AGENDA

Planning and Strategy Committee

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duncan McCann (Chairperson)

Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Chairperson)

Grant Smith (The Mayor)

Brent Barrett

Leonie Hapeta

Susan Baty

Jim Jefferies

Rachel Bowen

Lorna Johnson

Adrian Broad

Karen Naylor

Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke

Bruno Petrenas

Vaughan Dennison

Tangi Utikere

Lew Findlay QSM

 

 

 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

 

 

 

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

 

3 April 2017

 

 

 

Order of Business

(NOTE:     The commencement time for this meeting coincides with the commencement time for the Extraordinary Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee meeting. The format for the meeting will be that the Planning and Strategy Committee will open, take apologies and adjourn immediately to allow the Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee to consider its business. At 2.00pm the Planning and Strategy Committee 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.         Deputation - Ashhurst Community Vision and Planning Process                  Page 7

5.         Submission on the draft Wastewater Bylaw                                                  Page 11

Memorandum, dated 17 March 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.  

6.         Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                  Page 21

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 6 March 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”  

7.         Significance and Engagement Policy Annual Report - 2016                         Page 27

Memorandum, dated 10 March 2017 from the Head of Community Planning, Andrew Boyle.

8.         Bikes in Schools Progress Report                                                                     Page 35

Report, dated 17 March 2017 from the Road Planning Team Leader, David Lane.

9.         Plan Change 23: Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area                                  Page 45

Memorandum, dated 20 March 2017 from the Policy Planner, Michael Duindam.

10.       Committee Work Schedule                                                                            Page 253

Committee Work Schedule dated April 2017.    

 11.      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

 

Deputation

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           3 April 2017

TITLE:                            Deputation - Ashhurst Community Vision and Planning Process

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive the deputation for information.

 

 

Summary

Ms Sharon Stevens will make a deputation regarding the Ashhurst Community Vision and Planning Process.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Ashhurst 2040 vision planning process and the PNCC LTP

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           3 April 2017

TITLE:                            Submission on the draft Wastewater Bylaw

DATE:                            17 March 2017

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the oral and written submission on the draft Wastewater Bylaw be received.

2.   That the Planning and Strategy Committee note the Procedure for Hearing of Submissions, as described in the Procedure Sheet.

 

 

1.         ISSUE

The Council has received one submission on the draft Wastewater Bylaw, which is attached.  The submitter has asked to be heard.

2.         BACKGROUND

On 26 September 2016, the Council approved the draft Wastewater Bylaw for public consultation.  This consultation was planned to occur between 15 October and 18 November 2016, however due to an error the consultation period closed prematurely on 11 November.  This meant that the minimum one-month consultation period required for consultation under the Special Consultative Procedure was not met.  No submissions were received during this period.

When officers realised the mistake, an additional consultation period was commenced, starting on 13 February and closing on 14 February 2017.  The same stakeholders were contacted and advised of the opportunity to make a written submission, and a public notice was published.  One submission was received, and the submitter has asked to be heard.

3.         NEXT STEPS

Following the hearing of this submission, officers will prepare advice for the Council on the points raised by the submitter, with recommendations regarding the adoption or otherwise of the draft Wastewater Bylaw.  This advice is expected to be presented to the next meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Procedure for hearing of submissions

 

2.

Submission - Pioneer City West/Heritage Estates (2000) Limited

 

 

 

Peter Ridge

Policy Analyst

 

 

 

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Palmerston North City Council

 

Minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 06 March 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair), 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Apologies:

Councillor Susan Baty.

 

The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present when the meeting resumed at 2.22pm. He entered the meeting at 2.32pm during consideration of clause 12. He was not present for clauses 10 and 11.

 

9-17

Apologies

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Committee receive the apologies.

 

Clause 9.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

  

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am

The meeting resumed at 2.22pm

 

When the meeting resumed The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present.

 

10-17

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

 

 

 

Clause 10.1 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

Councillor Tangi Utikere.

