Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Palmerston North City Council

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

Members

Present:

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

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (for early departure) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison (for lateness) and Tangi Utikere.

Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 9.06am during consideration of clause 72. He was not present for clauses 70 and 71 inclusive.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 9.58am at the conclusion of clause 75. He was not present for clauses 76 and 77 inclusive.

70-17

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 70-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

71-17

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 2 October 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 71-17 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

72-17

Committee Work Schedule

Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 9.06am.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 72-17 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Against:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

73-17

Wastewater BPO Project Vision and Objectives

Memorandum, dated 24 October 2017 from the Water & Waste Services Manager, Robert van Bentum and the Special Projects Manager, Phil Walker.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Wastewater BPO Vision and Objectives as set out in clauses 3.1 and 3.2 respectively of the report titled “Wastewater BPO Project Vision and Objectives” and dated 24 October 2017, from the Water and Waste Services Manager, Robert Van Bentum and the Special Projects Manager, Phil Walker, be adopted as endorsed by the Wastewater BPO Project Steering Group.

Clause 73-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

74-17

Amendment to Administration Manuals - Water Supply, Stormwater Drainage, Wastewater Bylaws

Memorandum, dated 9 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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

2. That the Council amend the Water Supply Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual, Stormwater Drainage Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual, and the Wastewater Bylaw 2017 Administration Manual, as shown in attachments 1-3.

Clause 74-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

75-17

Amendments to Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 - approval for consultation

Report, dated 9 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Consultation Document on the proposed amendments to the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 and Administration Manual, attached as attachment 1 to the report titled “Amendments to Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 – approval for consultation” and dated 9 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge, be approved for public consultation.

2. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of minor amendments to the Consultation Document prior to publication.

Clause 75-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 9.58am.

76-17

Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw Review - Section 155 Determination Report

Memorandum, dated 17 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Lili Kato.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues relating to managing cemeteries and crematoria in Council’s control, including protecting the solemn nature of cemeteries, protecting the private interests of those with exclusive rights to burials, and creating a balance between pragmatic management and meeting the needs of the community;

2. That pursuant to section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council determines that the standalone form of bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw;

3. That pursuant to section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council agrees that it is not anticipated that a revised bylaw would give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;

4. That the Chief Executive is instructed to draft a bylaw that addresses the issues relating to managing cemeteries and crematoria in Council’s control, including protecting the solemn nature of cemeteries, protecting the private interests of those with exclusive rights to burials, and creating a balance between pragmatic management and meeting the needs of the community.

Clause 76-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

77-17	Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - approval for consultation Report, dated 17 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Consultation Document (including the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual), as shown in attachment 1 be approved for consultation. 2. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of any minor amendments to the consultation document prior to publication.
	Clause 77-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Note: On a motion that “For reasons of safety and clarity, the Chief Executive be directed to include parking restrictions at intersections, consistent with the NZTA Road User Rules, in the Administration Manual of the draft bylaw for consultation and that “For reasons of safety and clarity, the Chief Executive be directed to include prohibition of parking in cycle lanes in the Administration Manual of the draft bylaw for consultation. The motion was tied 7 votes to 7. The chairperson declared the motion lost due to a lack of a majority, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillors Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson and Bruno Petrenas.
	Note: On a motion that “The Chief Executive investigate and report to Council by March 2018 on options to accelerate community adoption of Electric Vehicles in our city, including a trial of free parking and/or other options available to local government.” The motion was tied 7 votes to 7. The chairperson declared the motion lost due to a lack of a majority, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann and Karen Naylor. Against: Councillors Susan Baty, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

The meeting finished at 10.37am

Confirmed 4 December 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Review of Palmerston North Dog Control Policy - Approval for Consultation

DATE: 10 November 2017

AUTHOR/S: Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Statement of Proposal (the draft Dog Control Policy 2018) and the Summary of Information, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure in accordance with S10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and S83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal (that includes the draft Dog Control Policy) and the Summary of Information prior to the public consultation commencing on 27 January 2018.

Summary of options analysis for DOG CONTROL POLICY REVIEW

Problem or Opportunity	A review of the Dog Control Policy 2011 is advised in order to trigger the process to replace the Dog Control Bylaw 2011 that gives effect to that Policy. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) provisions, as the bylaw was not reviewed within five years after its initial adoption, it will expire in October 2018 (unless revoked earlier).
OPTION 1:	Approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018 for consultation.
Community Views	Initial views on the current 2011 Policy have been sought and have informed the development of the draft Policy.
Benefits	Enables the regulatory framework for the control of dogs to continue and therefore safeguards Council’s ability to operate under the Policy and Bylaw reflective of current issues.
Risks	No risks are identified.
Financial	Costs can be met within current budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Policy 2018 for consultation.
Community Views	This option would not allow community views to be taken into account.
Benefits	The existing Policy and Bylaw would be brought back to Council with an adjusted date and therefore the status quo would remain in force.
Risks	The Policy would not reflect Council’s new strategic direction or enable alteration to the policy due to identified policy gaps.
Financial	Fewer costs would be involved due to ‘rolling-over’ the existing legal framework for dog control.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	The purpose of the draft Safe Community Plan is to ensure we have a city where people feel safe and are safe. The Dog Control Policy aims to balance dog control and public safety while recognising the health, well-being, and wider community benefits of dog ownership. Dog control is a statutory activity undertaken by Council under the Dog Control Act 1996, with an overall purpose to maintain and improve public safety.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Council is required to adopt a Dog Control Policy under Section 10(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act). The Council is also obliged under Section 10(6) to give effect to that policy by adopting a bylaw consistent with the Dog Control Policy no later than 60 days after adopting that policy.

1.2 Due to requirements of the Dog Control Act in relation to the preparation of the Dog Control Policy, and the related bylaw, it is necessary to review the policy first. Any amendments that might be made to the bylaw during a review could possibly require a subsequent amendment to the policy. Therefore, it is practical to begin with a review of the policy and later adopt a bylaw that is consistent with the amended policy.

1.3 Provided the Council has followed the required consultation procedure for the policy review, no further consultation would be required to adopt a bylaw consistent with that Policy.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The objectives of the Council’s current 2011 policy reinforce Section 10(4) of the Act, and are:

a. Minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally;

b. Avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not children might be accompanied by adults;

c. Enable, as far as practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs;

d. Provide for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

2.2 The Act specifies a number of provisions which the Dog Control Policy must contain, including:

a. The nature and application of bylaws made under Section 20 of the Act;

b. Identifying public places in which dogs are to be prohibited, where dogs are to be controlled on a leash, and where dogs can be exercised at large (i.e. off leash);

c. Whether dogs classified as menacing are required to be neutered.

2.3 The Act states that the Policy may also include details of fees, owner education programmes, dog obedience courses, classification of owners, disqualification of owners, and the issuing of infringement notices.

2.4 In June 2017 the Council resolved to commence the review of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011.

2.5 Since June, pre-draft consultation has involved engagement with a range of stakeholders, the Environmental Protection Team and Animal Control officers, Parks and Reserves officers, and members of the community. Research into other councils’ policy approaches, and reference to Department of Internal Affairs ‘Enforcement Guidelines under the Dog Control Act 1996 (2009)’, have also helped shape the scope of recommended changes to the current Policy.

2.6 Key observations of the current 2011 Policy are:

- The similarity of the policy content to the Dog Control Bylaw 2011 may cause confusion to dog owners;

- The Policy deals with issues in a general way and is not specifically focused on responding to Palmerston North’s dog control issues;

- There is no stated rationale for the City’s various dog control areas;

- The Policy is not particularly user-friendly or accessible.

