Agenda of Sport and Recreation Committee

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 06 March 2017, commencing at 9.04am

Members

Present:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and 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.

Apologies:

Councillor Susan Baty.

1-17

Apologies

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 1.1 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.

2-17	Public Comment
	Public Comment was received from: - Emily Brown regarding swimming pool facilities. - Colleen Sheldon regarding swimming pool facilities.
	Moved Tangi Utikere, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive the Public Comment for information.
	Clause 2.1 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.

3-17	Presentation - Gravel and Tar Race Presentation from Mr Steve Stannard, Race Director The Gravel and Tar event was held on 29 January 2017 and was a successful event with a number of international riders. The reputation of the event was becoming one of the hardest races in New Zealand and this year Drug Free NZ conducted drug testing to further highlight that this was an elite event. The Gran Fondo (fun ride) had showed little growth and there were some possible reasons for that such as the gravel section and the length of the race and also the timing which may not suit some riders. The event had the potential to grow further but more assistance was required with volunteers, marketing and sponsorship opportunities. Manawatu District Council had not contributed to the event and it was suggested that Mr Stannard share the report to the Joint Strategic Planning Committee.
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive the presentation for information.
	Clause 3.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, 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, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Abstained: Councillor Leonie Hapeta.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen. 2. That the presentation be referred to the March 2017 Joint Strategic Planning Committee meeting for consideration by Palmerston North City Council and Manawatu District Council to jointly provide support to the Gravel and Tar event.
	Clause 3.2 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, 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, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Abstained: Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

4-17

Presentation - Winter Festival

Presentation from Ian Littleworth and Sam Kershaw

The Winter Festival was to be held from Wednesday 28 June 2017 to Friday 30 June 2017 with a number of events planned over the three days. An event manager had been appointed and various applications regarding funding and road closures had been either been submitted or were on target to do so.

A Welsh choir had been confirmed to perform in the Convention Centre on Friday 30 June 2017 and a World Record attempt would take place for the World’s largest rugby scrum on Thursday 29 June 2017.

George Street and Coleman Mall would host a Street Festival with most retailers supportive of the plans and rugby games taking place at CET Arena. A main focus of the organising committee now was to promote the Winter Festival to local residents and also those following the Lions Tour.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive the presentation for information.

Clause 4.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

5-17

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. 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.

Clause 5.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

6-17

Sport Manawatu 6 Month Report - 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016

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

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 6.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 10.57am

The meeting resumed at 11.14am

7-17	Options for the Palmerston North City Council to obtain additional Lane Space at peak times at either Council-owned or other Pool facilities Report, dated 14 February 2017 from the Leisure Asset Officer, Rob Bellad-Ellis. In discussion elected members queried if public pools were at capacity and whether there was a need for another pool to be built in Palmerston North.
	Moved Cr Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Chairperson Leonie Hapeta. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the Chief Executive be instructed to enter into negotiations with the Ashhurst School Board of Trustees 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.
	Clause 7.1 above was carried 14 votes to 1, 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: Councillor Karen Naylor.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Duncan McCann. 2. That the Chief Executive be instructed to investigate opportunities to partner with the Community to deliver new swimming pool facilities for the Long Term Plan.
	Clause 7.2 above was carried 11 votes to 4, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Karen Naylor and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Chairperson Leonie Hapeta, seconded Cr Lorna Johnson Note: On a motion “that the Chief Executive be instructed to explore costings to use Marton Pool in line with others”, the motion was lost 2 votes to 13, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Leonie Hapeta and Lorna Johnson. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, 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.

8-17

Venue's Activity Report

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

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the memorandum entitled “Venue’s Activity Report” dated 20 February 2017 be received for information.

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

For:

9-17

Palmerston North City Dog Park

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

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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 be 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 would be brought to Council by June 2017.

Clause 9-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 1.04pm

The meeting resumed at 2.00pm

10-17

Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange

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

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Chief Executive Officer be instructed 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) for 2218 square metres of land owned by Fair Investments Ltd. (Lot 146 DP 372992) as described in the report dated 16 February 2017 and entitled “Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange”.

Clause 10.1 above was carried 13 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, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Against:

Councillors Lew Findlay QSM and Bruno Petrenas.

11-17

Committee Work Schedule

Committee Work Schedule, dated March 2017.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive its Work Schedule dated March 2017.

Clause 11.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 2.18pm

Confirmed 7 June 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange

DATE: 4 May 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Palmerston North City Council, in the report Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange on June 7 2017, and as the administering body of Clearview Reserve, authorises the exchange of that part of the Clearview Reserve described in Appendix I (as part of Lot 1 DP 69185 & Lots 187 189 DP 67876) for the land described in Appendix II (as part of Lot 146 DP 372992) belonging to Fair Investments Ltd.

2. That Palmerston North City Council, in the report Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange on June 7 2017, and in exercise of the powers conferred on it by delegation under the Reserves Act 1977, authorises the exchange of that part of the Clearview Reserve described in Appendix I (as part of Lot 1 DP 69185 & Lots 187 189 DP 67876) for the land described in Appendix II (as part of Lot 146 DP 372992) belonging to Fair Investments Ltd.

3. 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 a land exchange at Clearview Reserve.

4. That Council note that the requirements of Sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 have been satisfied in relation to public notification prior to the resolution to enter into the land exchange at Clearview Reserve.

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:	Enter into the proposed land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd. to exchange a portion of Clearview Reserve for a portion of Fair Investment’s property.
Community Views	Community views have been taken into account during a Reserves Act 1977 public notice. The community views are split roughly 50/50 with regards the proposal. A significant portion of the community views in opposition did not accurately address the proposal, but rather addressed related, but separate, concerns of the subdivision.
Benefits	Council secures: a 20m wide access way from Clearview Park out to Airport Drive; an attractive open swale water course though the park, an additional 878 m² land to add to Clearview Reserve, improved frontage onto the park along the north-western border of the subdivision application, with no high fences.
Risks	Perception that Council is promoting development at the expense of the public domain.
Financial	$1,000 - $1,500 to Gazette the exchange, survey land and alter property titles.
OPTION 2:	Council declines the proposed land exchange, and the developers are required to alter their subdivision application to meet all existing requirements under their subdivision application and resource consent without a land exchange deal.
Community Views	Community views have been taken into account during a Reserves Act 1977 public notice. The community views are split roughly 50/50 with regards the proposal. A significant portion of the community views in opposition did not address the proposal, but rather addressed related but separate concerns.
Benefits	Council does not lose an approximate 3m wide strip of Clearview Park running along the entire north-western boundary.
Risks	The applicant will have to alter subdivision application and Council might either lose the full 20m gifted piece of additional land, or have to pay market valuation for it, if the desire to retain walking/cycling access to Airport Drive from the park remains. Council urban planners will retain the requirement for connectivity through the access way from Clearview Drive to Dogwood Way and the access way may likely go ahead under the altered subdivision plan without the requirement to exchange land.
Financial	Council may have to purchase land, depending on the outcome of the altered subdivision plan. At $252.00 per m² in Milson for 2218 m² is $559,726; less 50% for non-ideal land that has a water course running through it comes to $279,863.
Option 3:	Enter into the proposed land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd. to exchange a portion of Clearview Reserve for a portion of Fair Investment’s property, contingent upon altering aspects of the proposal as adopted by Council, in order to improve the recreation amenity value gained in the proposed exchange.
Community Views	Community views have been taken into account during a Reserves Act 1977 public notice. The community views are split roughly 50/50 with regards the proposal. A significant portion of the community views in opposition did not address the proposal, but rather addressed related but separate concerns.
Benefits	Council may address any community concerns it deems necessary in order to improve the recreation amenity value of the proposed exchange without declining the exchange itself.
Risks	Any conditions that are set do not adequately address the requirement to improve recreation reserve amenity (but address other external concerns) at Clearview Park and this is detrimental to achieving a high quality recreational park environment.
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, as summarised in Clause 2.4 below.

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 light 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 purple section in the aerial below shows the section of park currently grazed. The purple/light 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 purple 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 2016/17 Annual Plan – “Clearview Reserve Development”. The design work (new playground, drainage in the park, and walkways) was completed in accordance with an earlier development 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 orange) and Fair Investments Ltd. (in red).