 

11-17

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

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

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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

2.   That the Council amend the Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual as shown in appendix 1 of the memorandum entitled `Amendment to the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw Administration Manual’ dated 13 February 2017 by tracked changes, to come into effect on 3 April 2017.

 

Clause 11-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, 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.

 

12-17

LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals

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

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 2.32pm

 

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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


 

Clause 12.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

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

 

Clause 12.2 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

13-17

City Centre Streetscape Plan Bus & Parking Trials

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

In discussion the Committee were interested to see the results of the safety audit before deciding to proceed with a trial or not.

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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

 

Clause 13.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

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

 

Clause 13.2 above was carried 11 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Leonie Hapeta, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.


 

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

3.   That the results of the safety audit be brought back to the Planning and Strategy Committee before a decision was made to proceed with a trial or not.

 

Clause 13.3 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3.49pm

The meeting resumed at 3.59pm

 

14-17

Pedestrian Facilities and Safety (NZTA) - March 2017

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

The Committee discussed Princess Street and decided to request further information regarding a signalised crossing between King and Queen Street.

 

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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

·    State Highway 3 between Roberts Line and Stoney Creek Road

·    State Highway 3 on Princess Street fronting UCOL

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

 

Clause 14.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

2.  That the Chief Executive be instructed to further investigate a signalised crossing at the pedestrian refuge in Princess Street between King and Queen Street.


 

Clause 14.2 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, 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.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

Did not vote:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

 

15-17

Committee Work Schedule

Committee Work Schedule dated March 2017.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

 

Clause 15.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, 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, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

     

 

The meeting finished at 4.34pm

 

Confirmed 3 April 2017

 

 

 

Chairperson

 


 

 

  


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           3 April 2017

TITLE:                            Significance and Engagement Policy Annual Report - 2016

DATE:                            10 March 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Andrew Boyle, Head of Community Planning, City Future

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the Committee receive the Significance and Engagement Policy Annual Report for 2016

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

In December 2014 the Council adopted its Significance and Engagement Policy.  This guides Council’s community engagement so that residents and organisations are properly involved in Council decisions.

As part of the Policy the Council prepares an Annual Community Engagement Report.  This is the report for the 2016 calendar year.

Note: this report covers the way Council engages residents in its decision making.  It does not cover all the wider ways that the Council interacts with residents through their daily lives.

 

2.         BACKGROUND and Discussion

Feedback on Council’s Engagement

The Policy is based on the IAP2 continuum of engagement (see diagram on the next page).  At one end of the continuum the Council gives people information about decisions it has made.  At the other end Council delegates decision making to the public.  In the middle it uses a range of consultation, engagement and collaboration techniques to gather community views and involve people in its decision making.  Almost all of the Council's community engagement is in the middle of the continuum. 

 

 

 

 

Different people have different expectations of how much community engagement the Council does as part of its decision making.  Communitrak Surveys consistently show that some people (about 15%) want little engagement; some (about 25%) want detailed engagement on all issues.  Most (about 60%) people are somewhere in the middle and want Council to engage on the major (to them) issues.  The Council has to try to balance these different expectations.

The 2016 Communitrak Survey shows that 51% of people are Very Satisfied or Satisfied with the way they are involved in Council decision making; 29% are Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; and 12% are Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied.  Eight percent Don’t Know. 

The graph on the next page shows that satisfaction (very and fairly satisfied) fluctuates over time.  Dissatisfaction shows a clearer trend – since the mid-2000s it has dropped from around 20-25% to just over 10%.

The survey also shows that Palmerston North residents are more satisfied than other similar Councils:  satisfied PN 51%, peer Councils 44%; dissatisfied PN 12%, peer Councils 24%.  (See following page for graph.)

Most people are satisfied with the amount of information they get from the Council.  In 2016 6% said they get too much information, 59% said they got enough information, 22% said they didn’t get enough information and 4% said it was nowhere near enough.  Nine percent did not know.  These percentages have been constant over time.

 

 

 

 


 

As the following graph shows, most people are also satisfied with the quality of information they get from Council.  However, this satisfaction of 80% is slightly below the 10 Year Plan target of 85% (both figures exclude don’t knows and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied).  See the next page for an outline of improvements the Council is making, particularly to its online engagement and communication.  These should result in increased levels of satisfaction.