2.7 The Council’s Annual Section 10A Dog Control Act 1996 Report to the Secretary of Local Government, reported to September meeting of the Planning and Strategy meeting, identified the following City trends and issues relevant to the policy review:

- An increasing number of registered dogs (8,130 dogs were registered in 2016/17 to 6,548 owners);

- High numbers of roaming/uncontrolled dogs (~1700/yr) and dogs reported as lost (~400/yr);

- Increasing and high number of barking dog complaints (~ 1000/yr);

- Difficulties in ensuring all dogs are registered and micro-chipped (unidentified/reported unregistered ~500/yr);

- The need to minimise the number of dog attacks and intimidation (aggressive/rushing dogs (~200/yr) and dog attacks (~100/yr).

3. pre-draft engagement activities

3.1 The review process began with a range of pre-drafting engagement activities which included inviting comments from a range of interested parties, an article in the Square Circular, and an online survey on the Council’s website. Meetings with Animal Control staff and Parks staff have also taken place.

3.2 The May issue of the Square Circular included an article inviting early feedback on the Policy (and associated Bylaw) and any issues relevant to its review. This article generated several emails and phone calls. Information about the Policy review was sent to dog-related club contacts, veterinarian practices, pet shops and the Manawatū Branch of the SPCA. Some communication with these parties followed.

3.3 The review was raised at the Rangitāne Bimonthly Meeting in June. No concerns were raised at the time in relation to the Policy.

3.4 In August an online feedback form was posted on the Council’s website and was available for a three week period. More than 90 responses were received on the following topics:

- Consideration of allowing dogs on-leash in these prohibited public places: Council owned sportsgrounds and sportsfields, Central Business District (CBD) streets within the “Ring Road” (Ferguson/Princess/Grey/Pitt Streets), The Square, Council cemeteries and Memorial Park;

- Consideration of on-leash areas that could be off-leash – or even prohibited public place;

- Consideration of the current 19 ‘off-leash’ exercise opportunities to be designated as ‘on-leash’ areas;

- Adding areas of dog control.

3.5 The main points gained from pre-draft engagement activities are summarised as:

- Interest in relaxing restrictions to create a more dog friendly city;

- Concern about intimidating dogs;

- Emphasis on improving owner education;

- Enforcement approach - move to more proactive enforcement, frustrated by inability to deal with complaints (e.g. have to record dog barking to get complaint addressed);

- Reviewing the allocation of dog on leash/dog exercise areas. Particular concern about dogs off leash on the Bridle Track and the Mangaone Walkway, and the conflicts created between dogs/owners, cyclists, pedestrians (especially children);

- Disposal of dog faeces – suggestions for more bins and bag stations.

3.5.1 The key points of specific feedback provided through the online form are summarised as:

- There was a mixed level of support (roughly a 50/50 split) to generally relax prohibited public place to ‘on-leash’ areas;

- Support to retain the current ‘on-leash’ areas, but noting some appetite to relax restrictions to ‘off-leash’ in some parks, reserves, walkways and playgrounds;

- Support to retain off-leash areas, but with suggestions to consider the Mangaone Stream walkway, Edwards Pit Park and all of the Bridle Path (Manawatū Riverside Pathway) to be on-leash;

- Suggested new control areas were: Clearview Park playground (prohibited public place), Memorial Park (on-leash), enclosed dog off-leash areas/equipment, The Square (on-leash – currently prohibited public place), Papaeoia and Paneiri Parks (on-leash - currently prohibited public place as both are sportsfields) and Riverside walkway (off-leash with control).

A summary of feedback is attached as Appendix 2.

4. Description of options

4.1 For the principal recommendation (to consult on the draft Policy) there are two options for the Committee to consider:

1. Approve the Draft Dog Control Policy 2018 for consultation.

2. Do not approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Policy 2018 for consultation.

4.2 Option 1: Consult on the Draft Dog Control Policy 2018 as presented in the Statement of Proposal (Appendix 1).

The main changes recommended to the Policy (and highlighted in grey in Appendix 1) are:

1.1

	Proposed Change	Reasons
	Introduce a new ‘Overview’ section	Provides context to the Policy including the overall rationale behind legislated dog control, the relationship the Policy has to the Dog Control Act 1996, information about the dog control issues in Palmerston North and an explanation of Council’s animal control function. It also summarises the legal requirements for dog control, making the link between the Act, the Policy and the related Bylaw.
PART 1 - INTRODUCTION	Objectives - Two new objectives are proposed	These objectives expand on the Act’s Section 10 requirements as a response to local issues and feedback.
	Review - A policy review period is included	This aligns with the need to review the Bylaw every 5 years under the Local Government Act 2002.
	Definitions	These have been moved to a new Appendix in the Policy.
PART 2 – ADMINISTRTAION AND ENFROCMENT	Nature and Application od Dog Control Bylaw - New section describing the nature and application of the dog control bylaw	This is a requirement of Section 10 of the Act and was not in the 2011 Policy.
	Enforcement Tools - A new section has been added to ‘enforcement tools’	This gives greater clarity on the enforcement tools available to the Council.
	Infringement Notices - A new section on infringement notices has been included	This provides information on infringement notices.
	‘Dogs classified as menacing must be neutered’ section	This section has been moved from Part 4 of the Policy into Part 2.
	Dog Attacks and Dangerous Dogs, Barking Dogs, Roaming Dogs, Dogs not Kept Under Proper Control - New sections have been included that outline Council’s response to dog attacks and dangerous dogs, barking and roaming dogs, and dogs not kept under proper control.	The current Policy does not contain anything specific about these local issues so they have been included to provide direction on Council’s response to these concerns.
PART 3 – AREAS OF DOG CONTROL	Control of Dogs in Public Places - A new section is added that outlines Council’s three dog control area categories and other requirements owners must follow to control their dog/s. A link to maps showing the control areas on Council’s website is included.	Although lists of dog control areas are in the 2011 Policy, there is currently no introductory section explaining the reasons for the different types of dog control areas.
	New sections have been added to provide the rationale for each of the dog control areas.	These aim to provide better understanding about the reasons for each of the control areas.
	Prohibited public places (PPP)	See table below in Section 5.2.5 for more detailed analysis and reasons for proposed changes to PPP control areas.
	Events in prohibited public places - this is a new section	This section reflects that there is a need for some flexibility to allow events in PPP for specified times. At the moment the Council has no ability under the Policy or bylaw to enable events to take place due to the PPP control area.
	Dog on-leash areas Removal of (c) Mangaone Stream Walkway (where it passes through the Awapuni Racecourse) Addition of some walkways in Aokautere gullies to this category of dog control area.	The walkway is now around the Racecourse. Any rules the Racing Club want to put on dog control through their property is its decision. Poutoa Walkway, Titoki walkway and Pari Reserve and Walkway have all been proposed as on-leash areas due the confined nature of these walkways as they have developed over time.
	Dog Exercise Areas	An introduction to the list of areas has been added.
	Classification of Areas under other legislation - A new section has been added relating to classifications by other organisations	This is a requirement of the Act.
PART 4 – DOG OWNERSHIP	Responsible Dog Ownership - A new section is proposed that outlines dog owner responsibilities	The policy review process provides an opportunity to reinforce to dog owners the legal requirements for dog ownership. Reference to the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010, has also been included to reinforce dog ownership expectations.
	Preferred Owner Scheme - ‘Preferred owner scheme’ criteria has been clarified.	The 2011 Policy refers to ‘Preferential Ownership’ and is old terminology. The Policy has been aligned with current processes.
	Other fees – section has been added	This section has been added for completeness with a link to Council’s animal control fees and charges.
	Emergency preparedness section – section has been added	A new section is proposed that sets out expectations for the care and welfare of dogs in a state of emergency.
	Dog and owner education - section has been added to	This section has been added to set a clear expectation to dog owners.
	Probational owner’s education - section	An introductory paragraph has been added to set context for this section.
DEFINITONS	New definitions have been added for ‘nuisance’ and ‘under control’	Definitions have been shifted to the back of the Policy. These have been introduced to ensure that people have an awareness of how these terms are defined.

