, this score factored in the car parking and access works planned for this area under 10 Year Plan Programme 568 – “207 Maxwell’s Line – Land Development”, as part of earlier river access planning.

In relation to the Riverside Drive Site:

4.5 It should also be noted that further work on the Manawatū Riverside Shared Pathway, and future residential development in the Whakarongo area, will likely increase future foot and cycle traffic in the Riverside Drive area. This would improve the sites score for “Safety”, as described in the above table.

4.6 There are minor alterations planned to the Te Matai/Riverside Drive junction to make that corner safer for larger volumes of traffic. The work is planned for the 2016/17 financial year. Completion of these works would alter the score under “Traffic” in the above table and make this site a more viable option.

4.7 Toilet and water facilities on this site at a dog park could also benefit general riverside shared path users. The establishment of toilet facilities and running water at this site (due to the existing physical constraints of this rural area), however, would increase the cost of the dog park by approximately $50,000 in contrast with a site that has existing toilets and water piping in the vicinity. A dog park at this site would therefore cost in the order of $120,000 - $140,000. Therefore this site remains an option for future dog park development should Council wish to develop further dog park sites.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Waitoetoe Park would make the best site for a dog park due to its distance to neighbours, its existing facilities, its current use and legal status under the bylaw and its general size and “fit”. More importantly, the local dog-walking community and current users support this site; and the site would likely see the most use of such a facility by the public.

5.2 The exact site should be determined within the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan (which is under a different framework) so that the community (both local and city-wide) considers the dog park strategically within that wider context.

5.3 Due to its strategic position in the general riverside framework and future planned development the Riverside Drive option should remain open as a potential future dog park area.

5.4 Coronation Park has easy access and sound amenity, but it is not a popular dog walking area and potential user conflicts may be difficult to overcome. The area would also need to be altered under the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011 to a dog off-leash area.

6. Next actions

6.1 Refer the recommendation to the wider consultation process taking place on the Waitoetoe Park and continue with that process.

6.2 Establish a Working Party to assist with the completion of the Waitoetoe Reserve Development Plan, which includes a representative from the dog walking/agility/socialisation community of interest.

6.3 Produce the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan to include a dog socialisation/training area.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 During the Annual Plan 2014/15 Council received submissions asking for a fenced, off-leash dog training and socialisation area.

7.2 Officers then contracted the services of Opus to provide background research, expert stakeholder engagement, site analyses and issues/opportunities analyses. Opus further analysed the 2014/15 Annual Plan submissions and spoke to experts in the field: a veterinary surgeon/senior lecturer at UCOL and another canine expert regarding the development of a dog park.

7.3 During the development of the Linklater Reserve Development Plan Officers engaged in consultation with the community. Over 1000 people attended an open day on April 19, 2015 and people also utilised Facebook and library suggestion boxes to provide feedback.

7.4 A fenced, off-leash dog training and socialisation area was one of the key activities that the community identified for the reserve (and in the city in general). The scale of the project identified by the community during the Linklater Reserve Development Plan has been assumed in this report. Currently a budget in the order of $70,000 - $90,000 sits in the Linklater Reserve Development Plan for the development of a dog park.

7.5 Officers approached the Friends of Waitoetoe Park and the recently formed Waitoetoe Reserve Community regarding the installation of a fenced dog training and play area in this park. The Friends of Waitoeote Park identified that their desire for some form of accessible dog socialisation and play area has existed for some time now, and remains strong. The Waitoetoe Reserve Community was positive but desires the dog area to be well-designed in consideration of the underlying river “wilderness area” theme.

7.6 Officers engaged park users in a basic survey (over a 1 week period for 1 hour per day) at the Waitoetoe Park in relation to developing a part of the site as a dog park. The survey was not comprehensive and was designed only to assess the suitability of the site for a dog park from a user’s perspective. Park users were asked if they would support a dog park at Waitoetoe Park, or not. The results are in the table below:

Day	Time	Support Dog Park at this site.	Do not support a dog park at this site.
Monday	7.30 – 8.30 am	15	0
Tuesday	8.30 – 9.30 am	18	1
Wednesday	12.00 pm – 1.00pm	15	0
Thursday	2.00pm – 3.00pm	29	1
Friday	4.00pm – 5.00pm	33	1
Totals		110	3

Park users were overwhelmingly in support of the use of a portion of this area as a dog park. In general, 50% of those surveyed that fell into the “Support” category were simply ok if a dog park was built. 50% of supporters were genuinely excited by the prospect and said they would use it. A more comprehensive survey of the area took place during the Waitoetoe Reserve Development Plan consultation process.