In 2016 the Council also used focus groups to get feedback from residents on its community engagement.

The results paint a similar picture to the Communitrak results: most of the time most people have a fairly passive and satisfied approach to Council consultation:

“The need for people to feel engaged with the Council also seemed to increase with age. But even with this, for many, as long as there was no pressing issue and things were ticking along nicely there was little need to pay attention to what the Council was up to.  It appears that if the Council was thought to be doing a good job and not upsetting too many people, many residents would not particularly want to engage with the Council, except for things like basic information. Many residents aren't particularly proactive citizens until they are really wound up about something.” (NRB Report)

Focus group members were also asked about the information they get from Council.  Most want information as Council customers so they can find out about Council services – recycling days, the location of walkways, dog registration, etc.  Older people tended to like this information in paper form, whereas younger people liked e-information.  The Council’s website and Facebook page were viewed positively by most focus group members.

(Note: The Communitrak survey and the Focus Groups are both done for the Council by the National Research Bureau.  The survey involves 400 randomly selected Palmerston North residents with landlines.  The results are weighted to match gender, age and geographic distributions from the Census.  The focus groups involved 60 residents from young singles to older empty nesters, with an emphasis on young and low income people.)

Council’s Engagement During the Year

The 10 Year Plan includes a Leadership KPI that the Council holds at least 20 “Let’s Talk with a Councillor” meetings each year.  It held 13 meetings during 2015/16.  Twelve of these were part of the Annual Plan engagement.  Note: during the year the Council narrowed the definition of what counts as a Let’s Talk session.  It now consists of meetings specifically organised as Let’s Talk sessions and the Annual Plan / 10 Year Plan community consultation meetings.  Originally it also included organised meetings or events where residents have easy opportunities to talk with Councillors on a wide range of topics (e.g. Talk with the Mayor sessions and Village community meetings in Ashhurst, Longburn and Bunnythorpe).

The Let’s Talk sessions now comprise of 10 Year Plan / Annual Budget meetings and Councillor organised meetings.  The Council is developing a way to count these latter meetings.

This term of Council has continued the role of Councillor portfolios.   All Councillors have topics within which they take a lead in community engagement.  They meet regularly with relevant interest groups, and are the Council’s go-to person for that topic.

The Council is progressively improving its online engagement and making more use of social media to engage with and inform people.  The Council website was upgraded to a new platform to make it as accessible from a smartphone or tablet as it is from a laptop or desktop computer.  This is vital to meet the needs of the rapidly growing number of people who visit the site from mobile devices – now more than a third of users.  There is ongoing work to better understand that meets peoples’ expectations and to improve their online customer experience.

As part of this, the language and layout of the website’s consultation page was improved to make it more user friendly and to encourage more feedback on current projects.

Through the 2016/17 Annual Plan the Council increased its communication and administrative resources to help ensure its consultation and communication is timely and engaging.  It also purchased a “Let’s Talk” van to raise the profile of its engagement with residents.  This is a brightly painted van, with an awning, table and chairs, TV screen for powerpoints, etc. 

Another initiative that the Council took during the year to improve peoples’ awareness of Council’s community engagement was a monthly article in the Square Circular outlining the topics that it will be engaging on over the following few months.  If people want more information on these they are referred to the Council’s website, and its enhanced consultation pages.

The Council also updated its Staff Community Engagement Manual.   The Manual helps staff plan their engagement so that it meets community expectations and legal requirements.  A key message is that engagement has to be planned from the point of view of affected and interested residents.

The Council engages extensively with Rangitāne and the wider Māori community.  Having decision making arrangements and processes that ensure Māori are able to engage effectively in Council’s decision making is a key part of the Council’s Māori Community Strategy.

As well as engaging on specific topics such as the Draft Tangata Whenua section of the District Plan, He Ara Kotahi Manawatū River Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge, Waitoetoe Park, and the Heritage Strategy, the Council meets on a bimonthly basis with Rangitāne representatives.  Any issues of interest to Rangitāne can be raised at these meetings.