4.3 Option 2: Do not approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Policy 2017 for consultation.

If the draft policy is not approved for consultation, then the current Dog Control Policy will remain. The Council will still be obliged under Section 10 of the Dog Control Act to make a bylaw to give effect to the policy. This would effectively mean resolving to adopt the current bylaw without any changes, and without taking into account current issues.

5. Analysis of options

5.1 The first Option – consult on the draft policy – allows for further community views to be sought. In particular, key stakeholders, including all registered dog owners, will be asked to provide input on the draft Policy. A public consultation process will ensure that the wider community is made aware of the proposed policy changes, and given the opportunity to make submissions.

5.2 There are a number of matters that have been considered in the drafting phase that have guided the scope of the proposed changes to the Policy:

· Consideration of how Council’s new (draft) vision and goals may influence dog control activities and policy approaches;

· Overall approach to dog control and the challenges of balancing dog ownership needs with broader health and safety concerns or risks;

· Allowing some flexibility for dogs and their owners to attend, or be part of, events and special occasions in the CBD that contribute to the City’s vibrancy as well as allowing events that are ‘dog’ focussed e.g. pet days, Rural Games;

· Understanding the relationship between all of the dog control legal requirements, including enforcement approaches of the Act, and of the Policy and Bylaw that are required to be prepared under the Act;

· A detailed analysis of dog control areas and options available.

Each of these matters are further discussed below:

5.2.1 Council’s new (draft) vision and goals: influence on dog control activities and policy approaches

The Vision of ‘Small City, Big City Ambition’ seeks to provide residents with a great quality of life and to develop a future-focused city offering a vibrant urban environment and quality public spaces. Councillors have expressed a desire to ensure regulations facilitate health and safety, without impeding low risk activities or events. The purpose of the draft Safe Community Plan is to ensure we have a city where people feel safe and are safe. Council is committed to increasing and promoting safety in a range of areas so that there is a direct link to dog control that has an overall purpose of maintaining and improving public safety.

5.2.2 Overall approach to dog control: balancing dog ownership needs with broader health and safety concerns

This issue includes understanding the implications of how Council’s dog control objectives contained in the Policy may influence the decisions on designating dog control areas and the degree of restriction or permissiveness. Providing some flexibility to temporarily exempt areas to be ‘prohibited public places’ for a specified time (such as for particular events) and potentially enabling trials to allow dogs ‘on leash’ in some public places have been contemplated.

Through the pre-drafting consultation and research phase, there has been consideration as to whether the Council could be more “dog-friendly” city. This can be achieved in a number of ways, and adopting a less restrictive approach in terms of the number, and extent, of prohibited public places is a one potential policy change. There is a growing trend in more urbanised areas (in New Zealand and overseas) to relax restrictions to allow dogs in central or inner city areas and, instead, permit dogs on-leash. This trend is particularly observed where more people are being encouraged to live in areas traditionally seen as commercial, business or retail areas.

Increased urbanisation, and residential intensification is causing a re-think on how people interact with public places. Allowing dogs into central city areas, for example, is a major decision as there is the potential for adverse effects such as faeces on footpaths, barking and increased risk of intimidation or attacks. These are all serious matters that need to be balanced with the lifestyle needs of dog owners who may live, conduct business or socialise, with their dogs present.

5.2.3 Flexibility for “dog friendly” events

At the moment there is no ability for the Council to grant an exemption, or a permit, to event organisers wanting to hold events in The Square, or the wider CBD, with dogs present as part of the event, or for dogs and their owners to attend events. Examples of the types of events are annual collections for animal welfare groups, dog agility displays, and “Doggy Days Out” (particular events that are commonly held by councils elsewhere to educate about dog ownership and dog-related issues).

5.2.4 Relationship between all legal requirements for dog control

The policy review process presents an opportunity to reinforce, and educate, what the responsibilities are within the dog control legal framework. In doing so, a stronger connection between the development of the Policy in light of the operational aspects of dog control, including reflecting the dog control issues being experienced in the City, has been a goal.

The current 2011 Policy covers the statutory requirement of the Dog Control Act but does not give a sense of the local issues that should be addressed through the Policy. As a result there are new sections proposed to give an overview of the local context and to outline Council’s approach to prevalent issues such as roaming dogs and barking dogs.

It is noted that any policy changes in this area could impact on the levels of service for the animal control activity. An increased level of service, for example for Council to provide more educational resources, would need to be considered as part of the 10 Year Plan process. At the moment current resourcing levels impact on the level of proactive activities, and the focus is on acting responsively to reports and complaints, as well as carrying out day-today regulatory requirements of the Act, Policy and Bylaw.

5.2.5 Detailed analysis of dog control areas and options available

Confirming dog control areas is a key aspect of the Policy and one that will generate a wide range of perspectives from the community. Feedback received during the pre-drafting phase on relaxation of current restrictions (i.e. prohibited public places) was reasonably evenly divided as to whether, overall, a more permissive approach should be applied through the review of current dog control areas.

As there are different types of ‘public places’, different control options can be considered and these are shown in the following table:

Type of Prohibited Public Place (PPP)	Control options considered
CBD area within the ‘Ring Road’ (including The Square)	- Retain status quo - Change to on-leash - Change to on-leash outside of trading hours - Reduce extent of control area to apply restriction to specific streets / smaller area - Trial a specific street or section of the CBD as on-leash for a limited period, review and make decision through an amendment to the Policy (and Bylaw) - Apply an exemption to the control area to allow dogs on-leash for particular events for up to 10 occasions per year
*Recommendation*	- *Apply an exemption to the control area to allow dogs on-leash for particular events for up to 10 occasions per year*
Sportsfields	- Retain status quo (all sportsfields remain PPP) - Apply the PPP designation only when formalised/organised sports are being played, and outside of this time they are on-leash areas - Apply the PPP to only the playing surfaces marked for sports events with the ‘unmarked’ areas being available for on-leash use at all times - Change to on-leash at all times - Allow on-leash at certain times e.g. prior to 8am and after 7pm
*Recommendation*	- *Apply the PPP designation only when sports are being played and outside of this time sportsfields are designated on-leash*
Children’s play areas and paddling pools	- Retain status quo - Reduce the 30 metre restriction to 20 metres (or less)
*Recommendation*	- *Retain status quo*
Cemeteries	- Retain status quo - Change to on-leash
*Recommendation*	- *Retain status quo*
Sports Facilities (tennis and netball courts, Arena Manawatū)	- Retain status quo - Change to on-leash - Apply Council discretion to allow dogs on-leash for particular events
*Recommendation*	- *Retain status quo*

5.2.6 Overall, there are two main policy changes proposed to give some flexibility to the control areas: firstly, to allow dogs and their owners to attend some events into areas where dogs are not allowed or to have dog-related events in prohibited public places (refer Section 5.2.3) and secondly, to allow dog owners to exercise dogs on-leash on parks when sporting uses (to include competition and social games, training, tournaments) are not being held.

5.2.7 With respect to the proposed change to sportsfields, it is considered that this strikes a balance for the community to meet an objective of the Policy for dog and owner exercise. On-leash control is available for the City’s parks and reserves and the community may not realise the difference between a ‘park’ where dogs on-leash are allowed and a sportsfield (particularly when it’s not in use). This is a commonly taken approach elsewhere (although there is wide variance between councils in relation to dogs on sportsfields) and considered to reflect use that occurs anyway. There is concern about dog faeces – or dogs causing interruption to games being played – and this is an issue that would need highlighting and reminders made regarding the infringement offence under the bylaw (attracting a $300 fine).