7.7 Officers recently completed the community engagement phase of the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan. When asked what their number one desire for the park was, respondents overwhelmingly chose dog walking/socialisation/play. The next number one choice was to maintain “wilderness” and enhance bio-diversity. Therefore it is recommended that any dog area be designed to complement the natural Manawatū River wilderness area.

7.8 Iwi were approached at the PNCC bi-monthly meetings and asked if they had any concerns with a dog park in this area. Tanenuirangi Manawatū Incorporated did not express any concerns. Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees did not express any concerns about the proposal, but wanted to ensure that the development of a fenced dog park would not result in the rest of the park becoming dog-on-leash. They desire Waitoetoe Park to remain fully dog-off-leash.

7.9 Ngāti Hineaute were approached and did not support the initial site suggested by Officers, given the proximity of the Ahimāte Pa site. Council Officers conducted a site visit with Ngāti Hineaute to ensure that any dedicated dog area did not come into conflict with the Ahimāte Pa site. At the site visit Ngāti Hineaute agreed an area outside of the Ahimāte Pa site proper.

7.10 Officers have held 4 focus groups in the consultation over the Waitoetoe Reserve Development Plan. The focus groups were made up of key stakeholders with a variety of interests in this park. The Dog Walkers/Agility/Socialisation Focus Group was extremely positive towards the development of a dog park in this area. The Environment and Bio-Diversity Focus Group generally approved of the development of a dog park, provided the park was designed to compliment the rugged naturalness of the Waitoetoe section of the Manawatū Riverside area.

7.11 Officers approached Manawatu Rugby regarding the proposed area at Coronation Park, in order to assess potential user conflicts. Manawatu Rugby were comfortable with a fenced dog play and socialisation area providing the area was confined primarily to the upper part of the park, and did not encroach on the warm-up area behind the goal-posts. They expressed some concern regarding retrieval of balls going over or through the dog park fencing.

7.12 Neighbours of the potential site at Coronation Park (along Tremaine Avenue) would be approached, if this park was considered an option by Council.

7.13 Horizons Regional Council was approached regarding the possibility of leasing the Riverside Drive flood plain land. They were open to the possibility once the existing lease came up in 2021. Council would have to approach the private leaser of the property in order to negotiate sub-leasing a portion of the land for a dog park.

7.14 No neighbours were consulted at the Riverside Drive option. This was because the residential properties very few in number and were at more than 500 metres from the proposed site. It was also thought that if this site becomes a more viable option in the future, it would be more appropriate to approach neighbours at that point.

Compliance and administration

Funding for the dog park is included in the Linklater Reserve Development Plan for the 2018/19 financial year.

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

Dog Park Noise Assessments ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 6 March 2017

TITLE: Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange

DATE: 16 February 2017

AUTHOR/S: Jason Pilkington, Leisure Assets Planner, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council directs the Chief Executive Officer to consult with the public on the proposed land exchange of 1340 square metres of land at Clearview Park (Lot 1 DP 69185, 187 189 & 67876) as described in this report for 2218 square metres of land owned by Fair Investments Ltd. (Lot 146 DP 372992) as described in this report.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Fair Investments Ltd. lodged an application to Council for a subdivision at Clearview Drive. As part of that subdivision application Fair Investments Ltd. seek to exchange a portion of Clearview Park for a portion of Fair Investment’s land.
OPTION 1:	Council directs the Chief Executive to publicly consult on the proposed land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977, Section 15.
Community Views	Community views would be taken into account through the proposed consultation.
Benefits	Council hears community views on the proposal before making any decision.
Risks	Community pushback, perception that Council is “giving” reserve land to developers.
Financial	Newspaper advertising ($500), social media, Council website and Officer time; receiving objections, etc. ($1,200).
OPTION 2:	Council declines the proposed land exchange, and Officers go back to the developers and require an alteration to the subdivision application.
Community Views	N/A
Benefits	There are no benefits associated with this option.
Risks	The development does not proceed, or less favourable application is lodged (from a Parks and Reserves perspective). Council perceived as non-business friendly; hard to deal with, etc.
Financial	Approximately $900 of additional negotiations with the developer – and any additional costs associated with any other options.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	The proposed exchange is consistent with the Biodiversity Strategy – the watercourse will be maintained as an open channel, and there is the opportunity to plant along the water course in natives (as per the Boffa Miskell Planting Plan). The Recreation Strategy aims in part to provide opportunities to increase participation. An increased park size and better walkway connections will provide these opportunities to local park users.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council was approached by Fair investments Ltd. to work through a proposed subdivision adjacent to Clearview Park, in Milson. There were some aspects of the initial proposal that were not ideal.