2.6 In that meeting it was proposed 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 proposes the Council 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, (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 yellow 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 brown 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. Council would need 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 On March 29 Council resolved, “That the Chief Executive Officer be instructed 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) for 2218 square metres of land owned by Fair Investments Ltd. (Lot 146 DP 372992) as described in the report dated 16 February 2017 and entitled “Clearview Park Proposed Land Exchange”.

2.14 A public notice was issued as per requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 in order to complete the required one month consultation process. The consultation process ended on 1 May 2017.

2.15 In addition to the required public notice, Council also sent flyers describing the proposal and asking for any feedback to all dwellings within a 500m walking distance to Clearview Park. The consultation was also made available on Council’s website and social media platforms. A total of 18 submissions were received.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Enter into the proposed land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd. to exchange a portion of Clearview Reserve (as described in Appendix I) for a portion of Fair Investment’s property (as described in Appendix II).

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

3.3 Clearview Reserve is a “Recreation Reserve” under the Act. 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 Reserves Act 1977) the exchange must 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) Reserves Act 1977). 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) Reserves Act 1977).

3.6 The Reserves Act 1977 requires Council to publicly notify the intent to exchange land in a local newspaper, with the consultation period lasting 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. Officers of Council are required to make recommendations to Council regarding “the extent to which objections should be allowed or accepted or disallowed or not accepted”.

3.8 In deciding whether objections should be allowed or accepted or disallowed or not accepted, Officers should give recourse to the Reserves Act 1977 Guidelines issued by the Minister of Conservation. Criteria for determining this is described in this document under Analysis of Options 4.2-4.5.

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 the developers are required to alter their subdivision application to meet all existing requirements under their subdivision application and resource consent without a land exchange deal.

3.11 Fair Investments Ltd. subdivision application and resource consents have been granted, subject to Council approving the land exchange. This outcome would therefore require Fair Investments Ltd. to propose a variation to Stage Four of the approved application that does not require a land exchange.

3.12 Option 3: Enter into the proposed land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd. to exchange a portion of Clearview Reserve for a portion of Fair Investment’s property, contingent upon altering aspects of the proposal as adopted by Council in order to further improve the recreation amenity value gained in the proposed exchange.

3.13 In this option Council would adopt the proposed land exchange, but would require alterations to other aspects of the proposal in order to achieve a higher level of recreation amenity at Clearview Park.

3.14 The alterations would be adopted at the June 7 2017 Sport and Recreation Committee, and would be enacted by Officers prior to any land exchange.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: enter into the proposed land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd. to exchange a portion of Clearview Reserve (as described in Appendix 1) for a portion of Fair Investment’s property (as described in Appendix 2).

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 would 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:

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

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

· 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 When making a decision regarding the proposed land exchange and judging any increase or loss of recreation amenity to a reserve, Council must consider objections and support for the proposal. Council received 20 submissions in relation to the land exchange. One submission was blank, and therefore only 19 submissions were assessed. 8 submissions are in favour of the proposal. 10 submissions are opposed to the proposal. 1-3 are in favour of changes to the reserve but opposes the road, as some submissions had elements of both support and objection. 1 submission was received by email – see Attachment 3 (Andrew L. Mason – email submission). Submissions opposed to the proposal tended to be lengthy and cover a number of concerns. Those concerns can be generally summed up under the following headings:

Objections Related to the Reserves Act 1977	Objections Related to Planning and Consenting	Other
1. The proposed swap was already slated for a reserve area and therefore an exchange is not required	7. Not enough parking on Dogwood Way	15. Boy Racers – racing between Clearview Drive and Dogwood Way
2 Exchange thin strip - Impact on feeling of spaciousness of park	8. Airport users parking on Dogwood Way/Clearview Drive and walking through the new walkway link to Airport Drive	16. Too many playgrounds in the area
3. Illegal re-classification of the reserve will occur if Council goes ahead	9. Environmentally unsound – redirecting the water course	17. Waste of money
4. Land use (proposed land for exchange) not consistent with walkers and joggers needs	10. Have not mitigated negative effects on the community	18. Developer failing to meet obligations to residents with regards quality of subdivision
5. Rerouting of stream through park land will take away usable reserve land	11. Flooding in the park may now occur due to re-aligned water course.	19. Property values will be impacted negatively in Dogwood Way if it’s no longer a cul-de-sac
6. Council (ratepayers) have to pay for beautification and re-routing of the stream	12. Storm water modelling does not exist or is not robust	20. Safety of elderly and children
	13. Increased traffic through Dogwood Way to Clearview Drive will create traffic congestion	21. Financial benefit to the developer is the goal of the exchange
	14. Ratepayers required to pay for the road/drive access way joining Clearview Drive to Dogwood Way	22. More thought needs to be put into the type of trees in the park – trees are dying
		23. Not the right type of playground equipment in the park
		24. More thought with regards to bins, dog stations, seating, and general amenity

Officers should, under ministerial guidelines, identify and advise which objections should be considered when making a Reserves Act decision on a proposed land exchange. The above table was developed as a form of classifying the objections. It should be noted that while all the objections have relevance, many of them are not able to be addressed under a Reserves Act 1977 process. These issues (in yellow headings) are dealt with as part of engineering standards, resource consent application or subdivision application and would not be influenced by a decision under the Reserves Act. The column in green describes the objections that are specifically relevant to making a decision on a land exchange under the Reserves Act.

In support of the proposal:

· General one line statements stating that the proposal is well received.

· Some more detailed support for playground and especially pathways.

In partial support

· Great work, but changes to the type of playground area are required.

· Like the link to Airport Drive (but not vehicular access).

· Nice park layout, but loss of cul-de-sac not liked.

4.5 Objections raised by submitters and considered relevant to the decision-making criteria as stipulated by the Reserves Act 1977, are summarised below (1-6):

1. The proposed piece of land to be exchanged by the developer was already set aside as recreation reserve in the developer’s original plan, and therefore Council should have no need to enter into an exchange.

2. Exchanging a long strip of the entire length of the back of the reserve will impact upon the spaciousness of the reserve.

3. The reserve is being illegally re-classified under the Reserves Act 1977.

4. Land use is not consistent with walkers or joggers.

5. Rerouting of stream will make much of the park unusable.

6. Ratepayers should not have to pay to re-route the water course or park beautification along the stream.

Reserves Act Objection 1: the objection assumes that because the proposed piece of land under consideration for exchange is on a plan provided by the developer that this plan is somehow binding. The plan provided to the residents (in the 1990’s) was not fully lodged with the Council as a subdivision application, and therefore not legally in existence as a subdivision.

The piece of land proposed to be given to Council as part of the exchange is the property of the developer. There are no conditions that require this land be “gifted” to the Council because it was in the developer’s conceptual plan as reserve. The developer may require the Council to purchase or exchange the piece of land, if the Council wants to create access between the park and Airport Drive. In this case, the developer has requested an exchange. The objection assumes incorrectly that the Council simply takes the land or must have it gifted because it was in a conceptual subdivision plan. Therefore the notion of exchange is relevant (whether by way of monetary exchange or a proposed land exchange).

Reserves Act Objection 2: this objection claims that the recreation amenity value of the reserve is lessened by the loss of some width on the reserve as it stands.

While it is true that the loss of reserve width may negatively alter the recreation amenity value of the reserve, the decision is whether, under balance, the loss of this strip of land outweighs the gain of the walking connection to Airport Drive and the wider walkways network, the open water course through the park and the additional 878m² of total land added to the park in the form of a 20m wide connection.

On balance, Officers believe that the increase in recreation amenity value to the reserve more than offsets the reduction in amenity caused by the decreased reserve width.

Reserves Act Objection 3: claims the Council is not allowed to legally change the classification of a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, and the proposal requires reclassification of land in order to enter into land exchange.

This is not correct. There will be no re-classification process of Clearview Reserve, and all land gained in the exchange, as per Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977, will be classified as recreation reserve upon notification in the Gazette, should the proposed exchange go ahead.