The Council also provides extensive information to residents through the Customer Service Centre, Call Centre and the Council website. 

In the past year the Council has engaged stakeholders and residents on a wide range of topics.  These included:

·    Annual Plan

·    Sectional District Plan Review Plan Changes

·    Heritage Strategy

·    Domestic Sustainability Strategy (re-named Sustainable Practices Strategy)

·    Economic Well-Being Strategy

·    Arts Strategy Review

·    City-wide Vegetation Framework

·    Linklater Reserve Development

·    Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw

·    Nuisance Bylaw

·    Gambling Policies

·    Focus Groups and Communitrak Survey

·    Park User Surveys

·    Bunnythorpe Village Plan

·    Ashhurst Village Plan (through supporting RECAP – the Society for the Resilience and Engagement of the Community of Ashhurst and Pohangina)

·    He Ara Kotahi Manawatū River Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

·    Carparking

·    Dittmer Reserve and Esplanade Easements

·    Development Plans for Memorial Park and Waitoetoe Reserve

·    Broadway developments

·    Social Well-Being Forum

·    engagement on roading works with affected residents

·    a high ropes course.

These involved a range of techniques including written and online submissions, “talk with a Councillor” sessions, online and face to face surveys, public meetings in branch libraries and community centres, get-togethers in neighbourhood parks, key stakeholder meetings, open days, sending brochures to all households, and information on the website and Facebook.

The Council’s involvement in other projects such as supporting community events and activities (Ethkick, Reel Earth, the Summer Concerts, ANZAC Day, Volunteer Awareness Week, Disability Expo, etc.), working with CCOs, deputations and public comment at Council meetings, Citizenship events, Trustpower Awards, Civic Honour awards Civil Defence presentations, EcoDesign advice, and involvement with organisations like the Community Services Council and Safety Advisory Board all build up community trust in the Council.

 

3.         CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

Over the past 12 months the Council has engaged extensively with the community.  While different people have different expectations most people seem comfortable with the Council’s engagement.

However, there is room for improvement and the Council will continue to refine its community engagement, especially through improved social media and online engagement.

 

 

Attachments

Nil

 

Andrew Boyle

Head of Community Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Report

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           3 April 2017

TITLE:                            Bikes in Schools Progress Report

DATE:                            17 March 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   David Lane, Road Planning Team Leader, City Networks

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1.   That Council receive the progress report on the Bikes in Schools Programme and notes that any NZTA financial assistance approval will depend upon their acceptance of Council’s Strategic Cycling Objectives which will need to embrace an education and promotion support programme;

2.   That Council notes that a variation has been made to the Regional Land Transport Plan authorising a financial programme of up to $150,000 per annum for infrastructure and up to $80,000 per annum for education and promotion activities relating to walking and cycling.

3.   That until the outcome of any NZTA financial assistance for the Bikes in Schools Programme is known, Council continue with establishing infrastructure only at three schools for the 2017/18 financial year.

 

 


 

Summary of options analysis for

 

Problem or Opportunity

Council has established a financial programme for Bikes in Schools which has seen treatments delivered in 6 schools to date, 4 of which have had official openings. The Bikes in Schools programme is part funded by Council and part funded by the individual schools, with some third party funding also available. In late 2015 the New Zealand Transport Agency changed its policy to allow additional funding, though it is understood no schools have yet benefitted from this changed approach. This report provides an update on progress in delivering the programme and identifies areas for further development.

OPTION 1:

Council could continue to fund infrastructure for Bikes in Schools programmes

Community Views

Schools involved to date have been very supportive. Other schools have expressed an interest in being part of the programme.

Benefits

Council’s community profile is enhanced. Children within the community who lacked access to a bicycle or facilities for riding now have that access.

Risks

No significant risks. These facilities provide a safe, low risk environment for learning to ride a bicycle.