1.2 Fair Investments Ltd. and Council Officers worked together to address the issues within the initial proposal and to come up with a higher quality subdivision. As a result of the suggested improvements, Fair Investments Ltd. lodged an application for subdivision that requires a land exchange between the owners of the subdivision (Fair Investments) and owners of Clearview Park (Palmerston North City Council).

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Clearview Park was established in 1990, and notified in the Gazette as a Recreation Reserve under Section 17 of the reserves Act 1977. The south-eastern front of the park (in blue in the aerial below) was the only portion of the park ever opened to the public. The park was fenced along the back narrow section and grazed by livestock (the green/blue border in the aerial photo below signifies the farm fence essentially separating the park).

2.2 It was thought that the back section (in green in the above aerial) of the park would be opened up once further development of the area began. That development is now initiated with the application in question, and officers began the development of Clearview Park in late 2016 in anticipation of this work.

2.3 Council began work on upgrades to the Clearview Park in November 2016, under Programme 697 in Council’s 10 Year Plan – “Clearview Reserve Development”. The design work (new playground, drainage in the park, and walkways) was completed in accordance with an earlier subdivision plan for the park completed by Boffa Miskell (Wellington) working for Fair Investments Ltd.

2.4 In early December 2016 Fair Investments Ltd (Geoworks acting on behalf of fair Investments Ltd.) met with Council Officers to initiate discussions regarding a potential subdivision application for the land on the north-western boundary of Clearview Park. That early proposal contained a number of issues:

· A series of cul-de-sacs with right-of ways (which were not considered ideal because the number of houses would place too much stress on the right-of ways).

· Low connectivity: from an urban design perspective the proposal seemed to repeat the undesirable aspects (large numbers of cul-de-sacs with low connectivity) of some older subdivisions in the Kelvin Grove and Milson areas, and that it did not provide the opportunity for connectivity, from Dogwood Way to Clearview Drive.

2.5 The aerial photo below describes the existing land parcels owned by PNCC (Clearview Park in green) and Fair Investments Ltd. (in blue).

2.6 In that meeting it was agreed that in order to meet the above concerns the applicants would create a 3 metre wide access way from the cul-de-sac end of Dogwood Way through to Clearview Drive. The applicant proposed that Council enter into a land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd.; and that Fair Investments would then vest the exchanged land in Council as road reserve.

2.7 Fair Investments Ltd. application requires the Council to exchange a thin strip along the entire north-western boundary of the park (1340 square metres of existing reserve land). In exchange, Fair Investments Ltd. propose to vest a 20 metre strip of land running east to west along the entire width of the subdivision out to the boundary of Airport Drive, (ostensibly for the purposes of redirecting the watercourse) into Council ownership (2218 square metres).

2.8 The proposed subdivision application below shows the areas proposed for land exchange by Fair Investments Ltd. Lot 53 in green describes the portion of Clearview Park owned by PNCC proposed for exchange (to be taken by Fair Investments Ltd and then vested back to PNCC as road reserve). Lot 50 in blue describes the area of land Fair Investments Ltd. desire to exchange for redirecting the watercourse, to be vested in PNCC as reserve.