Reserves Act Objection 4: suggests land use is not consistent with walking or jogging.

The land and new paths through the park are already being used by walkers and there is nothing in the proposed document or in relation to the proposed land exchange that might negatively impact either walkers or joggers. In fact, it appears the opposite is true as there will be a number of new loops created by the proposal.

Reserves Act Objection 5: believes rerouting the stream through the park will create a significant amount of unusable land and negatively impact the recreation amenity of the park.

This objection states Council is essentially giving up good land for bad, thereby negatively impacting the recreation amenity of the park overall.

There is a decent amount of flat land at the front of the park for kicking a ball, etc. This portion of the park has had some minor drainage work recently completed, because the soil/clay in this area is poor and holds water (becomes completely saturated in winter). The back of the park therefore would not be ideal for open-space play anyway.

The back of the park, proposed as a beautified area with a rock water course running through it could be seen to improve the recreation amenity of the park. This argument somewhat depends on the thrust of a person’s recreation interests, and it is not unusual for recreation values to be high where land is least desirable for development (such as Aokautere gullies).

Officers remain convinced that the proposal contains enough variety to satisfy a number of recreation interests, and therefore the loss of pure open space caused by the redirected water course is offset by the development and beautification of the water course in conjunction with trees, seating and paths along the water course.

Reserves Act Objection 6: suggests ratepayers should not have to pay to re-route the water course or park beautification along the stream.

The cost of all subdivision work associated with re-directing the water course will be met by the developer. The creation of the open rock swale and associated development will not fall onto ratepayers.

4.6 Objections Related to Planning and Consenting

Submitters also had concerns related to aspects of the proposal that technically sit outside of the Reserves Act 1977 process, and are related more properly to the planning and consents process.

Planning and Consenting Objection 7: argues there is not enough parking on Dogwood Way as it is. The objection argues that the proposal will increase an already congested cul-de-sac.

Kerb side parking is provided in Dogwood Way which is appropriate for a residential environment. Overspill parking associated with any specific activity can be addressed through the land use consent if relevant, by asking for greater consideration/or imposing regulatory controls on the street.

Planning and Consenting Objection 8: claims Airport users parking on Dogwood Way/Clearview Drive will walk through the new walkway link to Airport drive to go to the Airport.

Facilities that develop along Airport Drive should be largely self-sufficient in terms of parking. Thus parking overspill should not occur. Parking within the Airport Precinct should therefore be more convenient than parking in Dogwood Way or Clearview Drive (which is approximately 1 kilometre away from the Airport Terminal). If an issue does arise, controls can be put in place to restore convenience and/or amenity.

Planning and Consenting Objections 9 & 10: Argues that the proposal to redirect the watercourse is environmentally unsound, and adverse effects on the area have not been mitigated.

Any re-routing has to be done with care but it is not necessarily environmentally unsound to redirect the watercourse. The flow demands on the watercourse as it exists now are very different from the original geomorphic forces that shaped the shallow gully it lies in. Most of the catchment has been either cut-off or heavily modified when the airport was originally developed or as a result of more recent flood protection works relating to the Mangaone stream. Prior to European development the watercourse was a dis-tributary of the Mangaone, being part of its wider floodplain.

Any negative effects of providing through-link connectivity of the street and recreation network have been addressed by:

· Narrowing of through-link to shared space single lane (3m wide) for all modes of traffic.

· Trees and amenity plantings along lane to reinforce narrowing of traffic through-link to encourage slowing of through traffic.

· Paved surface to read as multi-mode shared space as opposed to just vehicular traffic.

· Inclusion of traffic calming along lane to further slow traffic.

· Lighting of lane way for safety at night.

· Permeable fencing along all lots fronting boundary of reserve to increase passive surveillance or ‘eyes on the space’.

· Increased plantings and recreation pathways through reserve to enhance amenity of open space.

Planning and Consenting Objection 11: believes flooding in the park will now occur due to a re-aligned watercourse.

In extreme events inundation in the park does occur. This is a natural part of the berm flow conveyance mechanism that occurs to manage higher flows. Further down at Dogwood Way the road culvert acts as a brake on such flows, thereby causing some detention volumes. This is beneficial to downstream areas and such behaviour will not be materially affected by the development.

Planning and Consenting Objection 12: suggests storm water modelling does not exist or is not robust.

Storm water modelling and analysis is as much an art as it is a science. Nevertheless the recently completed model has been calibrated to the maximum extent possible given the data available. The model uses an approach that covers all contingent factors and key parameters far better than any conventional hydraulic analysis approach.

Planning and Consenting Objection 13: argues connectivity of Dogwood Way to Clearview Drive will cause increased traffic through Dogwood Way to Clearview Drive and will create traffic congestion.

The proposed link will not provide a convenient link for through traffic. The potential for increased traffic is therefore limited to residential development in the immediate area. The link road will also be constructed to maintain low operating speeds. Clearview Drive will provide a shorter and more convenient connection to the wider road network than Dogwood Way for much of the proposed development.

The current urban pattern to the east of Milson Line is that of a series of both deep, meandering and short cul-de-sacs with some neighbourhood through-links via McGregor Street, Airport Drive and Clearview Drive.

The subdivision proposal addresses the disconnect of Dogwood Way from the rest of Clearview Park as well as the surrounding neighbourhood street network by providing a through link to Clearview Drive by way of the 6m wide road and 3m wide lane at the edge of the reserve.

This provides for enhanced connectivity of the local street and recreation network leading to:

· Increased efficiency of wayfinding and movement of the urban environment for all transport modes – vehicle, cycling and walking. This includes an increase in direct access between dwellings and local services, e.g. Milson Shops.

· Increased user safety both recreational (visibility, passive surveillance) and traffic (reduced driving time exposed to accidents).

· Increased social connectivity amongst residents and the local community.

· Improved access to the recreation network and increased active health.

· Provision for an alternative access for emergency services

Providing connected movement for all modes of movement between Dogwood Way and Clearview Drive as well as providing increased access to the recreation network is a principle of good urban design and is considered a positive urban design outcome.

Planning and Consenting Objection 14: argues that ratepayers should not have to pay for the access land from Clearview Drive to Dogwood Way.

The construction of the proposed access land from Clearview Drive to Dogwood Way is the responsibility of the developer. Council would then assume responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the access lane as with any other development.

4.7 Other Objections

4.8 In addition to the Reserves Act 1977 Objections and the Planning and Consenting Objections, there were a number of objections that either sit outside Councils mandate completely, or do not quite fit into the other two categories.

Other Objections 15: believes that boy racers will race between Dogwood Way and Clearview Drive.

The link road will also be constructed to maintain low operating speeds. It is unlikely that boy racers will be able to navigate the narrow, speed controlled link road in a way that would cause adverse effects on local residents.

Other Objections 16: suggests there are already too many playgrounds in the area.

Local reserves tend to have smaller playgrounds and are designed for local residents to access within a 500 metre walking distance. Clearview Park fulfils that local reserve amenity requirement, and the reserve is already seeing significant use since the development of the playground in May 2017.

Other Objections 17: believes Council is wasting ratepayers’ money by developing parks and reserves.

This is a matter of opinion, and satisfaction levels for parks and reserves development in Palmerston North is very high. Ratepayers appear highly satisfied with parks and reserves in Palmerston North.

Other Objections 18: claims the developer is failing to meet obligations to residents with regards to infrastructure of subdivision.

Once the subdivision is complete, the ownership of the road and footpaths transfer to Council. It is therefore Council’s responsibility to maintain these assets.

Other Objection 19: suggests that property values will be impacted negatively in Dogwood Way, if it’s no longer a cul-de-sac.

When assessing environmental impacts under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Reserves Act 1977 the potential impact on property values are not relevant to any assessment.

Other Objections 20: believes the proposal will negatively impact on the safety of elderly and children

High quality of the public space is a key aspect of improving safety. This can be achieved through:

· Legible, efficient and safe movement through the urban environment.

· Increased visibility and passive surveillance for both residents and users.

· Increased direct access to recreation and active health.

· Increased landscape amenity.

· Traffic calming measures along the shared lane.