5.2.8 As opinion was evenly divided through the pre-drafting consultation phase regarding on-leash control within the CBD area no change has been recommended other than what is suggested above. In the other public places there are legitimate safety concerns regarding the interface issues between children’s play areas, including paddling and swimming pools, and dogs, and these have led to the recommendation to retain the status quo. For cemeteries no change from the status quo is recommended. The current pre-drafting feedback on the review of the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw is revealing a wide spectrum of views on the matter of restrictions on taking dogs to cemeteries.

5.3 In summary the key changes, and reasons, proposed in the draft Policy aim to:

· Introduce new sections to comply with the requirements of Section 10 or to provide context to existing section of the Policy;

· In Part 2 – Areas of Dog Control:

o Introduce a section on the control areas and explain the rationale for each type of control area;

o Promote some flexibility in the prohibited public place category of dog control areas by providing an exemption 10 times per year to allow dogs on-leash, or events that have a dog focus, for particular events. This would mainly apply to events in the CBD or The Square but could apply to other Council facilities where the prohibited public place restriction applies;

o Reflect the names of features in the Victoria Esplanade and add the new Junior Road Safety Park in the prohibited public place list;

o Recommend that the prohibited public place designation on sportsfields only applies when formalised/organised sports events are being played and outside of these occurrences, that these designated parks are on-leash areas;

o No changes are recommended to the prohibited public place status around children’s play areas, and paddling pools or Council controlled cemeteries;

· It is noted that once the Policy and Bylaw has been adopted, any new playgrounds constructed since 2011, areas added to existing parks and boundary changes made to the Kelvin Grove Cemetery or to other areas, will require maps to be amended.

· In Part 4 – Dog Ownership:

o Responsibilities of dog ownership have been outlined. While this section replicates the requirements set out in the Act, reinforcement of these aspects are considered worthwhile as part of the Policy review process. This is because many of the comments raised during the engagement raise concerns about what it means to be a responsible dog owner.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The recommendation is to consult on the draft Dog Control Policy in Appendix 1. It is proposed that the Summary of Information will be distributed to every registered dog owner in Palmerston North, and the Statement of Proposal, Summary of Information, and submission form will be available on Council’s website, at the Customer Service Centre, the Central Library and branch libraries.

7. Next actions

7.1 If the draft Dog Control Policy is adopted for consultation, engagement will start on 27 January 2018, with submissions closing on 2 March 2018. Hearings will be scheduled for April, with deliberations to follow in May/June 2018.

7.2 Council staff will prepare the consultation documents, and distribute them as described above.

8. Outline of community engagement process

8.1 The proposed consultation process for the draft Policy is the Special Consultative Procedure, in accordance with 10(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996. The requirements for the Special Consultative Procedure are outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002.

8.2 In addition, officers will update Rangitāne representatives through the bi-monthly forum to discuss the proposal further.

8.3 The identified stakeholders for this proposal include dog interest groups, relevant government agencies, kennel clubs, vets, dog walking groups, and the SPCA. Engagement with these parties will take place alongside other opportunities explored to generate feedback on the Policy changes.

8.4 Under Section 10(2) of the Dog Control Act, Council must, under section 83(1)(e) of the Local Government Act 2002, give notice of the draft policy to every registered dog owner. In addition all people that responded to pre-draft consultation activities will be advised of the consultation process.

8.5 The general public will be notified through the usual promotion channels – a media release will be prepared and distributed to media outlets, and an article placed in the Square Circular. The consultation will also be promoted through Council’s social media channels.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 168.2	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?	Yes
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 1 - Statement of Proposal and Summary of Information ⇩
2.	Appendix 2 - Pre-Policy Drafting Consultation Feedback ⇩

Ann-Marie Mori

Policy Analyst

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Opportunities to address unsecured roaming dogs

DATE: 20 November 2017

AUTHOR/S: Graeme Gillespie, Head of Environmental Protection Services, Customer Services

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the level of service for the after-hours Animal Control Service be increased, on a trial basis for 4 months, to enable roaming dog notifications to be responded to. It be noted that a maximum of 1 hour will be spent on dealing with each individual notification.

2. It be noted that the cost of the trial for the 4 month period will be $6,000. This will be funded from the approved operating budget for Animal Control Services for 2017/18.

3. That the results of the trial be reported back to the Planning and Strategy Committee for consideration in June 2018.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Opportunities to address the issue of unsecured roaming dogs.
OPTIONS 1:	Status quo
Community Views	No issues relating to roaming dogs after-hours were raised in initial engagement on Dog Control Policy, although that specific issue was not canvassed. Customer surveys and general feedback from the Community has also not highlighted the need for such a service to be provided.
Benefits	Will enable the limited resources available after hours to be used in a targeted and cost effective manner in dealing with priority 1 matters ie dog attacks, aggressive dogs, secured dogs, and stock on roads.
Risks	Continued community perception that community and dog safety risks are not being adequately addressed.
Financial	No additional cost
OPTION 2:	That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a trial basis for a 4 month period by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour will be spent on dealing with each individual notification
Community Views	Not known
Benefits	Public perception that action is being taken. Enables a review and assessment of the effectiveness and cost of the initiative to inform consideration of longer term options.
Risks	Due to the unknown extent of the number of roaming dogs the response by Council may not meet community expectations. Depending on the level of demand for such a service it could also result in the response to priority 1 issues not being timely.
Financial	Additional cost of up to $3,000 plus the cost of engaging external resource to undertake a review of the results of the trial.
OPTION 3:	That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour be spent on dealing with each individual notification
Community Views	Not known
Benefits	Public perception that action is being taken.
Risks	Due to the exact number of roaming dogs not being known the response by Council may not meet community expectations. Depending on the level of demand for such a service it could result in fewer resources being available to deal with priority 1 issue’s on a timely basis.
Financial	Additional on-going cost of approximately $9,000 per year, based on current number of notifications.
OPTION 4:	That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That there will be no limit on the time spent on dealing with each individual notification.
Community Views	Not known
Benefits	Public perception that action is being taken. Increased chance of finding notified roaming dogs.
Risks	Lack of identified value for money. Highly likely that it will result in fewer resources being available to deal with priority 1 issues on a timely basis.
Financial	Unknown at this stage but likely to require a notable increase in funding of the service which would have some impact on the level of fees paid by dog owners.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	It will contribute to Councils Safe City Strategy and Safe Community Plan (currently being developed).

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 At the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting on 4 September 2017 it requested the following;

“That the Chief Executive report back to the Planning and Strategy Committee on opportunities to address the issue of unsecured roaming dogs.”

1.2 The request was made as a result of the Committee consideration of the proposed report on the Dog Control Policy and operation practices for Council for 2016/17 that is sent to the Secretary of Local Government under section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

1.3 It is understood the concern centres on a view that Council is not providing a suitable level of service to address roaming dog notifications in a timely manner and could compromise public safety leading to more severe incidents such as dog attacks.

1.4 Concern had also been raised by several Councillors during the service level reviews in June 2017 as to how the Contact Centre was advising callers on what service was available in terms of roaming dog notifications. At that time callers were informed that Council only responded to those incidents where a dog was secured. This led unintentionally to callers believing that Council would respond to a roaming dog incident if the dog was secured. Such action could have placed the callers at risk of injury.

1.5 The animal control services operates on a 24/7 basis. During normal business hours (7am to 6pm, Monday to Friday) Council staff deliver the full range of animal control services such as answering customer queries, undertaking patrolling, pound duties and dealing with dog incidents. It also responds to roaming dog notifications. During the after-hours period (all other hours not covered by the day service including weekends and statutory days) a contractor deals only with priority 1 matters. These consist of dog attacks, aggressive dogs, secured dogs and stock on roads. The Council does not currently respond to roaming dog notifications during this period.