2.9 At the time the viability of redirecting the existing watercourse to benefit the subdivision, while keeping the water course open (as opposed to piping it) as a natural park feature, was also discussed with Boffa Miskell. The solution was to redirect the watercourse from the Airport Drive boundary with the applicant’s property through the proposed subdivision and into the Clearview Park, thereby meeting up with its original course in the park. It was also agreed that, were the proposal to go ahead, the watercourse would be formed as a rock swale (an example is provided from Edwards Pit Park in the picture below – please note this swale is newly formed and has no bark or plantings at this stage).

2.10 The north-western boundary of the proposed subdivision borders Palmerston North Airport Land (the land along Airport Drive). Officers were eager to achieve a walkway connection along the existing water course out to Airport Drive from the Park (on Palmerston North Airport Ltd. land).

The aerial photo below shows the indicative route that a walkway connection from Clearview Park out to Airport Drive would take.

2.11 Council contacted the Palmerston North Airport Ltd to ascertain whether they would consider granting access from the proposed Clearview subdivision out to Airport Drive. The Palmerston North Airport Ltd. Chief Executive Officer (David Lanham) contacted Council in support of an access way from Clearview Park to Airport Drive on 6 December 2016. The Airport, while not interested in a land swap, would allow Council to develop an access way (walkway) at Council’s cost. It is most likely that Council will seek an easement over the water course (from the applicant’s boundary out to Airport Drive) if the application goes ahead.

2.12 The proposed alterations to the park below show the redirected water course in relation to the existing park area, including already planned walkways. This plan also shows the proposed walkway connection to Airport Drive.

2.13 Given that the subdivision applicants want to begin building, and the Reserves Act 1977 process takes approximately 3-4 months, Officers requested that the land exchange proposal go to the closest Committee rather than wait for the next Sport and Recreation Committee in June 2017.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Council directs the Chief Executive to publicly consult on the proposed land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977.

3.2 Council, as the Administering Body of Clearview Reserve (as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977), has delegated authority to authorise the exchange of land described in this report (Section 15 (1)). The delegated authority was issued by the Department of Conservation in July of 2013.

3.3 A reserve or part of a reserve can only be exchanged for land which is suitable for the same purpose (in this case recreation).

3.4 In general, (under Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977) the exchange should ensure that the land proposed for exchange is more suitable for the purpose for which the existing reserve (or portion thereof) is held. Clearview Park’s purpose is recreation under the Recreation Act 1977. Council must therefore seek to exchange land that has a higher recreation value, than the land disposed of, when negotiating an exchange.

3.5 Any exchange of reserve land (where the reserve is vested in an administering body) requires a resolution by that administering body approving the exchange (Section 15 (2)). The resolution may not occur until such time as the administering body has notified the public of the intent to make an exchange (Section 15 (2)).

3.6 The Reserves Act 1977 requires Council to publicly notify the intent to exchange land in a local newspaper for no less than 4 weeks (1 month). The public notification also needs to contain basic descriptive facts – such as the name of the reserve, its location and the nature of the exchange (Section 120 Reserves Act 1977). The Act also requires Council to provide the facility to receive objections, and to take any objections into consideration when making a decision.

3.7 Council must also, under Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977, give any objector an opportunity to appear before the Administering Body, in order that the objector may be given full consideration.

3.8 Once the public notification is complete, Officers would write a report to Council describing any objections and potentially seeking a resolution (depending on objections received). If any objectors desire to be heard, a hearings process must be set up. The act allows the Administering Body to determine how the hearings take place, and this could conceivably take place as part of the Public Comments section of the committee meeting prior to Officers seeking a resolution. This would depend on the number of objectors wanting a hearing.

3.9 Any land received in the exchange automatically becomes held by the Administering Body of Clearview Park as reserve land under the reserves Act 1977 (Section 15 (5)).

3.10 Option 2: Council declines the proposed land exchange, and Officers go back to the developers to seek a different outcome on the subdivision application.