· Alternative access for emergency services.

Other Objections 21: suggests the goal of the proposed exchange is to provide financial benefit for the developer.

The goal of the exchange from Council’s perspective is ultimately to ensure that ratepayers and local residents receive the highest level of recreation amenity and quality of subdivision afforded by the proposal.

Other Objections 22: believes more thought needs to be put into the type of trees in the park – they are dying/stunted.

The ground in this part of the City has high clay content. This makes the soil poor in nutrients, and means the park holds a lot of water in the winter and dries out in the summer. As a result it is very difficult to ensure trees become established. Council has re-assessed the tree-choice to better cope with these conditions.

Other Objections 23: claims that the park does not have the right type of playground equipment, or should have more playground equipment.

Local reserve playgrounds do not tend to have large quantities of playground equipment. This is in part to ensure financial responsibility to ratepayers, and because local reserves do not ave large volumes of playground users. Therefore Council attempts to create a general spread amongst the ages within a minimal budget. At Clearview Park Council have larger swings to challenge the older children, and some toddlers play equipment for mothers and children. There are also tracks for the elderly with gradual gradients and wide paths, to accommodate mobility scooters and wheelchairs through the park.

Other Objections 24: believes more thought needs to go into the park with regards bins, dog stations, seating, and general amenity.

As above, Clearview Park is a local reserve and the level of development reflects this. This park has adequate services: a bin, 2 park benches, multiple tracks, a playground, a flat area with some drainage work to kick a ball, and a picnic table. Council has developed tracks to all benches and services so that all people can access the park, even when the ground cannot be comfortably walked on in the winter months.

4.9 Option 2: Council declines the proposed land exchange, and the developers are required to alter their subdivision application to meet all existing requirements under their subdivision application and resource consent without a land exchange deal.

4.10 It should be noted that under the Palmerston North City District Plan the subdivision application has been granted subject to Council approval of the proposed land exchange, allowing for alterations if a land exchange is not available to the applicant.

4.11 The developer’s Horizons Regional Council Resource Consent remains under consideration (along with all engineering reports for storm water and roading; as part of subdivision 3826).

4.12 Many of the concerns raised by submitters are issues that sit within the jurisdiction of the District Plan and the Resource Management Act, and cannot be appropriately addressed through submissions to a Reserves Act 1977 land exchange proposal.

4.13 Any alterations to the subdivision application resulting from Option 2 might mean:

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

· Loss of the swale feature (through piping the water course) may occur if the developer desires to better maintain planned lot sizes;

· Council may be required to pay for any land that was heretofore subject to gifting by the applicant (given that the desire for walkway connectivity will remain in play).

4.14 Therefore choosing Option 2 may result in less-than-desirable recreation outcomes for this park, and may not greatly alter the existing subdivision requirements.

4.15 Option 3: Enter into the proposed land exchange with Fair Investments Ltd. to exchange a portion of Clearview Reserve for a portion of Fair Investment’s property, contingent upon altering aspects of the proposal as adopted by Council in order to further improve the recreation amenity value gained in the proposed exchange.

4.16 The analysis for Option 1 holds for Option 3. However, under Option 3 Council would have weighed up one or more of the objections and reached a different outcome with regards to the improvement of recreation amenity at Clearview Park.

4.17 Option 3 allows Council to make alterations to the proposed land exchange by setting conditions on the proposal without denying the other benefits of the land exchange.

5. Conclusion

5.1 When balancing all objections relevant to a Reserves Act 1977 land exchange process, Officers believe that the proposed land exchange will result in an increased level of recreation amenity at Clearview Park.

5.2 Not entering into a land exchange at Clearview Park will not significantly impact the bulk of concerns raised by the objectors, because many of the issues raised may only be addressed under other areas of jurisdiction (such as the District Plan, the subdivision application and the Resource Management Act 1991).

5.3 The outcomes related to the quality of connectivity to Airport Drive become less certain for the Council by not entering into a land exchange.

6. Next actions

6.1 If Option 1 is chosen:

6.2 Survey the land parcels in question.

6.3 Gazette the land exchange, as per the Reserves Act 1977 requirements.

6.4 Work with the developer to ensure the quality of the park and associated connectivity is maintained and enhanced throughout the subdivision process.

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. There were no concerns raised by any of the Iwi parties in relation to the proposed land exchange at Clearview Reserve.

7.2 The Community engagement process occurred under the Reserves Act 1977 requirements for public consultation as required for land-exchange proposals.

7.3 A one month period in which to receive support or objections to the proposal was held in accordance with Sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977, and objectors/supporters were provided the opportunity to be heard by the Council.

7.4 A hearings process was held on May 22 2017, and three objectors to the proposal were provided an opportunity for their objections to be heard in person.

7.5 Council ensured that the proposed land exchange was advertised on its website and social media sites over the one month submissions period. In addition flyers (with self-addressed submission forms) were dropped to all houses within a 500m walking distance of the park.

Compliance and administration

n/a

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.	Appendix I ⇩
2.	Appendix II ⇩
3.	Andrew L. Mason - email submission ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Waitoetoe Park Draft Reserve Development Plan

DATE: 15 May 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the “Draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan”, attached to the 7 June Report titled “Waitoetoe Park Draft Reserve Development Plan”, to go out for a one month community consultation period in order to receive public feedback on the draft.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Palmerston North City Council, key stakeholders, park users and local residents have worked over the past eight months to develop a draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan. The plan is now in a draft form and ready to go out to the public for Council to receive comment.
OPTION 1:	The Committee adopts the Waiteotoe Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft plan to go out to the public for comment.
Community Views	An extensive (Stage 1) early community engagement process was recently completed to assist the development of this draft.
Benefits	Council will better understand how well received the proposals in the draft plan will be prior to committing to a final plan.
Risks	The draft plan is not well received, and Council may desire a return to the early community engagement process, or amend the draft.
Financial	$1,500 - $2,000: flyers, signage at the park, public notices and use of social media to publicise the draft. The draft as it stands requires Council to fund an additional $66,000 from 2016/17 budgets for the Dog Socialisation/Agility features at Waitoetoe Park.
OPTION 2:	The Committee does not adopt the draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan to go out for public comment.
Community Views	An extensive (Stage 1) early community engagement process was recently completed to assist the development of this draft.
Benefits	The Committee, by not adopting the draft Plan, will have reasons for doing so, and these can be addressed under Option 2.
Risks	The community and Council have expended considerable time and resources to get the draft document to this point, and it would be counter-productive to that effort not to proceed further.
Financial	Council would likely be required to consult again at some point on the plan, and so would have to spend approximately $5,000 to re-consult.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Active Recreation Strategy - to ensure Council engages with the public when formulating recreation options. Manawatū River Framework – to create and foster a sense of local ownership along the Manawatū River.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Palmerston North City Council, key stakeholders, park users and local residents have worked over the past eight months to develop a draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan.

1.2 Stage 1 of the community engagement process (early Public Engagement Stage) is complete, and the plan is now in a draft form and is ready to go out to the public for Council to receive comment on the draft (Stage 2: Public Engagement on Draft Plan).

1.3 Officers plan to utilise a number of mechanisms in order to ensure a sound and extensive public comment process takes place. Council will publicise the draft Plan on the PNCC website and social media platforms, signage at the park itself, key stakeholders will receive copies and local residents will receive copies of the plan.

1.4 The community will be invited to provide comment on the draft and Council will ensure that opportunities for this are relevant and accessible.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council purchased the old Allied Concrete Works land in the 2013/14 financial year. As part of that purchase Council directed Officers to consult with the community on possible uses for the land. The Allied Concrete Works was previously also the site of gravel extraction pits, and the area (in blue in the aerial photo below) has been an industrial site for more than 30 years.