1.6 From 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017 Council logged 2,953 notifications of roaming dogs. A total of 847 (29%) of those were logged afterhours with the balance of 2,106 (71%) logged during normal business hours. This equates to an average of 24 notifications per month over this period during after-hours.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Experience has highlighted it is very difficult to find roaming dogs particularly at night which can require a significant level of resourcing in responding to such incidences.

2.2 The rationale of not responding to roaming dog notifications after-hours is due to a lack of efficacy. In the majority of cases the dog has returned to its home, or been located by the owner, in the time between the notification and the officer responding. This may impact on the ability to respond to priority 1 matters in a timely manner.

2.3 When responding to roaming dog notifications a dog is located in around 5-6% of notifications. At night it is unlikely that a roaming dog would be located at all. It could also result in the dog being hit by a vehicle as it seeks to avoid capture.

2.4 If a notification is received after hours it is always followed up the next business day. If Council receives multiple notifications regarding the same area/street the frequency of patrolling is increased to target that location. In some limited cases this can locate the dog but more often than not the dog is not found.

2.5 There is no evidence that reported roaming dogs are responsible for any dog attacks. In the last 12 months 4 dead dogs have been recovered from the City roads and streets. There is no information available to establish whether any of these were notified as roaming.

2.6 A survey through the LGNZ Animal Control Network of other local authority’s after-hours response has revealed that, of the 14 local authorities who responded, only Kawerau District Council currently provides an after-hours response to roaming dogs. The Councils that responded to the survey were; Tauranga, Kawerau, Wellington, Rotorua, Porirua, Thames Coromandel, Whanganui, South Waikato, Whakatane, Manawatu, Rangitikei, Buller, Tararua and Horowhenua.

2.7 No issues relating to roaming dogs were raised in the initial engagement on the review of the Dog Control Policy, however views on roaming dogs were not actively sought. The draft Dog Control Policy proposes to include a new section on ‘roaming dogs’ in response to the high number of roaming dogs in the city (as reported in the section 10A report). The inclusion of this section will potentially generate some response from the community and may change the level of service being provided.

2.8 Effectiveness could be improved through asking people reporting roaming dogs to track or secure the dog and to follow and provide locational information to assist in their capture. As these strategies are considered to place such persons at risk of harm they have not been considered.

2.9 In terms of the concern as to how the Contact Centre was responding to roaming dog notifications changes have been made. The messaging has now been changed whereby a caller advising of a roaming dog is only informed that Council does not currently respond to such issues after hours. That the notification will be followed up during the next business day. No mention is now made that Council would respond if a dog was secure.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1 - The status quo.

3.2 Option 2 –That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a trial basis for a 4 month period by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour be spent on dealing with each individual notification.

3.3 Option 3 – That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour will be spent on dealing with each individual notification.

3.4 Option 4 - That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That there will be no limit on the time spent on dealing with each individual notification.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1

4.1.1 This represents no change to the current level of service. It would not change any perception that community and animal safety is being put at risk. This option would incur no additional cost to Council.

4.1.2 It would have notifications recorded by the Contact Centre for follow up by animal control staff on the next business day. If a number of calls are received regarding a particular location patrolling would be increased during the next business day to seek to locate the animal.

4.1.3 A sub-option of the status quo would be to consider an increased level of service to respond to roaming dogs after-hours following consultation on the Dog Control Policy. This would allow community views to be taken into account.

4.2 Option 2

4.2.1 It would result in an increase in the level of service during the after-hours period by providing for a response to roaming dog notifications for a trial period of 4 months. The community would also have greater comfort that a perceived issue of community safety was being actively addressed. It would be of value to report back to the Committee the results of the trial regarding its effectiveness and cost, for consideration. The trial period would also allow the uncertainties in demand to be identified and managed

4.2.2 The proposal to limit the time spent on a specific incident enables some priority still to be given in responding to priority 1 matters. A priority 1 matter will though be given greater priority if there is a competing demand on resources.

4.2.3 Assuming the current level of after-hours notification of roaming dogs is accurate the trial could cost up to $6,000. This covers the additional resources required to be provided by the contractor and to undertake a review of the impact of the trial.

4.2.4 The potential cost is difficult to forecast though as there may be an unknown level of under-reporting of roaming dogs after-hours due to knowledge that Council does not currently offer such a service. The cost under this option would be controlled to a certain extent through the placing of a cap of one hour on the time committed to looking for a roaming dog.

4.2.5 It is difficult to predict the value of any impound revenue through impound fees of roaming dogs after hours to offset the cost. A very low number of dogs would be located and of those caught a number will be registered without any history of offending, and therefore returned to the owners. Based on the known number of after hour notifications to the Contact Centre for the last 3 years (847), if 5% of the roaming dogs notified resulted in impounding and they remained in the Pound for 2 days the revenue in 4 months would be approximately $700. If 75% of the captured dogs were returned to their owners without impounding the total revenue would be less than $200.

4.2.6 The cost of the trial would be funded from the approved 2017/18 operating budget for Animal Control Services.

4.3 Option 3

4.3.1 This option would increase the service coverage of the existing after-hours service to include responding to roaming dog notifications on a permanent basis. This will include a 1 hour limit for each notification issue.

4.3.2 This option has the same benefits as option 2 without the opportunity to review the outcomes of the increased service provision. There is the risk though of reducing the response time to priority 1 incidents given the uncertainty over the extent of the problem.

4.3.3 The annual cost is difficult to estimate due to uncertainty in forecasting the demand. Based on the current level of after-hours roaming dog notifications it would be approximately $9,000.

4.3.4 Funding the initiative from Animal Control fees would increase the fees by 1.4% across all fee categories.

4.4 Option 4

4.4.1 This option would increase the level of service to include responding to roaming dog notifications without any limit on the time invested in locating a notified roaming dog.

4.4.2 This option has the same benefits as option 2 but would create an uncapped level of service with unknown financial risk to Council. There is also the risk of reducing the response time to priority 1 incidents.

4.5 Proposed Option

4.5.1 It is considered that option 2 will provide an appropriate response to community concerns that Council is not doing enough to manage the roaming dog issue. A trial enables the extent of the issue to be more clearly defined and the effectiveness of having a managed approach after hours to be assessed. It will more clearly define the financial implications of the increased level of service and any impact on dealing with priority 1 matters.

5. Conclusion

5.1 There is a community perception that roaming dogs create a risk to community and dog safety. As illustrated by the number of notifications to Council of roaming dogs there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the issue warrants a trial being implemented to gauge the extent of the problem and the impact of the proposed approach. By limiting the time committed to following up individual notifications it would minimise the risk of the contractor not being able to respond to priority one issues.

5.2 It is acknowledged that the response to roaming dog notifications has limited benefit as many of the dogs notified as roaming return to their homes or are recovered by their owners before officers can respond. There is also a limited opportunity for the response to roaming dogs after-hours to be self-funded from impounds and infringement fees as very few dogs are located and most are returned to the owners once located.

5.3 Given the lack of accurate information, as to the extent of the number of roaming dogs and the financial implications it is considered a trial for a 4 month period would help improve the understanding of the issue. This would enable an informed consideration to be given to any longer term solution.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the recommendations are adopted, the trial will commence in February 2018. This recognises there is insufficient time to organise suitable resources and advise the community of the increased level of service in regards to the trial before then. The trial will be over the period February to May 2018

6.2 A report on the results of the trail will be submitted to the June 2018 meeting of the Committee.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Council has recently had some initial engagement to inform any proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy. Formal consultation will be undertaken early next year which may generate more comments on the issue of roaming dogs. There was nothing explicitly related to roaming dogs identified by those who provided comments or ideas in the initial engagement. However, it should be noted that comment was not sought on the issue of roaming dogs.

Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

Nil

Graeme Gillespie

Head of Environmental Protection Services

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Bikes In Schools Programme Assessment

DATE: 27 November 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council receive the Bikes in Schools Programme Assessment dated August 2017 completed by ViaStrada Transport Planning and Design;

2. That Council adopts option 2 of the Assessment (Table 5.2, pages 22-23) being provision of the Grant Funding model supplemented by a coordination and support role from Council with schools under the Bikes in Schools Programme.

3. That Council note that Programme 1442 providing for education and promotion activities to support Council’s investment in walking and cycling infrastructure, including Bikes in Schools has been included for consideration in Council’s 2018-28 Ten Year Plan deliberations. Noting furthermore that the means of delivering this Programme are being discussed with Council’s external partner agencies.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Council has established a programme for Bikes in Schools that has seen facilities developed in six local schools. An independent assessment has been completed by ViaStrada with recommendations that will lead to improvements in the delivery of the remainder of the programme. Resourcing for delivery of this programme and other related walking and cycling activities are a consideration that arise from the assessment report and are discussed in this report.
OPTION 1:	Council can receive the report and note that a programme for resourcing the delivery of Bikes in Schools and other related behaviour change activities will be included for consideration in the consultation document for the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan, noting that further work is needed to determine the best model for delivery of a future programme. .
Community Views	There is a good level of support for Bikes in Schools within the community. Other schools have informally expressed an interest in developing facilities.
Benefits	Bikes in Schools aim to increase the number of children able to ride a bike.
Risks	There are no risks associated with receiving the assessment which was undertaken by an independent consultant.
Financial	The costs of delivering the Bikes in Schools programme and any additional funding requirements for managing the programme and undertaking cycle education activities are included for consideration in the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan deliberations.
OPTION 2:	Council could decline to receive the report and not proceed with implementing its findings.
Community Views	It is expected the community would lobby for continued delivery of the programme. It is clear some stakeholders expect delivery of non-infrastructure elements of the Bikes in Schools Programme.
Benefits	This option ignores taking a continuous improvement approach to the Bikes in Schools Programme.
Risks	The Bikes in Schools Programme does not achieve long lasting behaviour change in getting children onto cycles.
Financial	Operational costs for Council would remain at $50k per annum.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	This programme contributes to the City Goal to be a socially and environmentally sustainable community. Commuter and recreational cycling contributes positively to health and wellbeing objectives and investment in infrastructure provides good economic returns.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 In April 2017 Council received a progress report which discussed delivery of the Bikes in Schools Programme in six schools within the City. Arising from consideration of that report Council noted that an independent assessment of the programme would be undertaken. That assessment is now complete and is attached for review and formal receipt by the Council.

1.2 There is considerable interest in the community and among key stakeholders in the assessment as the programme being delivered in Palmerston North is well regarded nationally. The recommendations contained in the assessment will assist other Councils to deliver similar programmes.

1.3 A key recommendation in the assessment relates to resourcing for the management of the Bikes in Schools programme and other cycle education and travel behaviour activities. It is intended that a programme will be included for consideration within the Consultation Document for the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council has established Operational Programme (1214) for delivery of Bikes in Schools. The programme is based on experience in a developing network of schools that have developed similar facilities promoted by a charitable Trust called Bike On. Council has budgeted to a level of $50,000 per school. Key elements of the programme include development of a school perimeter track, skills track and pump track. These physical assets are supported by the supply of bikes, helmets and storage facility, usually a converted shipping container.

2.2 The typical costs of the total programme are usually $80-$90k per school. Some schools in Palmerston North have received a grant from the Bike On Trust of up to $10,000 and the balance of the costs have been met through school fundraising. Schools have committed to fundraising and this is often by choice as they wish to fund a higher quality asphalt perimeter track rather than the traditional crushed limestone material.

2.3 Council considered a progress report in April 2017 and noted that an independent assessment was to be conducted. That assessment has now been completed and is appended to this report. The report was completed by ViaStrada Transport Planning and Design, a Christchurch based engineering consultancy with no previous involvement in the Palmerston North Bikes in Schools programme. The assessment was led by Dr Glen Koorey BE(Hons), ME(Civil), BSc, PhD who now works full time at ViaStrada following 12 years as a senior lecturer at Canterbury University and ten years before that at Opus International Consultants.

2.4 Dr Koorey’s assessment included interviews with Council staff, stakeholders, schools and personnel involved in the delivery of the programme. It also included review of key documentation relied on in the development of the programme. His report is comprehensive and will assist further development of the Bikes in Schools programme (BiS). It is likely that the assessment will be utilised by other Councils considering supporting a Bikes in Schools type of programme.

2.5 The assessment makes a number of key findings and the summarised recommendations are included below.

1. Progress the Draft Programme Assessment document into a formally adopted strategy document (including vision and objectives), with an implementation guide.

2. Appoint a new PNCC staff member (or re-designate an existing one) whose role would include managing the BiS programme in Palmerston North, and other associated cycling education and travel behaviour activities.

3. Include in relevant PNCC strategies suitable objectives and actions targeted at enhancing PNCC’s BiS programme, the cycle network planning approach, and the links between the two.

4. Amend the list of evaluation criteria for BiS prioritisation so they more accurately reflect PNCC’s objectives and also the objectives of potential funders (e.g. the Transport Agency, via Bike On).

5. Develop more detailed and transparent documentation outlining the reasons behind the various evaluation and prioritisation criteria used and the process to be followed for school selection.

6. Ensure that there is a well-documented process for getting agreement from future BiS-funded schools regarding their expectations and obligations, including selection meetings and formal MoUs.

2.6 Recommendation 1 relates to a document that was drafted on Council’s behalf by Beca consultants in September 2015. The assessment was followed as a key guiding document in delivery of the programme in the absence of a formally adopted plan with an identified vision and programme objectives.

2.7 Progress has been made in preparing Council’s Strategic Cycling Objectives and it is anticipated these will be presented for Council’s consideration and adoption in February/March 2018. Supplementary to those Objectives an implementation guide for the BiS programme will also be presented. These documents respond to Recommendation 1 of the ViaStrada assessment.

2.8 Recommendations 2 and 3 relate to the resourcing and integration of Council’s cycling education activities. This is an area of increasing focus from the New Zealand Transport Agency but is still under development. The expectation is that education and awareness training is increasingly being seen as critical to the success of infrastructure programmes. Bikes in Schools, School Travel Management Plans and other education activities are being increasingly seen as programmes needing a specific skill set for effective delivery. A financial programme for the management of Bikes in Schools, School Travel Management plans and other walking and cycling behaviour change activities through a proposed operational programme 1442 will be presented for consideration by Council through the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan deliberations.

2.9 While Programme 1442 has been costed to appoint a new staff position to advance and coordinate active transport behaviour change, it could equally be applied to achieving this outcome through other partner agencies, such as Sport Manawatu, and Horizons Regional Council. This is discussed further in clause 2.18 of this report.

2.10 Recommendation 4 and 5 relate to the evaluation criteria for school selection. These can be applied in full from 2018/19 onwards assuming Programme 1214 is included in the finally adopted Ten Year Plan. Given that the first half of the 2017/18 financial year has passed, it will be necessary to adopt some modified selection criteria for choosing one school to give effect to Programme 1214. This is because schools need time to put forward their bids and possibly raise funds. It needs to be noted that ViaStrada concluded that there was no evidence that schools were advantaged or disadvantaged because of calculation errors that were made.

2.11 Recommendation 6 relates to development of a formal agreement so that both the school and Council have a clear understanding of obligations and responsibilities. The preferred approach involves completion of a memorandum of understanding signed between the parties. Work will be necessary to ensure this step is completed for schools where the programme has already been implemented.