3.11 This option would mean that officers would then reject the subdivision application as it stands, and the developers would work with the Council team to come up with a proposal for subdivision that did not include an exchange of reserve land.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Council directs the Chief Executive to publicly consult on the proposed land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 A reserve or part of a reserve can only be exchanged for land which is suitable for the same purpose. In the case of Clearview Park, the park land in question is Recreation Reserve (under Section 17 of the reserves Act 1977), and the 2218 m2 land proposed by the subdivision applicant to exchange for 1340 m² Clearview Park land will become (and is suitable for) Recreation Reserve, as identified under Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.3 Under Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977 Council should seek to exchange land that is more suitable for recreation purposes than the land disposed of when considering a land exchange. There are a number of benefits associated with the exchange. They are:

· 1340 m² of additional reserve will be added to Clearview Park in total;

· Greater connectivity between Clearview Drive and Dogwood Way;

· Better frontage onto the park along the north-western border of the subdivision application, with no high fences;

· A walkway connection through Clearview Park and onto Airport Drive;

· A thin strip of park is exchanged for a 20 metre wide strip with a swale and walkway with high recreation and aesthetic value.

4.4 Option 1 will allow Council to hear whether there are any community objections to the proposal prior to making any decisions regarding the proposed land exchange. It is likely that, because the back section of the park has never been publicly accessible, there will be no, or few, objections to the proposal.

4.5 Option 2: Council declines the proposed land exchange, and Officers go back to the developers to seek a different outcome on the subdivision application.

4.6 This option essentially declines the land exchange option to Fair Investments Ltd., and would therefore require Fair Investments Ltd. to redesign their subdivision application.

4.7 Any alterations to the subdivision application might mean:

· The opportunity for walkway/cycling connection to Airport Drive through Clearview Park may be lost;

· Loss of the swale feature (through piping the water course under the subdivision);

· Fencing along the side of the park may occur.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The proposal for subdivision application from Fair Investments Ltd. in this report has been carefully negotiated between Council Officers and Fair Investments Ltd. to ensure the development and provision of a high quality recreation amenity to the subdivision and surrounds.

5.2 This proposal however requires Council to enter into a land exchange. The proposed land exchange would provide an increased level of recreation value to the park and surrounding neighbourhood, and in fact increases the total amount of reserve at Clearview Park. It is therefore consistent with the purpose and direction of the Reserves Act 1977.

5.3 In addition, the proposal ensures the wider concerns, as separate from the park itself, (connectivity and traffic loads) are met in a positive and beneficial manner to the park and park users.

5.4 Moreover, the additional land acquisition, coupled with the Palmerston North Airport’s permission to use a portion of their land for access to Airport Drive along the watercourse, places Council in a position to secure additional walkway linkages through to Airport Drive, essentially adding to the size of the “park area” that will be utilised by the public.

5.5 Given the benefits, it would be beneficial to seek any public objections to the proposal, and examine the content and validity of objections in accordance with the reserves Act 1977.

6. Next actions

6.1 Publicly notify the proposal in the Manawatū Standard (in accordance with the Reserve Act 1977 requirements for notification);

6.2 Send the notification out more widely (social media, flyers to neighbours and those potentially directly affected by the exchange).

6.3 Receive any objections to the proposal over a 1 month period (from the date of the newspaper notification);

6.4 Provide an opportunity for any objectors to be heard;

6.5 Report back to Council once the month-long notification period is complete, with recommendations (and a hearings process if required).

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Council’s Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 require Council to consult with Iwi or Hapū before undertaking any action and making decisions about reserves. In accordance with Council’s Maori Engagement Policy, Officers have contacted Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees, Tanenuiarangi Manawatū Incorporated (TMI) and Ngāti Hineaute Hapū Authority, in order to establish whether they have any interest in the exchange. If Council decides to go to public consultation on the proposed exchange, the resulting report will contain their responses.

7.2 So far Ngāti Hineaute Hapū Authority has responded to Council with no concerns.

7.3 There has been no community engagement process on the proposed subdivision/land exchange to date.

7.4 The Community engagement process will be handled under the Reserves Act 1977 requirements for public consultation as required for land-exchange proposals.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

Clearview Park - Boffa Miskell Landscaping Plan as part of Fair Investments Ltd subdivision application ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

[1] Changes sought of Arena Manawatu in the ARS are increased casual use, disadvantaged groups use, sport and community use, net income and that “The [Arena] business planning moves from being a well-used facility-for-hire to a very popular facility that develops sport and active recreation at all levels.”

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