2.2 Waitoetoe Park is situated within the wider Manawatū River corridor. In February 2016 the Manawatū River Framework was adopted by Council. The key focus of this document is to encourage more people to be active along the Manawatū River environment (particularly in the urban environment) and to create a distinctive sense of place and ownership around the urban Manawatū River catchment. The Rural West section of that document contains a number of actions and directions related to the development of Waitoetoe Park. The key actions related to this draft document are:

· Restoration planting

· Improve wayfinding to and around Waitoetoe Park

· Prepare a Reserve Development Plan for Waitoetoe Park (building on natural amenity values and evolving as a natural play space)

· Transformation of the old Allied Concrete Works site into parkland

In addition to the specific actions related directly to Waitoetoe Park in the Manawatū River Framework there are a number of generic river corridor opportunities that the plan identifies for the urban river corridor that are particularly relevant to this draft plan. They are:

· Expression of Rangitāne and Maori Culture

· Create a sense of ownership

· Creation of natural play spaces

· Opportunities for dog areas along the river corridor

· Mountain-biking/cycling areas along the river corridor

2.3 In October of 2016 Council began Stage 1 of the community engagement phase of the Development Plan: Early Public Engagement with the community in order to understand local desires for Waitoetoe Park more concretely. Since then Council has:

· Held four Focus Groups (with local stakeholder groups).

· Completed over 200 on-site user surveys.

· Held a Community Picnic Day with music, BBQ and water-slide activities (included in this was on-site surveying and an Ideas Big Board).

· Sent out and received submission forms/flyers to a considerable local sector of the Awapuni Community asking for their feedback.

· Advertised the desire to hear peoples’ thoughts on the park through social media platforms and the PNCC Website.

· Held an Awapuni Library meeting to discuss the park.

· Surveys and survey boxes were kept in the Awapuni Library, Sport Manawatu and the Hancock Community House.

· Held a workshop with Councillors (March 20, 2017) on the community engagement results, next steps and to seek direction.

· Established a Working Party comprised of key local stakeholders to engage with our Landscape Architect (Shannon Bray) in order to formalise the results of the community engagement into the draft planning document (draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan).

2.4 The total budget available to Waitoetoe Park is $630,000. The 2015/25 Ten Year Plan budget for Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development is spread amongst a number of Programmes. They are:

· Programme 568 - 207 Maxwells Line - Land Development ($257,000, to be considered by Council to be brought forward from 2019/20 to 2018/19 during the next Ten Year Plan, as per direction at the March 20 Councillor Workshop).

· Programme 587 - Linklater Reserve Development (Dog Park allocation is $33,000, which is being considered by Council for transfer from this Programme to a separate Waitoetoe Park Programme, as per Resolution 5-17 from the Committee of Council meeting May 24).

· $66,000 new capital for the Dog Socialisation/Agility features to be funded from the 2017/18 budget. For consideration at the June 19 Committee of Council meeting.

· Programme 572 - Manawatū Riverside - Framework Implementation ($278,000 in 2017/18 financial year to be spent primarily in the Rural West zone where Waitoetoe Park is located).

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: The Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the Waiteotoe Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft plan to go out to the public for comment.

3.2 Option 2: The Sport and Recreation Committee does not adopt the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft to go out for public comment.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: The Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the Waiteotoe Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft plan to go out to the public for comment.

4.2 There are a number of areas identified for development in the plan. They are:

· Bio-diversity and planting/restoration planting

· Car parking and river access

· Trails and track development

· Cultural recognition and uplifting of Rangitāne O Manawaū at the site (park entranceway, Ahimāte Pā Site area development and interpretive signage and wayfinding, name change of the park from Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park to better reflect the heritage values of the Ahimate Pa site).

· Natural play development.

· Mountain biking trail and skills area development.

· Dog walking trail and socialisation area.

· Waka Launch site – access for Horizons Regional Council.

· Crime prevention (CPTED).

· Wetlands development and boardwalks.

· Waka area (still to be negotiated with Rangitāne, as they may want waka stored and publicised at a different location).

4.3 The budget for each activity breakdown in the draft is in the table below.

Activity	Cost
Bio-Diversity/Planting and Wetlands Development	$35,000
Dog socialisation and play	$99,000
Mountain biking (skills and trail development)	$40,000
Natural Play	$54,000
Car parking and river access	$117,000
Cultural and iconic recognition of the site	$60,000
Paths and trails, landscaping and signage and project management	$107,443
Contingency (at 20%)	$97,634
Total	$610,077

4.4 The draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan as priced currently sits within the budgets allocated across a number of programmes (as in Table 4.3).

4.5 It should be noted that the budgets also take into account a higher-than-usual active and practical community interest in this park. For instance, while budgets for mountain-biking and bio-diversity might appear low, allowance has been made for materials and less for project management, labour, etc. A key aim of the draft Plan is to encourage and grow the community development activities at this park through the Development Plan. Therefore the budget for those features has been adjusted (and areas for development that the community are equipped to pick up, such as track development and planting, etc.), in an effort to ensure the community development aspects of this park are encouraged.

4.6 Option 2: The Sport and Recreation Committee does not adopt the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft to go out for public comment.

4.7 Officers will seek direction from Council as to how to proceed with the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan process.

4.8 This option would require Council to provide direction on the unsatisfactory aspects of the plan. Officers would then work on a redevelopment of the draft Plan and report back to Council in September 2017 to the next Sport and Recreation Committee (depending on the amount of work required to adjust the existing draft).

5. Conclusion

5.1 There has been extensive and successful early community engagement to get the draft Waitoetoe Park Development Plan up and running.

5.2 The draft Waitoetoe Park Development Plan sits comfortably within existing budgets.

5.3 The draft plan is currently in a condition to test it with the community.

6. Next actions

6.1 Subject to adoption of option 1: enter into Stage 2 to of the community engagement process to develop the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan.

6.2 Flyers, signage and engagement on the draft Waitoetoe Park Development Plan for 4-6 weeks. July/August 2017.

6.3 Make any final adjustments to the draft related to the community consultation by August 2017.

6.4 Develop a final Waitoetoe Park Development Plan and report to Council in September 2017.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Community engagement so far:

7.2 In October 2016 Council began early-stage consultation with the community in order to understand local desires for Waitoetoe Park more concretely. Since then Council has:

· Held four Focus Groups (with local stakeholder groups).

· Completed over 200 on-site user surveys.

· Held a Community Picnic Day with music, BBQ and water-slide activities (included in this was surveying and a Ideas Big Board and surveying).

· Sent out and received submission forms/flyers to a considerable local sector of the Awapuni Community seeking their feedback.

· Advertised the desire to hear peoples’ thoughts on the park through social media platforms and the PNCC Website.

· Held an Awapuni Library meeting to discuss the park.

· Surveys and surveys boxes were kept in the Awapuni Library, Sport Manawatu and the Hancock Community House.

· Held a workshop with Councillors (March 20, 2017) on the community engagement results, next steps and to seek direction.

7.3 Current community engagement and heading forward

· Consult with the community on the draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan for 4 weeks (which will comprise similar processes to Stage 1 community engagement).

· Report to Council with a final Waitoetoe Park reserve Development Plan, including recommended changes based on the outcomes of Stage 2 of the community engagement process.

Compliance and administration

n/a

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual Part II of the Delegations Manual/Terms of reference for Sport and Recreation Committee Item II.	Yes
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.	Draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan ⇩
2.	Waitoetoe Park Stage 1 Community Engagement Results Report ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Memorial Park Draft Development Plan

DATE: 17 May 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan, attached to the 7 June 2017 report titled “Memorial Park Draft Development Plan” to go out for a one month community consultation period in order to receive public feedback on the draft.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Palmerston North City Council, key stakeholders, park users and local residents have worked over the past eight months to develop a draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan. The plan is now in a draft form and is ready to go out to the public for comment.
OPTION 1:	The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft to go out to the public for comment.
Community Views	An extensive early community engagement process was recently completed in order to achieve the development of this draft.
Benefits	Council will better understand how well received the proposals in the draft plan will be prior to committing to a final plan.
Risks	The draft plan is not well received, and Council may desire a return to the early community engagement process.
Financial	$1,500 - $2,000: flyers, signage at the park, public notices and use of social media to publicise the draft.
OPTION 2:	The Committee does not adopt the draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan to go out for public comment.
Community Views	An extensive early community engagement process was recently completed in order to achieve the development of this draft.
Benefits	The Committee, by not adopting the draft Plan, will have reasons for doing so, and these can be addressed by Officers.
Risks	The community and Council have expended considerable time and resources to get the draft document to this point, and it would be counter-productive to that effort not to proceed further.
Financial	Council would likely be required to consult again at some point on the plan, and so would have to spend approximately $5,000 to re-consult.
OPTION 3:	The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft to go out to the public for comment, with alterations adopted by the Sport and Recreation Committee.
Community Views	An extensive early community engagement process was recently completed in order to achieve the development of this draft.
Benefits	Council is able to make some changes to the draft Plan and still adopt the plan to go out for consultation contingent on the requisite alterations being made by Officers.
Risks	The changes Council make do not reflect the Stage 1 early engagement. Any changes by way of additions will probably not have been costed out to give Council a fuller picture of the impacts.
Financial	$1,500 - $2,000: flyers, signage at the park, public notices and use of social media to publicise the draft.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Recreation Strategy: to develop and build on the unique features of City Reserves.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Palmerston North City Council, key stakeholders, park users and local residents have worked over the past eight months to develop a draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan.