Financial

Potential exists for cost over-runs which need to be managed

OPTION 2:

Council could decline to fund bikes in schools activities

Community Views

Unlikely to be positively received or supported

Benefits

Financial saving only

Risks

There could be some backlash, especially from schools that have missed out on funding

Financial

Minor saving in operating costs

OPTION 3:

Council could fund infrastructure and education and promotions activities to support cycling

Community Views

Likely to be supported

Benefits

Expected to yield greater take-up of cycling within community

Risks

Minor risks only

Financial

Expected to be financially supported by NZTA (subject to Council updating its strategic objectives for NZTA consideration and approval)

Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction

This programme contributes to the City Goal to be a socially and environmentally sustainable community.  Commuter and recreational cycling contributes positively to health and wellbeing objectives and investment in infrastructure provides good economic returns. The current draft 2017/18 budget however, does not include allowance for the education and promotion activities.

 

Rationale for the recommendations

1.         Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1       Council has established an Operational Programme in the Roading and Parking Activity for delivery of Bikes in Schools projects in schools within Palmerston North. The programme was budgeted at $150,000 in the 2015/16 financial year, making provision for three schools at $50,000 per school. The 10 year plan also made budget provision for one school per year for Bikes in Schools projects from the 2018/19 year onwards. The first such programme was delivered in 2015/16 and saw projects developed at Terrace End, St Mary’s and Longburn Schools. During the current financial year projects have been delivered at Takaro School (now open), Ross Intermediate and Cloverlea School. 

1.2       Typical costs of a “Bikes in Schools” project amount to $75,000 - $85,000. Projects delivered to date have included construction of a perimeter pathway, skills track and pump track. A shipping container is included for secure storage of equipment and a set of bicycles and helmets are provided, typically 50 bicycles and more helmets to allow for sizing variations. Schools part-fund the cost of the programme and in some cases funding from the Bike On Trust have been received.

1.3       The 2016/17 Annual Plan made provision for additional funding for six schools to benefit from Bikes in Schools projects on the basis that the New Zealand Transport Agency matched Council’s $150,000 in that financial year. NZTA adjusted its policy in November 2015 to allow such funding approvals to occur. However it is understood that NZTA has yet to approve any match funding requests. This report outlines further steps that are being taken to allow such an application to be considered.

2.         Background and previous council decisions

2.1       Council has, through its funding provision and leadership, established Bikes in Schools as a significant new activity which contributes to Council’s sustainability and environmental objectives. The programme has been well received, with the current year’s three schools now nearing completion. The six schools involved to date were decided after an “expressions of interest” process in late 2015. It is known that further schools are interested in implementing such projects and planning for this is in its early stages.

2.2       The projects delivered to date have not yet been formally reviewed. Roading Division staff are currently in the process of engaging a consultant to undertake an independent review of the programme and it is hoped this review will inform further development of the programme.

2.3       An area of interest to the review has been signalled by the NZTA in a funding meeting held in January 2017 with key Roading Division personnel. While Council has received good support from NZTA for its infrastructure spending, gaps have been identified in the delivery of education and promotion activities. This is relevant to the Bikes in Schools programme as there is no programme in place that will ensure individual schools will stick with the programme objectives. While schools will be responsible for maintaining the tracks and bicycles provided, there is no follow up planned for cycle education and skills training or checking that maintenance is being done.

2.4       NZTA has indicated a willingness to provide funding support for walking and cycling education and promotion activities. Such activities are being done more commonly within Councils, with the “Let’s Go” programme being a good example that is being used in New Plymouth, Wanganui and Hastings. Typically such programmes operate on the basis of a paid coordinator and some funding for promotion or education activities. Coordinators can be an employee of the Council or alternately engaged under a specific contract.

2.5       For such an activity to be funded within this Council, NZTA has signalled a desire for further work to be undertaken on updating Council’s strategic cycling objectives, further development of its cycle network plan and a clearer framework for delivery of cycle education and promotion activities.