2.12 One issue discussed in the Bikes in Schools assessment relates to whether NZTA will provide match funding for such a programme. The assessment discusses this at section 5.2.1 (on pages 18-19). It is understood that this issue has not been finally resolved, however a consensus appears to be emerging that NZTA does not wish to see “double dipping” of funding for Bikes in Schools. Should they decide to channel all of their Bikes in Schools funding through the Bike On Trust then it is unlikely that NZTA will also fund Council’s programme under the National Land Transport Fund. Schools will continue to apply to the Trust for funding support and this funding may be increased. Council officers are still discussing this issue with Agency officials, however it seems unlikely that Council’s current year’s funding allocation for this programme will attract NZTA funding assistance. Bike On Trust funding for qualifying schools is expected to be of the order of $15-17K per school.

2.13 Council’s delivery of the previous 6 schools has been managed within Council as an infrastructure programme but has been subject to cost over-run. The Viastrada report discusses various financial models for delivery of the programme at Table 5.2 (pages 22-23). The options are status quo, grant funding, contracting out or establishing a charitable Trust to oversee the delivery of the programme.

2.14 The original intent of the Bikes in Schools programme was that grant funding would be available to schools and the schools would be responsible for programme development. This model did not prove to be workable, given there was no local experience of programme delivery and requirements, and schools were not familiar with requirements. Those conditions no longer exist given local experience in delivering BiS over two financial years and with six schools. However, it is an appropriate time to review the delivery model to reduce risks for Council and also to reduce the level of input required for programme delivery.

2.15 Council is under increasing pressure to deliver walking and cycling programmes that are not solely infrastructure related. Examples include Bikes in Schools, which has both infrastructure and education and behaviour change elements for a successful programme; School Travel Management Plan development, which requires both plan development and active behaviour change elements for successful delivery; and community behaviour change activity, which involves work within the community to advocate for and promote behaviour change to lift active transport participation rates.

2.16 Moving the focus of the Bikes in Schools funding towards ViaStrada’s option 2, Grant Funding, would free up Council resource to focus on more important elements of the programme. Under this model Council could provide more of an overview and coordination role and leave infrastructure development to the school concerned. This reduces the risk to Council of cost over-run but, as noted in the Viastrada report, can raise accountability issues if a school’s objectives differ from those established by Council. It is envisaged that these risks can be mitigated through an appropriate level of coordination and overview through the programme development stage and also through modification and implementation of a more rigorous Memorandum of Understanding process.

2.17 The broader behaviour change elements are related to this activity. While Council has some resource in the Roading team and can undertake a coordination and overview of these activities it may still be necessary to bring in additional resource for delivery of these activities. Further work is needed to determine the best model. Contracting out this function is possible, but some level of coordination by Council will still be needed. An Operation Programme 1442 has been included for Council’s consideration in the 2018-28 Ten Year Plan deliberations. This proposal is consistent with measures included in Council’s draft Strategic “Active and Public Transport Plan”.

2.18 Also related to these activities is the planning framework that Council operates under. This framework is well developed for the delivery of infrastructure, however there is some ongoing effort needed to properly integrate the other related activities such as school travel management plans and behaviour change initiatives. Discussion of the most appropriate delivery models with external partners, such as Sport Manawatu, Horizons Regional Council, Police and MidCentral Health, is an essential element of this. It is expected that significant progress will be made in this area over the next 6 months.

3. Description of options

3.1 Council could receive the independent assessment and continue the delivery of the Bikes in Schools programme having regard to the key recommendations in the assessment and deciding upon which of those recommendations it wishes to implement;

3.2 Council could decline to formally receive the assessment and not proceed with implementing its findings;

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Council requested and has now received an independent assessment of its Bikes in Schools Programme. The assessment was completed at a point in time when 6 schools have had a programme fully implemented. While the assessment has identified some flaws in processes followed (Refer Paragraph 4.1, pages 8-9), the assessment concludes by reiterating the glowing endorsement of the Palmerston North programme received from Paul McArdle, chairman of the Bike On Trust. The programme is seen as a good model for other parts of the country and by implementing the assessment’s recommended actions “the programme can continue to be a success for more schools in the city”.

4.2 Council has committed to funding of $50,000 for the Bikes in Schools programme in 2017/18. A decision on the future funding for the programme will be made as part of the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan deliberations. While NZTA is investing more funding in cycle activities, it is across all aspects of the BiS programme namely, education, promotion and infrastructure. Recent advice is that their funding is being directed to the Bike On Trust rather than match funding to local Councils.

4.3 The assessment identifies at least 22 further schools that would potentially benefit from the Bikes in Schools programme. It suggests that continued delivery of the programme will need specialised resource for successful delivery of this and other related non-infrastructure programmes. This is reflected in Council’s draft Strategic “Active and Public Transport Plan” for which implementation programmes have been included for Council’s 2018/28 Ten Year Plan deliberations.

4.4 Council has the option to discontinue its investment in Bikes in Schools. If a cost of $50-$60k per school is assumed, the cost of implementing 22 more schools could be up to $1.2 million. Additionally other costs will be incurred if Council decides to invest more in cycle education and promotion activities, to support its infrastructure programme. ViaStrada option 2, Grant Funding, was the original intent of the programme and it seems an appropriate time to shift the programme more towards that funding model now that the Council and the education sector has a better understanding of what is involved. Council’s role will revert to that of funder but with emphasis on providing coordination and assistance to schools rather than assuming the role of infrastructure developer.

4.5 The assessment notes the need for the development of a clear vision and objectives for the programme. Furthermore it suggests that these objectives and those of other stakeholders be incorporated into the selection criteria. As noted in clause 2.7 above, this will be subject to a further report to Council in February/March 2018. Furthermore as noted in Clause 2.10 interim selection criteria will need to be applied in 2017/18 so as not to further delay implementation of Programme 1214

4.6 The preferred course is that Council continue its investment in Bikes in Schools and delivers the 2017/18 programme as planned, directed at one school for Council’s contribution of up to $50,000, plus support from Bikes On Trust of $15-17K.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Council has the opportunity to formally receive the Bikes in Schools Programme Assessment and begin the process of adopting those recommendations of the assessment that it supports for inclusion into its operational programmes. While the assessment has identified various difficulties and less than optimal processes, it also recognises that a significant amount has been achieved through the programme. Council will need to decide in due course the level of future investment in the programme.

5.2 The delivery of the programme has highlighted the distinction between Council’s historic role in the provision of infrastructure and the emerging role that demands greater investment in behaviour change activities that ensure the community gets maximum benefit from new walking and cycling infrastructure. Programmes for improvement in this area will be included for consideration in Council’s 2018/28 Ten Year Plan deliberations.

6. Next actions

6.1 Work is continuing on the development of Council’s Strategic Cycling Objectives including an implementation guide for the Bikes in Schools Programme. These documents will be presented for Council’s consideration and adoption in February/March 2018.

6.2 Having received the Programme Assessment officers recommend that option 2 (Grant funding) be the model adopted going forward but supplemented with Council coordination support directly with schools as discussed in Clause 4.6 above.

6.3 Staff will continue to engage with NZTA staff to understand the changing environment for funding of walking and cycling activities to ensure the opportunities for future activities are financially supported wherever possible.

6.4 Several parties from external organisations have expressed an interest in receiving a copy of this report. The report has not been released pending formal receipt by the Council.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The next stage for community engagement is for a repeat of the 2015 expression of interest process with schools so that a school can be selected for implementation of the 2017/18 programme. This will need to be an interim step with changes to selection criteria based on the recommendations of the Assessment. Changes to the Vision and Objectives of the programme may need to be reflected in a change in the selection criteria that applies to the programme in the longer term. A priority list will then be developed for the remainder of the programme. Emphasis in the expression of interest programme will require the school to take a leading role in infrastructure development while Council’s role reverts to that of coordination.

Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

Bikes in Schools Programme Assessment August 2017 ⇩

David Lane

Road Planning Team Leader

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Plan Change 22A-G

DATE: 13 November 2017

AUTHOR/S: Jono Ferguson-Pye, Senior Policy Planner, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 22A-G be approved for public notification under Clause 5, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 22A-G.

3. That the Chief Executive be authorised to make amendments to those parts of Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 22A-G affected by any consent notice issued by the Environment Court relating to appeals to Plan Change 15A-G.

1. ISSUE

The Sectional District Plan Review (SDPR) commenced in 2010. In 2017 the Council is now approaching the end of the SDPR process. The SDPR broke down the review of the District Plan into sections and over 7 years the Council has completed 17 plan changes.

Proposed Plan Change 22 A-G (PPC22A-G) is the final plan change of the SDPR. The focus of PPC22A-G is on those sections of the District Plan that have not been reviewed or sections that have only been reviewed in part. PPC22A-G contains the following topic areas:

A. Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring

B. Signs

C. Noise

D. Transport

E. Subdivision

F. Natural Hazards

G. Miscellaneous

2. BACKGROUND

The current District Plan was prepared in the early 1990s and became fully operative in 1995. The Council is required to commence a review of District Plan provisions that have not been reviewed in the last 10 years, pursuant to section 79 of the RMA.

PPC22A-G reviews those remaining sections of the District Plan that have not been reviewed or only reviewed in part by the SDPR. In this regard, PPC22A-G seeks to complete the SDPR and ensure the Council meets its statutory obligations under section 79 of the RMA.

A summary of the District Plan amendments proposed by PPC22A-G are provided below:

Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring:

- Minor update of land area and land use table in introduction section.

- Review of information requirements that accompany resource consent applications.

- Amendments to provide flexibility in how the Council meets its section 35 monitoring obligations under the RMA.

Noise

- The streamlining of the way noise is measured and assessed throughout the Plan.

- Alignment of noise assessment with 2008 versions of NZS 6801 and NZS 6082 and refreshing references to other noise standards.

- Review of noise standards in the Fringe Business Zone and Flood Protection Zone.

Signs

- Increased flexibility and relaxation of sign controls where the residential and non-residential zones meet.

- Amended policies that focus on visual amenity and safety for road users, and new policies relating to non-site related signage and illuminated signs.

- A tightening of controls for above ground floor signs in the Inner Business Zone.

- Amended controls for non-site related signs and illuminated signs, new controls for temporary signs and increased flexibility for sponsorship signs at specified sporting facilities.

Subdivision

- Consolidation, tidy-up and amendment to provisions to remove repetition, declutter and align the subdivision section with development that has occurred on the ground.

- No change to the activity status of any type of subdivision.

- Amendments to introduction to reflect RMA amendments.

- Minor amendments to issues and policies that have not been reviewed.

Transportation

- Review of objectives and policies with a focus on the need for the transport network to:

Be maintained and developed so that people and goods move safely and efficiently through and within the city.

Be safe, convenient and efficient while managing adverse effects on communities and the amenity and character of the City.

Protect the safety and efficiency of the land transport network from the adverse effects of land use activities, subdivision and development.

- Increased policy focus on the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

- Review of access, loading, car parking formation, and vehicle queuing standards.

- New bicycle parking requirements and the provision of end of trip facilities.

Natural Hazards

- Largely the status quo has been retained but with a recognition of the importance of natural hazards as required by the 2017 RMA amendments.

- Policy focus on managing risks associated with unstable land, liquefaction and wildfire.

- Updated information relating to seismic hazards and liquefaction.

- Relocation of rules controlling restructuring of land in the Aokautere Development Area from the Natural Hazards section to the Subdivision section of the Plan.

Miscellaneous

- Removal of a protected heritage dwelling from the Schedule of Buildings and Objects of Cultural Heritage Value in Section 17: Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Plan.

- Correction of a zoning anomaly at 123A Botanical Road from Residential Zone to Local Business Zone.

3. Description of options

The section 32 report and options analysis required by the RMA demonstrates that PPC 22A‑G is the most efficient and effective option of meeting the purpose of the RMA 1991.

4. alignment with council strategy

PPC22A-G aligns with the following Council strategies:

(i) Integrated Transport Strategy – the review of the Transportation Section of the Plan seeks to promote transport choices as part of an easy to use and efficient transport system that meets the needs of people, businesses, and the environment.

(ii) Economic Well Being Strategy – PPC22A-G seeks to enable development and activities in a way that improves the long term economic wellbeing of businesses and the community.

(iii) Sustainable City Strategy – PPC22A-G is required achieve the purpose of the RMA. The purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable use and development of natural and physical resources in a way and at rate that enables the social and economic wellbeing of the community.

(iv) Urban Design Strategy – PPC22A-G seeks to enable a built urban form that contributes to the Urban Design Strategy’s vision for a city that is recognised as vibrant, caring, creative and sustainable.

(v) Heritage Strategy – PPC22A-G will continue the District Plan’s focus of protecting and conserving the city’s built heritage where robust information supports heritage protection.

(vi) PPC22A-G is also considered to be consistent with the new strategic direction emerging as part of the preparation of the 2018 Long Term Plan.

5. community engagement process

The first schedule of the RMA prescribes the consultation process a change to the District Plan is required to undertake. PPC22A-G has met its obligations under clause 3 of the first schedule of the Act to consult on the draft plan change. Council officers are now seeking the Committee’s approval for formal consultation on PPC22A-G under clause 5 of the first schedule of the Act.

6. conclusion

By approving PPC22A-G for public consultation the Council will be:

- Enabling democratic local decision-making on behalf of the community

- Enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to section 79 of the RMA

- Approving the final plan change of the SDPR

7. next steps

If the Committee approves the recommendations the next step will be for the Council to publicly notify PPC22A-G for submissions.

8. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? Clause 182 of the Delegations Manual	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.	PC22A General Introduction Info Requirements Monitoring Section 32 Report (attached separately)
2.	PC22B Signs Section 32 Report (attached separately)
3.	PC22C Noise Section 32 Report (attached separately)
4.	PC22D Subdivision Section 32 Report (attached separately)
5.	PC22E Transportation Section 32 Report (attached separately)
6.	PC22F Natural Hazards Section 32 Report (attached separately)
7.	PC22G Miscellaneous Section 32 Report (attached separately)
8.	Provisions - Section 1 General Introduction (attached separately)
9.	Provisions - Section 4 Definitions (attached separately)
10.	Provisions - Section 5 Information Requirements (attached separately)
11.	Provisions - Section 6 General Rules (attached separately)
12.	Provisions - Section 7 Subdivision (attached separately)
13.	Provisions - Section 9 Rural Zone (attached separately)
14.	Provisions - Section 10 Residential Zone (attached separately)
15.	Provisions - Section 11 Business Zones (attached separately)
16.	Provisions - Section 12 Industrial Zone (attached separately)
17.	Provisions - Section 12A North East Industrial Zone (attached separately)
18.	Provisions - Section 13 Airport Zone (attached separately)
19.	Provisions - Section 14 Hazardous Substances (attached separately)
20.	Provisions - Section 15 Recreation (attached separately)
21.	Provisions - Section 16 Caccia Birch (attached separately)
22.	Provisions - Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage (attached separately)
23.	Provisions - Section 19 Institutional Zone (attached separately)
24.	Provisions - Section 20 Transportation (attached separately)
25.	Provisions - Section 21 Race Training Zone (attached separately)
26.	Provisions - Section 22 Natural Hazards (attached separately)
27.	Provisions - Section 25 Monitoring (attached separately)

Jono Ferguson-Pye

Senior Policy Planner

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