1.3 Officers plan to utilise a number of mechanisms in order to ensure a sound and extensive public comment process takes place. Council will publicise the draft plan on the PNCC website and social media platforms, signage at the park itself, key stakeholders will receive copies and local residents will receive copies of the plan.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 In June 2016 a report went to Council titled Reserve Management Plan and Development Plan Priorities. In that report the priorities for developing both reserve management and development plans were laid out and adopted. Memorial Park was identified for a Reserve Development Plan only, due to occur in the 2016/17 financial year.

2.2 In September/October of 2016 Council began Stage 1 early public engagement with the community in order to understand the City’s desires for Memorial Park. Since then Council has:

· Held an on-site workshop (with key stakeholder groups).

· Completed over 200 on-site and mail drop user surveys.

· Held a Memorial Park Fun Day with music, BBQ and water-slide activities (included in this was on-site surveying and an Ideas Big Board).

· Sent out and received submission forms/flyers to a considerable local sector of the surrounding park community asking for their feedback.

· Advertised the desire to hear peoples’ thoughts on the park through social media platforms and the PNCC Website and received comments and feedback.

· Received positive radio air-time to advertise the Memorial Park Fun Day, and the consultation process.

· Surveys and survey boxes were kept in the Library, Sport Manawatū, Hancock Community House, CCS Disability Action and Ruahine Kindergartens Association.

· Held a workshop with Councillors (March 20, 2017) on the community engagement results, next steps and to seek direction.

· In addition Council has worked with the local skating community on re-grinding the skate rink; the Fitzherbert Lions to plan boardwalks; and with local historians, the RSA and the Defence Force to develop the WWII theme for the park.

2.3 On March 20 2017 Councillors attended a workshop on Memorial Park. In that workshop Councillors assessed the Stage 1 consultation results. The consultation results identified a number of features that the public would like to see developed at Memorial Park. While there were some new features the public identified as desirable for Memorial Park, the bulk of the work identified could best be described as restoring the park to its former status, as a Memorial Park and City Reserve.

2.4 The Stage 1 Community Engagement results (attached to this report) were assessed in relation to the order of importance that the public placed on various features over the course of the consultation, and their relative costs to existing budgets. Councillors directed Officers to explore a number of features raised in the consultation that went beyond existing budgets.

2.5 The list below describes the general features identified for development and restoration/upgrade at Memorial Park. The bullet points are generally listed in order of importance as they emerged from the Stage 1 consultation process. Water features, playground upgrades and family area improvements were the clear top three priorities. Those that follow were less likely to be mentioned and may be seen as relatively equal under the top three priorities.

2.6 Those additional features were:

Water Features

· Splash Pad

· Small water slide

Playground Upgrades

· Additional playground features (to be completed this financial year).

Family Area and BBQ

· Restore and extend existing.

Duck Pond

· Improve the safety of the duck pond and keep it clean.

· More activity in the vicinity of the duck pond.

Memorial (WWII)

· Lift the status of the park as a “Memorial” Park.

General Amenity (described by consultation and Councillor direction)

· Restore old architecture (particularly the old rink Grandstand).

· Sensory garden (Councillor Work Shop March 20 2017).

· Old, tired toilets/change facilities in the sports field area that are now partially used as a janitor’s storage area.

· Gear shed for the skating groups (plus rink regrind which is now complete).

· General fencing and planting of the area to tidy it up, improve sight lines, etc.

· Tidy up the grandstand and old velodrome area.

2.7 The draft Memorial Park Development Plan is the culmination and extrapolation to date of the planning work achieved at this park as provided by the community engagement process and as directed by Council.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft plan to go out to the public for comment.

3.2 Option 2: the Sport and Recreation Committee does not adopt the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan to go out for public comment.

3.3 Option 3: The Sport and recreation Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft to go out to the public for comment, with alterations adopted by the Sport and Recreation Committee.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft plan to go out to the public for comment.

4.2 The general feedback from both Councillors and the community signifies that Memorial Park is more in need of some restoration and care rather than the addition of many new features.

4.3 There were a number of aspects identified for restoration. They are:

· Restoration of the grandstand at the skating rink.

· Landscaping and upgrades to the pool and surrounding fencing.

· Landscaping and restoration of the duck pond area (in particular the plan establishes a planted “barrier” between the duck pond and the public to increase the safety of the area).

· The WWII Memorial aspects of the park require restoration and reinvigoration (Murals, restore the Memorial Gates and the flag pole, a “Memorial Walk” featuring local heroes of WWII, etc.).

· Remove and replace the old and tired toilet/changing rooms between the “two parks”, and provide better legibility between the sports field and the park.

· Upgrade the old playground safety surfacing (coloured and ordered to resemble Poppy’s – hence the “Poppy Playground” in the draft plan).

· Continue the re-establishment of the landscaped park edges and replacement of the old wooden fences with new, see-through metal fencing.

· Upgrade the park to meet “gold” standards for accessibility (in line with a recent disability audit).

· Upgrade and renew the BBQ and family leisure area.

· Paint the sports field grandstand frontage.

· Works to soften the concrete edges of the old velodrome.

4.4 In addition to the upgrades there were a number of additional features identified for the park. They were:

· A small and simple splash-pad area next to the existing pool.

· A small slide into the deep end of the existing children’s pool.

· A boardwalk and viewing platform/seating area for the duck pond area.

· A sensory garden.

· A gear shed for the skating groups to use to store their skates and nets.

4.5 Council should also note that the $117,000 of accessible playground equipment is due to go into the park before the end of this financial year (2016/17). This will take care of much of the “increased playground equipment at the park” that the community raised during Stage 1 of the public engagement. All playground equipment installed has been designed specifically to ensure all-inclusive play equipment (not focused on separation of abilities) is installed.

Upgrades Budget (upgrades to existing features in the park)	New Capital Required (Will require new 10 Year Plan funding)	Existing Capital Renewals (Covered under existing 10 Year Plan budgets)
Grandstand Restoration (subject to 25% Capital Renewals Programme)	$26,250	$8,750
Pool fencing and landscaping surrounds	$30,000
Duck pond landscaping for safety	$10,000	0
WWII – Memorial restoration	$38,000	0
Safety surfacing (Poppy Playground)		$45,000
Perimeter landscaping and fencing	0	$20,000
Upgrade the BBQ area	$10,000	0
Paint the sports field grandstand frontage	0	$15,000
Project management/design	$15,000	0
Accessibility upgrades to “Gold Standard”	0	$15,000
Upgrade toilets in the sports field area and remove old toilets (subject to 25% Capital Renewals Programme)	$225,000	$75,000
Upgrades Totals	$354,250	$178,750
New Features (New additions to the existing park)	New Capital Required (Will require new 10 Year Plan funding)	Existing Capital Renewals (covered under existing 10 Year Plan budgets)
Splash Pad	$250,000
Pool slide	$7,000	0
Duck pond boardwalk and seating platform	$15,000	0
Sensory garden	$6,000	0
Soften the concrete velodrome ends in sports field	$35,000	0
Gear shed for skate groups	$25,000	0
New Features Totals	$338,000	0
Sub Total	$692,250	$178,750
Contingency (20% of total)	$138,450	$35,750
Project Management and Design (12% of total)	$34,612	$8,937
Totals	$865,312	$223,437
Existing Capital New (2015/25 10 Year Plan)	$108,000	n/a
Total New Funding suggested for 2018-2028 10 Year Plan	$757,312	n/a

4.6 The Memorial Park Capital New Programme 93 currently has $108,000 for capital new over the next two financial years (2017/18 – 2018/19 years).