2.6       To that end a report was submitted by Horizon’s Officers to the Regional Transport Committee of Horizons Regional Council seeking a variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan to provide for Bikes in Schools and also a programme for walking and cycling education and promotion activities. The report, attached as appendix one, was approved by the Committee. It approved a variation for $150,000 annually for Bikes in Schools and $80,000 annually for education and promotion activities.

2.7       In terms of project costs to date, gross and nett costs to Council are shown in the following table. It should be noted that final billing is not complete and final costs may change. Three of the six schools have received some funding contribution from the Bike On Trust. The Trust received a contribution to its funds from the Urban Cycleways Fund (part of NZTA) and these funds have been allocated to schools that are close to Urban Cycleways funded projects – Longburn, Cloverlea and Takaro. The balance of funds has been contributed by the schools concerned following fundraising efforts.

School

Gross cost

Nett cost to Council

St Mary’s School

$85,919

$54,918

Longburn School

$66,984

$51,767

Terrace End School

$87,461

$58,461

Takaro School

$87,225

$56,725

Cloverlea School

$89,803

$58,623

Ross Intermediate

$97,766

$57,766

Average

$85,526

$56,317

2.8       Having now delivered six school projects there is a better understanding of what is involved. A formal review of the project is expected to add to this understanding. It is clear that the Bikes in Schools programme is delivering good practice, however it can be resource intensive and involve many hours of staff time, delivering project management functions. Specific skills are needed for delivery, as there is typically no engineering design plans and design calls are made on site, often in collaboration with school management or staff. 

2.9       Because of the size of the projects contractors engaged to do work have typically been from smaller firms. In some cases this has resulted in additional work and costs being incurred or in quality concerns with the end product. The lack of a formal contract has exposed some areas of risk that need to be further evaluated. These issues need to be better understood if the programme is to be more firmly established as an activity going forward. It is clear, however, that external project management engagements would likely increase the costs, albeit with reduced risks for Council.

3.         Description of options

3.1       Council has the following options with respect to Bikes in Schools:

3.1.1    Continue to deliver the programme, at a rate of three schools annually, or more if NZTA match funding can be secured (financial assistance is considered unlikely in the absence of an agreed education and promotion programme);

3.1.2    Decline to deliver further projects.

3.2       Council has the following options with respect to walking and cycling education and promotion activities:

3.2.1    Deliver the infrastructure and education activities for Bikes in Schools from within the current Draft Budget (this will reduce the number of schools able to be accommodated)

3.2.2    Establish a new financial programme within the Annual Budget for delivery of education and promotion activities;

3.2.3    Decline to deliver education and promotion activities.

4.         Analysis of options

4.1       Providing Bikes in Schools infrastructure is sustainable as a programme under the current funding programme of $150,000 per annum and three schools can be delivered within existing baseline staffing (six schools if NZTA funding is available).

4.2       Increasing output to six schools per year may create additional pressure on staff resources due to the hours needed for the programme to be administered and also because of the contractual arrangements which are typically used. Engagement of external project managers is possible, however this would increase the overall cost of delivering the projects.

4.3       NZTA has changed its policy with respect to funding community based walking and cycling activities. The change in policy is only recent however, and there are no examples where match funding on a 50/50 cost share have been approved. A meeting with NZTA has indicated that further work is needed before any request for match funding could be approved and that they expect a co-ordinated approach to education included in the programme. The administrative step of seeking a variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan has been achieved.

4.4       Council’s delivery of walking and cycling programmes to date has been focussed on infrastructure. The Urban Cycleways Programme is more focused on achieving behaviour change over the longer term and recognises that education and promotion activities have a part to play. Some Councils are now delivering such programmes and such a programme could further enhance the efforts being made within Palmerston North. NZTA has signalled funding support could be available, provided evidence of an appropriate strategic framework supports any such programme. Work is underway to further develop this framework to allow a funding application to be submitted to NZTA in time for the new financial year.

4.5       Including education and promotion activities within the currently proposed 2017/18 budget will reduce the funds available for the implementation of infrastructure to around four schools.