4.7 The splash pad and new toilets would be specific projects and require a total funding amount for the year in which they were built. The remainder (less the splash pad and new toilet) is $282,312. Therefore Council could look to continue the existing capital budget at Memorial Park for an additional 4 years, with two years respectively seeing an additional $250,000 and $225,000 for significant projects (splash pad and toilet replacements).

2017/18	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23
$52,000	$306,000	$45,000	$45,000	$45,000	$265,000

4.8 The above budget would see the splash pad completed in the 2018/19 financial year, while the toilet build would be timed to occur after the planned Central Football refurbishment of the sports field changing rooms (in the Ten Year Plan for 2020/21). The suggested budget in the table above will be referred to the 2018/28 10 Year Plan for Council to consider within the context of the multiple competing budgetary requirements Council has.

4.9 Option 2: Sport and Recreation Committee does not adopt the draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan to go out for public comment.

4.10 Officers will re-work the draft Memorial Park Development Plan and report back to Council.

4.11 Option 3: The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a draft to go out to the public for comment, with alterations adopted by the Sport and Recreation Committee.

4.12 The analysis of Option 1 holds for option 3. However, any alterations will have an impact on the budget, and additions to the draft Plan will likely have to be costed off at a later date and go up for consideration to the 2018-28 10 Year Plan.

5. Conclusion

5.1 There has been extensive and successful early community engagement to get the draft Memorial Park Development Plan up and running.

5.2 The draft Memorial Park Development Plan will require additional Ten Year Plan funding. This could be achieved by extending the existing capital budget by four years (2019/20-2022/23), and by providing additional funding for the two larger scale projects (splash pad and new toilets).

5.3 The draft plan is currently in a condition to test it with the community.

6. Next actions

6.1 Should Option 1 be adopted:

6.2 Flyers, signage and engagement on the draft Memorial Park Development Plan for 4-6 weeks. July/August 2017.

6.3 Make any final adjustments to the draft related to the community consultation. August 2017.

6.4 Develop a final Memorial Park Development Plan and report to Council. September 2017.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 In September/October of 2016 Council began Stage 1 Community Engagement in order to understand the City’s desires for Memorial Park. Since then Council has:

· Held an on-site workshop (with key stakeholder groups).

· Completed over 100 on-site user surveys.

· Held a Memorial Park Fun Day with music, BBQ and water-slide activities (included in this was surveying and an Ideas Big Board and surveying).

· Sent out and received submission forms/flyers to a considerable local sector of the surrounding park community asking for their feedback.

· Advertised the desire to hear peoples’ thoughts on the park through social media platforms and the PNCC Website and received comments and feedback.

· Surveys and survey boxes were kept in the Library, Sport Manawatū, Hancock Community House, CCS Disability Action and Ruahine Kindergartens Association.

· Held a workshop with Councillors (March 20, 2017) on the community engagement results, next steps and to seek direction.

· In addition Council has worked with the local skating community on re-grinding the skate rink; and with local historians, the RSA and the Defence Force to develop the WWII theme for the park.

· Council will ensure that the extensive community engagement utilised during stage 1 will be maintained during the 4 week consultation period on the draft Memorial Park Development Plan.

· Officers will report back to the Sport and Recreation Committee in September 2017 with a final report and recommendations, based on the results of Stage 2 Community Engagement.

Compliance and administration

N/A

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>	Yes
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?	No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

1.	Memorial Park Stage 1 Community Engagement Results ⇩
2.	Draft Memorial Park Development Plan ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Campbell Street Campervan Carpark Trial

DATE: 18 May 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council continue the trial of the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark for another year to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the site; and assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City.

2. That Council install a security camera at the site.

3. That Officers report back on the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark trial in June of 2018.

4. That Officers report back to Council on a wider assessment of potential motor home sites, and with recommendations, prior to a final report on the trial of the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	In March 2016 Council adopted 82-86 Campbell Street Carpark as the trial site for a Campervan Carpark in central Palmerston North. The trial was due to run for one year. One year is now up, and Officers are reporting on the results of that trial.
OPTION 1:	Continue the trial of Campbell Street Campervan Carpark for another year to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the site; and assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City.
Community Views	Prior to the Campbell Street Carpark becoming a trial site for motorhome parking, the local business community surrounding the site were consulted with. Council is now in a better position to understand what Motorhome users want in a site than was the case one year ago when the trial began (see attached NZMCA Membership Survey on Palmerston North).
Benefits	Motorhomes are mobile and Council would benefit from understanding their movements/desired movements within the Palmerston North context. Establishing the campervan carpark effectively will allow it to have the best chance of success during a trial run.
Risks	Spending money to get Campbell Street Campervan Carpark up and running effectively could see Council spend budget and not gain the desired outcome.
Financial	$8,000 for camera installation.
OPTION 2:	Choose Campbell Street Campervan Carpark as a permanent site; and also assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City.
Community Views	Prior to the Campbell Street Carpark becoming a trial site for motorhome parking, the local business community surrounding the site were consulted with.
Benefits	Council chooses to get Campbell Street Campervan Carpark up and running, and continues to further develop motorhomes options in the City.
Risks	Council does not really understand the use of this campervan carpark as it has not been fully up and running yet.
Financial	$20,000 for camera installation.
OPTION 3:	Abandon Campbell Street Campervan Carpark and assess other sites.
Community Views	Prior to the Campbell Street Carpark becoming a trial site for motorhome parking, the local business community surrounding the site were consulted with. Council is now in a better position to understand what Motorhome users want in a site than we were one year ago when the trial began (see attached NZMCA Membership Survey on Palmerston North).
Benefits	Council will take a fresh look at Campervan sites across the central City.
Risks	Campbell Street Campervan Carpark, while not particularly attractive, serves a purpose within the wider Motorhome context of the City. It would not be effective use of the site and the work to date to quit the site this at this stage.
Financial	$2,000 – for investigation into a new site.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Economic Well Being Strategy 2010 – Palmerston North is recognised as a vibrant, caring, creative and sustainable city.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 In March 2016 Council adopted 82-86 Campbell Street Carpark as the trial site for a Campervan Carpark in central Palmerston North. The trial was due to run for one year. One year is now up, and Officers are reporting on the results of that trial.

1.2 There have been some minor issues getting the site up and running, but the area is now fully functional: all signage and line marking is complete, the site is now listed on the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA) website and is being promoted by the Central Economic Development Agency (CEDA). The site has been operational for 4 weeks (including the website and marketing presence with NZMCA and CEDA).

1.3 Campbell Street Campervan Carpark, as a spacious central parking area for motorhomes set amongst a variety of automotive service industry experts, will fulfil a specific utility role in the wider motorhome network in the lower North Island.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 In the context of a discussion around parking for a Winter Festival at the 7 December 2015 Sport and Recreation Committee meeting the following resolution was made by Council:

28.2 That a feasibility study be undertaken on a permanent overnight Campervan Park located near the City Centre by the March 2016 Committee meeting.

2.2 On March 14 2016 Council received a report titled Permanent Overnight Campervan Park – Feasibility Study. The feasibility study described:

· The types of motorhome included in the report (self-contained NZS 5465:2001) and those excluded (house buses, caravans, caravan trailers, converted MPVs).

· The requirements of motorhomes (dump stations, parking spaces sizes, etc.)

· A definition of freedom camping and how that relates to Palmerston North

· Observations from the CEO of NZMCA, Central Economic Development Agency (Destination Manawatu at that time) representative and a local NZMCA representative.

· A selection of site options, an analysis of site options and a recommended site (Campbell Street).