5.         Conclusion

5.1       Bikes in Schools has been implemented in six schools locally and further schools are anticipated during 2017/18. NZTA has amended its policy to allow for co-investment in such programmes but it has not approved any applications as yet. It is proposed to engage an independent consultant to review the delivery of Bikes in Schools to date and provide recommendations for future delivery. The programmes have been delivered at an average nett cost of $56,317, some 12.6% above allocated budget with some final costings yet to be confirmed.

5.2       There is some concern that the current Bikes in Schools programme lacks any provision for follow-up monitoring and programme objectives could be undermined if proper coordination of the activity does not occur. Additionally there is now an increased emphasis on education and promotion activities for walking and cycling, to complement the focus on infrastructure that has been evident in recent years. Raising the public profile of walking and cycling is likely to ensure that infrastructure is better utilised and value for money objectives are achieved.

6.         Next actions

6.1       Staff will engage a suitable consultant to assist in development of a strategic framework for walking and cycling activities. Work will then follow with NZTA’s Planning and Investment staff to secure the necessary funding approval for future programmes.

6.2       Consideration will be given to options for delivery of Bikes in Schools in the future. A post-delivery programme review will be completed to identify potential areas for improvement.

7.         Outline of community engagement process

7.1       Inclusion of the Bikes in Schools programme in the Annual Budget allows the opportunity for community engagement and expressions of support to be considered by Council. Officers delivering the programme are involved in community engagement through the various schools that are delivering the programme on a co-funded basis. The next round of Bikes in Schools programme will repeat the “expressions of interest” process completed in late 2015.

Compliance and administration

<Enter text>

 

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

1.

Variation to Regional Land Transport Plan

 

 

David Lane

Road Planning Team Leader

 

 

  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           3 April 2017

TITLE:                            Plan Change 23: Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area

DATE:                            20 March 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Michael Duindam, Policy Planner, City Future

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 23: Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area be approved for public notification under Clause 5, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.   That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Policy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 23: Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area prior to public notification.

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

In May 2016, Wallace Development Company Limited (Wallace) purchased the former Massey University Hokowhitu Campus. After purchasing the site Wallace approached Council planning staff to discuss the prospect of rezoning it from Institutional Zone to Residential Zone to enable residential development on-site.

Council agreed to promote a rezoning of the site, recognising its strategic importance and that the long term future use of the site remained unresolved when the Institutional Zone was reviewed as part of the Sectional District Plan Review. The proposed rezoning also leverages off existing network infrastructure and provides additional residential choice and supply, consistent with Council’s obligations under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development. Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 23 (PPC23) has been developed in collaboration with Wallace and Rangitāne O Manawatū.

Changes to the District Plan include specifically providing for the site in the Subdivision Chapter, the Residential Zone Chapter and consequential changes in the Institutional Zone.  A structure plan to guide development is also proposed.

To recognise that development of the entire Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area will be staged over time, the proposed planning provisions ensure that residential development is completed in an integrated way, that does not compromise long-term roading and landscape connections, as the site transitions from institutional to mixed-use and then residential.

Subdivision in the Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area is proposed to be a restricted-discretionary activity, with discretion restricted to matters including consistency with the structure plan, natural hazards, urban design, landscaping, connection between the Hokowhitu Lagoon and the Manawatū River, and water sensitive design.

A series of assessment criteria are proposed to guide decision-making to ensure the final development is of high urban design quality, recognising the local characteristics of the site. A new objective and policy suite is also proposed.

Planning provisions are proposed to enable the continued use and operation of Institutional Activities at the Hokowhitu site as it transitions into the Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area.  The existing rule from the Institutional Zone permitting office activities within the site has been amended and applied to the Residential Zone. These provisions seek to recognise that the site will be developed in a staged manner and enables mixed-use to occur within the site.

Planning provisions are also proposed to ensure the area establishes a high quality, integrated and mixed built form. Rules are proposed for dwellings within the Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area with specific performance standards recognising the unique character of the site, such as minimum floor levels and fence heights.  There is also a new rule proposed in the Residential Zone for multi-unit residential development.