2.3 During the discussion it was decided that rather than the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark becoming a “permanent” motorhome parking site, it would be treated as a trial for one year.

2.4 In April of 2017 the site was completed with regards the NZMCA requirements for a “Park over Property”. On May 19 2017 Campbell Street Campervan Site went live on the NZMCA website as a park over property.

2.5 Council, as part of place-making initiatives, has commissioned a mural to be placed on the large wall owned by John Bates Wheel Alignment. The large mural is a picture of the Manawatū River including areas where motorhomes can park and stay. The mural is designed to be added to, and has the “#ThisIsMANAWATU” logo incorporated into it. The mural is jointly funded by Council (Parks and Property and the Library Arts Strategy Implementation funding), CEDA and NZMCA.

2.6 Officers worked with Bruce Lochore (CEO of the NZMCA) and Janet Reynolds from CEDA, to better understand the types of behaviours of NZMCA Membership with regards Palmerston North and its surrounds.

2.7 Council, NZMCA staff and CEDA collectively created a survey designed to help Council establish patterns of use by NZMCA members in and around Palmerston North. The survey was sent out to all North Island NZMCA membership. Attachment I describes the results of the survey.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Continue the trial of Campbell Street Carpark for another year to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the site; and assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City.

3.2 Option 2: Select Campbell Street Campervan Carpark as a permanent site; and assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City, now that we have a firmer understanding of motorhome use in relation to Palmerston North (see NZMCA Survey attached to this report).

3.3 Option 3: Abandon Campbell Street Campervan Carpark and assess other sites.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Continue the trial of Campbell Street Carpark for another year to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the site; and assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City.

4.2 The Campbell Street Campervan Carpark sits in the heart of Palmerston North’s vehicle service district. There are a number of key vehicular services within a 200 metre radius of the carpark. They are:

· Wheel alignment specialists (next door to the carpark).

· Panel beaters.

· Auto electrical technicians (opposite side of the road).

· Tyre shop(s).

· Mechanical servicing and WOF/COF assessments and servicing.

Motor home drivers struggle to park in traditional spaces, so prefer easy places to park while they assess service centre availability, etc. The carpark is therefore ideally situated to assist motorhome owners in their vehicular needs, and allows them to stay in the area if they are required to wait for service.

4.3 The carpark is also situated close to Cuba Street, George Street and Central Energy Trust Arena Manawatu. This allows motorhome owners to park their vehicle and walk to a café or event, without having to be concerned about where to stay after the event or meal. There is currently no camera at the site.

4.4 In late April 2017 NZMCA Membership topped 72,000. This is an increase of 10,000 members in a single year, and a 16% overall increase in membership for last year alone.

4.5 In April 2017 Council, CEDA and NZMCA joined forces to create a survey on motor home use in relation to Palmerston North. In particular, the survey creators wanted to better understand the quality of motor home users’ experiences and perception of Palmerston North.

4.6 The survey (Attachment I) concluded the following:

· Many motor home travellers come to Palmerston North, or would like to (nearly 80% of those that responded to the survey).

· Site features that are most likely to influence their decision are: proximity of river/ocean, privacy and seclusion, dog friendly and centrality.

· Reasons for visiting Palmerston North in a motor home were: a place to stay overnight on their travels to other places, visiting friends and family, a place to stay while going to events.

· What motor home users did not like about Palmerston North: not enough nice places to stay.

· What would make Palmerston North better for motor homes: Better places to stay along the Manawatū River.

· In addition, comments showed that (given the significant financial investment people have in their motor homes) that security was also important.

4.7 The survey concluded that: NZMCA members, when deciding on a place to stay, are looking for a mix of attributes. They desire short term stay areas that are relatively central but remain discreet and aesthetically pleasing. River and ocean settings are particularly important to them, along with a place that will allow them to take their dogs and not have to pay kennel fees, or intrude on a family member or friend. They are frugal in their decision-making for choosing sites, particularly given they like to move from place-to-place, and prefer places that are essentially freedom camping areas (do not cost). They are concerned that a place is safe/secure and prefer the company of other motorhomes.

4.8 NZMCA members like to move around and require a number of areas that they can park a large motor caravan easily and without too much difficulty getting in and out. These areas should fulfil a number of functions for motor caravan users:

· Central City – I-Site for information.

· Central City – shopping and stocking up on supplies.

· Central City – service area for motor homes.

· Riverside settings – a number of smaller, discreet, free riverside parking areas.

· Other settings – settings that provide a good view, access to walkways, recreational areas, etc.

4.9 With regards Palmerston North they believe the City is central, has adequate services and plenty of things for them to do. They like to attend events in the City, and would like more information about these activities and where they can stay while events are on. They are not looking for big-ticket, busy tourist destinations as much as one might think, but prefer a discreet, beautiful riverside setting that affords them access to the central city and service areas with relative ease.

4.10 They would be more likely to visit Palmerston North if the City had more discreet, free riverside settings for them to park up at, or other nice settings/areas of recreational activity, such as walks and mountain biking trails, for them to be close to. Given the level of investment in their motor homes, these areas, though out-of-the-way, would greatly benefit from being secure or providing a sense of safety and security.

4.11 Programme 752 Manawatū Riverside - Framework Implementation funding comes online in the 2017/18 year of the Ten Year Plan. This provides Council with a unique and timely opportunity to explore other central riverside locations/discrete scenic locations that will work in conjunction with the new Totara Road Dump Station, the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark and the I-Site motor home parking areas.

4.12 Option 1 will allow Council to:

· Engage in a more complete and meaningful trial of Campbell Street.

· Accept that Campbell Street Carpark is not a “destination” site, but may well remain an important centralised service centre parking area for motor homes; and therefore fulfils a role in the wider motor home context. This is backed up by key stakeholder testimony from CEDA and NZMCA.

· Investigate further locations suitable for motor homes that take into account the wider City and regional context.

· Take advantage of the Manwatū Riverside Framework implementation in the identification of suitable sites along the Manawatū River and other suitable sites.

4.13 Option 2: select Campbell Street Campervan Carpark as a permanent site; and assess the Campbell Street Carpark within the wider context of Motorhome use in the City.

The analysis of Option 1 predominantly pertains to Option 2 also. The analysis differs in that the Campbell Street Carpark has not been up and running for more than 3 weeks. “Up and running” means there has been no advertising of the site and the site has not been listed on the NZMCA website as an “overnight stay location”. The site has also only had signage for 2-3 months. It would therefore be ideal to trial the site for another year fully up and running, prior to making any commitment.

4.14 Option 3: abandon Campbell Street Campervan Carpark and assess other sites. There are a number of reasons why this is not a recommended option.

· The site has not had any meaningful trial at this stage

· The survey work recently completed on NZMCA membership indicates that the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark could play a part within the wider local and regional network of campervan facilities.

· Making areas motor home user-friendly and accessible makes things easier for people in motor homes to get around the City. The better campervans are catered for in the City, by making available an appropriate number of quality utility and aesthetic areas as possible, the more likely Council is able to attract motor homes to Palmerston North. Campbell Street serves a utility function in a prime service location.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Council has not engaged in any meaningful trial of the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark.

5.2 Recent survey material suggests that the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark will play a utility service centre role in the wider context of motor home use. Stakeholders in the project (including CEDA and NZMCA) have backed this conclusion up.

5.3 Council would benefit from assessing the Campbell Street Carpark within a wider regional and City-wide context.

6. Next actions

6.1 Assuming Option 1 is adopted:

6.2 Better establish the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark for motor home visitors to the City.

6.3 Continue the one year trial of the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark.

6.4 Assess other potential sites along the Manawatū River environment and other suitably placed environments that may hold pleasurable views or recreation activities.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Local businesses in the Campbell Street area were consulted with in 2016 during the establishment of the Campbell Street Campervan Carpark trial.

7.2 Council has been engaged with key stakeholders (NZMCA and CEDA) at this point.

7.3 Local communities will be engaged with on an as-required basis depending on the outcomes of the investigation into other potentially suitable areas for motorhomes to park at.

Compliance and administration

n/a

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?	No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	Yes

Attachments

New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Membership Survey: Palmerston North 2017 ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

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