The additional costs associated with liquefaction mitigation have been quantified as part of the supporting section 32 analysis, which analyses the overall costs and benefits of PPC23. This is important given the information the Council holds regarding liquefaction risks across the City and the results of the more detailed liquefaction information gathered to inform PPC23. Importantly, PPC23 makes use of existing network infrastructure as it is effectively a brownfield redevelopment.

2.         BACKGROUND

When the Institutional Zone section of the District Plan was reviewed in 2014, Massey University advised that it was planning to divest the Hokowhitu Campus and consolidate their functions at the Turitea Campus. At that time, the long-term future of the site was unknown. In response to this, Council officers recommended at the Plan Change 11: Institutional Zone hearing that a comprehensive approach to managing the future use of the Hokowhitu Campus should be considered via a stand-alone plan change at a later date.

3.         Description of options

The accompanying section 32 report identifies that PPC23 is the most efficient and effective means of meeting the purpose of the RMA 1991.

4.         Alignment with Council Strategy

PPC23 is aligned to the following strategies:

a)    Integrated Transport Strategy – through integrating land-use and transport to create an efficient user friendly transport system that meets the needs of the City’s residents, businesses and the environment.

       b)  Manawatū River Framework – through enhancing the connection of the site, including the Hokowhitu Lagoon, to the Manawatū River.

c)    Māori Engagement Strategy – through the collaborative nature of the development of PPC23 with Rangitāne O Manawatū.

d)    Retail Strategy – The Retail Strategy underpins the Council’s centres-based approach to commercial activities. It also promotes appropriate commercial activities within non-commercial locations.

e)    Social Strategy – through connected neighbourhoods.

f)     Street Design Manual – through influencing design outcomes for streets in the development.

g)    Urban Design Strategy – through encouraging a diverse range of housing choice through enabling multi-unit development across the whole site. A high quality public realm will be provided through street trees and fencing controls. A distinct character will be established through built form and the historical significance of the site to iwi will be better recognised through re-establishing a metaphorical connection between the Hokowhitu Lagoon and the Manawatū River. Environmental features will also be highlighted through this process, through use of landscaping. A high level of connectivity will be provided for in the development, by discouraging cul-de-sacs and creating a roading spine throughout the development that enables a high degree of pedestrian access.

h)    Vegetation Framework – through providing planting guidance for vegetation. Suggested species and themes are recommended to create a City-wide green network that celebrates and enhances local and introduced biodiversity and contributes to an environmentally healthy and attractive City.

 

5.         Community Engagement Process

The consultation process for undertaking a change to the District Plan is directed by the RMA 1991.

Consultation was carried out during the preparation of PPC23, as required by Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991. The consultation process included:

·    Numerous workshops and meetings with Wallace.

·    Numerous workshops and meetings with Rangitāne O Manawatū.

·    The commissioning of a Cultural Impact Assessment by Rangitāne O Manawatū.

Public notification of PPC23 under the RMA 1991 will provide the opportunity for the public to make submissions and further submissions. This will be followed by a public hearing.

6.         Conclusion

By approving PPC23 for public notification the Council will be providing good quality public services and regulatory functions in the most cost effective way for Council and the community, because:

·      PPC23 ensures the District Plan is responsive to the development intentions of the old Hokowhitu Campus site

·      PPC23 is the most efficient and effective means of meeting the purpose of the RMA 1991.

·      PPC23 gives effect to adopted Council Strategy.

·      PPC23 helps to enable the expressed aspirations of Rangitāne ō Manawatū.

·      PPC23 is supported by Rangitāne ō Manawatū and a section 32 assessment pursuant to RMA 1991 requirements.

7.         NEXT STEPS

If the Committee approves the recommendations the next step will be for Council to publicly notify PPC23 for submissions. It is anticipated that this will commence in April 2017.

 

Attachments

1.

Plan Change 23: Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential Area Section 32 Report and Appendices

 

 

 

Michael Duindam

Policy Planner

 

 

  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Committee Work Schedule

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           3 April 2017

TITLE:                            Committee Work Schedule

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

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

 

 

Attachments

1.

Committee Work Schedule

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator