Agenda of Sport and Recreation Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Sport and Recreation Committee MEETING

4 December 2017

Order of Business

NOTE: The Sport and Recreation Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting. The format for the meeting will be as follows:

- Sport and Recreation Committee will open and adjourn immediately to Planning and Strategy Committee

- Planning and Strategy Committee will open, conduct its business and then close.

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

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

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

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

3. Public Comment

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

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

4. Presentation - Rose Gardens Croquet Club Page 7

5. Presentation - Manfeild Page 9

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 11

“That the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 4 September 2017 Part I Public and the extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 13 November 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

7. Arena Master Plan Page 21

Memorandum, dated 17 November 2017 from the Manager - Venues PN, John Lynch.

NOTE: Due to its size The Master Plan has been limited and pre-circulated. A copy of the document may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, City Library or on the Council website at www.pncc.govt.nz or at the link http://palmerstonnorth.infocouncil.biz/

8. Proposal to Lease a Section of Crewe Park to Pascal Street Community Trust Page 111

Report, dated 10 November 2017 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

9. Renaming Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Reserve Page 125

Report, dated 11 September 2017 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

10. Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan Page 137

Report, dated 10 November 2017 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

11. 2017 Winter Festival Review Page 221

Memorandum, dated 17 November 2017 from the Manager - Community Engagement, Ian Littleworth and the Events Coordinator, Renee Barbour.

12. Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Documentation Page 235

Report, dated 20 November 2017 from the Senior Planner, Jeff Baker and the Urban Designer, Dave Charnley.

13. Committee Work Schedule Page 305

14. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
15.	Minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting - Part II Confidential - 4 September 2017	For the reasons setout in the Sport and Recreation Committee minutes of 4 September 2017, held in public present.
16.	Artificial Football Turf - Update	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)
17.	Massey University Hockey Turf MoU	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)

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

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

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

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

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

[Add Council Officers], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 04 September 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

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

Apologies:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay (early departure) and Tangi Utikere (early departure).

Councillor Tangi Utikere left the meeting at 12.20pm at the conclusion of clause 24. He entered the meeting again at 2.57pm during consideration of clause 29. He was not present for clauses 25 to 28 inclusive.

21-17

Apologies

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 21-17 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, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am

The meeting resumed at 11.10am

22-17

Presentation - Sport Manawatu - Draft Regional Sports Facilities Plan

Presentation from Trevor Shailer, Chief Executive and Sanjay Patel Community Sport and Recreation Team Leader, Sport Manawatu.

A project steering group had been set up to oversee the Regional Sport Facility Plan involving the regional Councils, Sport Manawatu, Sport Whanganui and Sport New Zealand to identify the current provision of facilities and to identify any gaps and to provide direction and priorities for future needs.

Key principles had been identified for the plan and a large number of interviews, surveys and meetings had taken place, along with the steering group meetings with the contractor, Visitor Solutions.

The Chief Executive was to present to the Regional Chiefs Forum on 5 September 2017, followed by a Steering Group meeting to confirm the draft Strategy on 13 September 2017. Final sign off would be by the Regional Chiefs forum and endorsed by individual Councils.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 22-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

23-17

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Grant Smith.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 7 June 2017 Part I Public and the extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 14 August 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 23-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Abstained:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford.

24-17	Sport Manawatu 12 month report for the year ended 30 June 2017 Report, dated 14 August 2017 from the Senior Property & Parks Planner, Aaron Phillips.
	Moved Lew Findlay QSM, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Committee receives Sport Manawatu’s 12 month report for the year ended 30 June 2017.
	Clause 24-17 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, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Councillor Tangi Utikere left the meeting at 12.20pm

25-17	Memorial Park Draft Development Plan Report, dated 7 August 2017 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan, attached to the 4 September 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. 2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Memorial Park Draft Development Plan.
	Moved Susan Baty, seconded Lorna Johnson. 3. That the consultation document gives the opportunity for the community to prioritise programmes.
	Clause 25-17 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.

The meeting adjourned at 12.53pm

The meeting resumed again at 1.56pm

26-17

Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan

Report, dated 7 August 2017 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the “Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan”, attached to the 4 September Report titled “Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan” as a final.

2. That the Council direct the Chief Executive Officer to complete the process required for renaming the park from Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park.

3. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan.

Clause 26-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

27-17

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 27-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

28-17

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
11.	Acquisition of Ashhurst School Pool	Commercial Activities	s7(2)(h)

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

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

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

Parks and Property Manager (John Brenkley) and Property Officer (Bryce Hosking), because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

Clause 28-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 2.30pm

Confirmed 4 December 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 13 November 2017, commencing at 2.00pm

Members

Present:

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

Apologies:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford.

29-17

Apologies

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 29-17 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 Tangi Utikere.

30-17

Draft Memorial Park Development Plan – Hearing of Submissions

The following people appeared before the Committee and made oral statements in support of their submissions and replied to questions from elected members.

Jill Spicer (47)

Mrs Jill Spicer spoke to her submission and made the following additional comment:

- Exercise equipment across the city was needed and Memorial Park was an ideal place to start as it was a family park with people spending a lot of time there.

Kevin Judd (81)

Mr Kevin Judd spoke to his submission and made the following additional comments:

- Previous football games at the park would host up to 3,000 spectators and the venue coped with this, therefore did believe that the venue needed to change.

- However with skating events there is a lack of Officials accommodation and if the changing rooms were to be upgraded with a flat roof this could include a viewing platform.

- Parking was difficult and at times dangerous with young children running around. There needed to be better connectivity between the park and car parking.

PNDHAG and PNRSA (93)

Representing PNDHAG and PNRSA, Mr Joe Hollander spoke to the submission and made the following additional comments:

- General comments from members of the groups was that there could be a memorial for all those that have served, not just those in World War II.

- Needed to provide an educational aspect to the park so that people could learn who about those who had served.

Emma Callesen (104)

Ms Emma Callesen spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- An outdoor sensory garden would be enjoyed as there were currently no sensory gardens in the City and Memorial Park would be an ideal location. The garden would need to be big enough to enable wheelchair access.

- Additional items in the garden, such as mirrors, would also add to the experience.

Jenny Olsson (117)

Mrs Jenny Olsson spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- Had been frustrated at consultation events being cancelled with no prior notice and not being able to get satisfactory answers regarding fencing of the pool.

- Was disappointed that more of the duck pond was being filled in and was still unsure where the Memorial wall was to be situated.

- It was noted that there was designated parking for parents but asked Council to remember that those that have wheelchairs access permits would also be using the park. Also consider not taking out all the steps as some people struggle with ramps.

Sandy Nimmo (140)

Mrs Sandy Nimmo spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- Parking was horrendous, especially in summer and asked Council to look at a better way to access the park from the street.

- Suggested that Elected Members walk around the park and see where there is blocked access for wheelchairs and how they could be improved.

- Would like to see a kiosk that would be made available to the community groups to use as for fundraising opportunities. Also a music platform close to the rink would be a good addition as long as it was not positioned between the pool and the rink.

- The Memorial Park Sports Trust were holding an open day on 26 November 2017.

John Shennan (142)

Mr John Shennan spoke to his submission and made the following additional comments:

- Believed that there could be a balance of focus on leisure, sport and family activities as well as the park being a war memorial. It was about integrating the present with the past.

- The military focus would be more than just soldiers as for example, believed there would be a high profile on women’s efforts during the war. Suggested as another way to give alternative views of the war, would be to add information about Mark Briggs who was a conscientious objector in World War I and was extremely well known in Palmerston North.

- The Workers Memorial should be given a greater profile. On April 28^th of each year a gathering takes place to remember those killed, injured or made ill at work and each year the gathering increases in number. It was noted that in the last year 22 people were killed in industrial accidents in the Manawatu-Whanganui region.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the oral and written submissions on the Draft Memorial Park Development Plan be received.

2. That the Committee note the Procedure for Hearing of Submissions, as described in the procedure sheet.

Clause 30-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 3.06pm

Confirmed 4 December 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Arena Master Plan

DATE: 17 November 2017

AUTHOR/S: John Lynch, Manager - Venues PN, City Enterprises

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the updated Arena Master Plan and estimates dated November 2017 be received and formally adopted to inform the implementation and to direct the development of Central Energy Trust Arena through the 2018/28 Long Term Plan.

Note: The Master Plan document has been distributed separately because of its size.

1. ISSUE

The Arena Masterplan has been reviewed, revised and more robust estimates prepared to inform the LTP 2018/28. Timing of the various components of the new Master Plan have been re-ordered from those in the current LTP primarily because of the proposal by Sports Manawatu to establish the new Sports House on the Central Energy Trust Arena site.

This memorandum is presented to the Sports and Recreation Committee to formally adopt the latest version of the Master Plan and estimates to inform the implementation and to direct the development of the detailed designs to be adopted in the 2018/28 LTP. It should be noted that the Master Plan is intended to inform the general direction and agreed projects to be implemented and it is expected that as the various components are designed and implemented that changes can and may occur in terms of detail.

2. BACKGROUND

The original Arena Masterplan was adopted by Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) in 2014. It formed part of the current Long Term Plan (LTP).

In April 2016 a MOU between PNCC and Sport Manawatu was entered into to establish a relationship between the parties in order to;

• Collaborate to develop Central Energy Trust Arena as the city’s central sports hub with development of Sports House and associated activities for the Manawatu at Central Energy Trust Arena;

• Recognise both parties’ common interests;

• Develop mutual benefits from collaboration and co-operation to increase programmes and participation in recreation and the activation of the site;

The MOU recognises Sport Manawatu as a key stakeholder in delivery of the Arena Masterplan and recognises that Sports House was not envisaged in the original masterplan.

On 7 August 2017 a workshop with Councillors reviewed the Master Plan and options for inclusion in the LTP 2018/28. A preferred option was identified which includes Sports House located adjacent to Cuba Street in the eastern corner of the precinct. Sports House is very much a key priority in the updated Master Plan and the preferred option identified.

Following this workshop, additional work was undertaken around the special requirements of Sports House and 3D images created to better represent the look and feel of what the precinct may look like when completed. The final images are of course concepts and actual finishes and detail will be worked through by the Arena Masterplan Steering Group referred to in the next paragraph.

On 16 October 2017 a report was presented to the Finance & Performance Committee requesting the formation of the Arena Masterplan Steering Group (AMSG) which included Terms of Reference (TOR) for the group. The TOR outlined the purpose and scope of the Steering Group, roles and responsibilities. Key stakeholders were identified as being pivotal to the success of the Master Plan and future developments at Central Energy Trust Arena. Councillor representation will be the Mayor, Cr Hapeta and Cr Dennison. The Mayor will chair the AMSG.

The AMSG has been established to keep some focus with key partners/stakeholders and drive the external funding and investment that is critical to the success of the various projects in the Master Plan. The AMSG will meet for the first time in the next couple of weeks to start working through priorities and timelines prior to the Committee’s meeting.

The Master Plan presentation document reflecting the direction from the August Councillor’s workshop has now been completed with the preferred option highlighted, including the requirements for Sports House. Detail around these requirements and other aspects of the Masterplan will be worked through by the Arena Masterplan Steering Group with recommendations and detail presented to Council on a regular basis for approval.

The Master Plan includes funding requirements as submitted as part of the 2018/2028 LTP process as well as highlighting in today’s dollar terms potential future funding requirements outside of the current LTP process. This will form part of this memorandum and will be distributed separately to the agenda because of its size.

Independent quantity surveyors Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) were engaged to provide indicative project estimates based on base concept drawings. RLB’s estimates were subsequently peer reviewed by WT Partnership (WTP).

The figures outlined in the Programme Summary for LTP 2018/28 are based on the information agreed by the two QS companies and include design contingency, build contingency, professional fees and consenting.

Full documentation from Rider Levett Bucknall and WT Partnership are on file as supporting documentation to the Arena Master Plan.

3. NEXT STEPS

Adopt the attached Arena Master Plan as the guiding document for the future development of Central Energy Trust Arena incorporating Sports House.

The Master Plan programmes will be included in the 2018/28 LTP which will be consulted on prior to formal adoption in June 2018

4. 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

Arena Master Plan ⇩

John Lynch

Manager - Venues PN

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Proposal to Lease a Section of Crewe Park to Pascal Street Community Trust

DATE: 10 November 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council adopts the proposal to lease a section of Crewe Park (as described in Appendix I of the report titled Proposal to Lease a Section of Crewe Park to Pascal Street Community Trust) to go out for public notice in the manner required under Section 54 (1) - (2A) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Pascal Street Community Trust (The Trust) currently works in a social and educational voluntary capacity to improve the lives of those living in the Crewe Crescent neighbourhood. The Trust would like to expand their current social and educational projects. In order to achieve this The Trust would like to lease a portion of Crewe Park.
OPTION 1:	Adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	This option would allow Council to test community views under the Reserves Act 1977 (The Act) processes. The local community appear to be in favour of the work The Trust is engaged in and the proposed expansion.
Benefits	Council will better understand if there are any opposing views to the lease. Council meets all requirements under The Act.
Risks	Members of the community are not supportive of the proposal. The proposed container is considered inappropriate.
Financial	There are limited financial implications: $800 processing time and newspaper advertising.
OPTION 2:	Adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977, with stipulations adopted by the Committee regarding the consultation process.
Community Views	This option would allow Council to test community views under the Reserves Act 1977 (The Act) processes. The local community appear to be in favour of the work The Trust is engaged in and the proposed expansion. Depending on the stipulations, there may be wider consultation associated with the proposal.
Benefits	Council will better understand if there are any opposing views to the lease. Council meets all requirements under The Act, or beyond those basic requirements.
Risks	Members of the community are not supportive of the proposal. The proposed container is considered inappropriate.
Financial	There are limited financial implications: $800 processing time and newspaper advertising. Plus any additions to consultation adopted by the Committee.
OPTION 3:	Council does not adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	These will not be tested under this option. There may be opposition from the local community that seeks to benefit from the proposal.
Benefits	No need to fund a consultation process.
Risks	The loss of a growing and popular community run project may occur. Undermine the desire to grow community capacity to provide cost-effective and volunteer-based social programmes.
Financial	There are no financial implications associated with this option.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	The proposal contributes positively to both the Active Recreation Strategy & the Social Strategy.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Pascal Street Community Trust (PSCT) has been working in the Crewe Crescent area for over six years with the community.

1.2 Amongst their community work and programmes, a newly formed literacy programme has emerged and proven popular with locals in the area.

1.3 The Cornerstone Christian School, as part of a Business Studies Class, has proposed to expand the literacy programme into an on-site project called “Can’t Contain it”.

1.4 In order to achieve this, they propose to fund a container (Can’t Contain It”) at the Crewe Park where they can store books and equipment, work with local residents and that they can use as a general base for their ongoing work.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Crewe Park is described as LOTS 1 2 DP 21369 & LOT 11 DP 20721. The park is situated on Crewe Crescent in the centre of Hokowhitu. The neighbouring area and park users are predominantly made up of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants; and this particular HNZC housing area has a high proportion of refugees to the City.

2.2 The PSCT has been working in the Crewe Crescent area for over 6 years. They have worked in this area to facilitate and provide:

· Community gardens

· Street parties (Neighbour’s Day)

· Meals for local families

· Christmas craft packs

· Wednesday afterschool programme (games, food/meals and literacy programmes)

2.3 The literacy programmes in particular have proven to be a popular hit with the local community.

2.4 Cornerstone Christian School has a Year 12 Business Studies Class, where small groups of students develop a business proposal and see it through to implementation. One of the groups has put forward a social-based business programme named “Can’t Contain It”, whereby the group sets up a container (as an operations base) in Crewe Park with the local community and works to improve literacy in the area.

2.5 The PSCT would like to support them in this, and given the popularity of their literacy programme in the area, would continue the programme once the students move on. In addition, the Cornerstone Christian School is impressed with the concept, and would be eager to continue having Year 12 business studies students involved in the project as in ongoing manner.

2.6 On 12 November the PSCT and Cornerstone Christian School approached Council regarding the opportunity, particularly with regards the process of having a container placed in Crewe Park. Officers and representatives of PSCT and Cornerstone Christian School met on site to discuss.

2.7 Officers and management were open to the concept, recognising that a lease would be required on reserve land – which triggers legal requirements under the Reserves Act 1977.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.2 Option 2: Adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977, with stipulations adopted by the Committee regarding the consultation process.

3.3 Option 3: Council does not adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 There are a number of aspects to consider when weighing this option:

· The visual amenity of a container in a park

· The loss of reserve space in a small local purpose reserve

· Effects on the neighbouring community and neighbours at the park

· Responsibility regarding the purchase of the container, maintenance of the container, removal, services and liability, etc.

4.3 While a container in a park is not ideal, containers do not have to look bad. They can not only serve a purpose, but tell a story. For example the image below.

4.4 The proposed container would be a purpose built office-styled container complete with doorway for entrance and services, similar to the photo below.

4.5 The proposed site on Crewe Park would not see any significant useful space taken up by the container. The existing concrete pad that was an old ramp could be used for the entrance/exit, so that the grass does not become muddy in winter with people using a grassed entry point. The ramp is now redundant and in a poor state of repair and will be removed.

4.6 The container is proposed to straddle the fence line along the northern park border. The entirety of this border has a driveway on the neighbouring property. The container therefore will not impinging upon the view of neighbours, as indicated in the photo below.

4.7 Housing New Zealand Corporation is the only neighbour in terms of ownership in and around the Crewe Park area. PSCT would be expected to approach HNZC for comment during the one month public notice period.

4.8 In addition to ownership of the properties, the people living in the area appear to be in support of the initiatives that the PSCT have been involved in around this area. This would be further tested through a public notice period, and Council would expect PSCT to provide some additional proof that neighbours and park users in the area would be amenable to the container in the park, prior to Council adopting a resolution in favour of the project.

4.9 Purchase, maintenance and responsibility for all aspects of the container (including connection to electricity) would be the responsibility of the lease holder. A lease would be developed that reflects this; including ensuring all responsibility for removal costs lie with the lease holder should Council require the container to be removed.

4.10 PSCT combined with Cornerstone Christian School have significant and reliable resourcing for this project to ensure a high-quality outcomes with regards visual amenity, services and adequate social provision with regards the literacy programme.

4.11 Option 2: Adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977, with stipulations adopted by the Committee regarding the consultation process.

4.12 The analysis for Option 1 holds for this option. Any additional requirements will be dependent upon any further stipulations the Committee wishes to introduce.

4.13 Option 3: Council does not adopt the proposed lease to go out for public consultation under the relevant sections of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.14 There would be no change to the status quo under this option.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The proposal has been well thought out, has significant resources, will provide a sound level of local community benefit and will not impinge upon park users or neighbours.

5.2 The proposal will not require Council to incur any costs, other than the Officer time associated with the Reserves Act 1977 process.

5.3 The benefits of the proposal to the local community outweigh any costs to Council (which are ultimately negligible), and by adopting the recommendation Council will be in a position to test the actual support in this community for the project.

6. Next actions

6.1 Publicly notify the proposal under Section 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977.

6.2 PSCT to get feedback from immediate neighbours with regards the project.

6.3 Report to the March 2018 Sport and Recreation Committee on the results and recommendations.

6.4 Develop a lease agreement with PSCT, should Council pass the required resolution.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Under Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977, Council is required to pass a resolution to grant the right to lease a portion of reserves land for reserves held under the Reserves Act 1977. Crewe Park is held under the Reserves Act 1977 as Recreation Reserve. Therefore a resolution is required prior to issuing a lease on Crewe Park.

7.2 A resolution may not be passed by Council until a one month public notification period has been completed, which meets the provisions of sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977.

7.3 Given the standing of PSTC in the community and the highly localised nature of this proposal, Officers propose that consultation be left to a minimum requiring:

· The mandatory one month public notice period (Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977).

· Assurance from the immediate neighbours (including both tenants and landlord) that the container project “Can’t Contain It” is appropriate in their neighbourhood.

Compliance and administration

This proposal is subject to the conditions stipulated in the Reserves Act 1977.

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

Proposed Container Site in Crewe Park ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Renaming Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Reserve

DATE: 11 September 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council adopts the name Ahimate Reserve for the piece of reserve land held as reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (identified as Lot 2 DP 53320 & Lot 3 DP 53320) described in Figure I of this report, formerly the site of the Old Allied Concrete Works.

2. That Council adopts the name Ahimate Reserve for the piece of reserve land held as reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 described as Lots 34 35 DP 27175 Lot 28 DP 31520 Lots 1 2 DP 31523 Lot 25 DP 32556 Lot 22 DP 41999 Lots 1 2 DP 13350 PT Lot 5 DP 40397 -Lot 22 REC RES; formerly known as Waitoetoe Park described in Figure II of this report.

3. That Council continues to recognise the sports field adjacent to Ahimate Reserve legally described as Lot 1 DP 53374 (known as Paneiri Park) as Paneiri Park.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	During the consultation on the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan (RDP), it was revealed that this park was once the site of a significant Rangitāne Pā site, known as Ahimate Pā. Rangitāne requested, as part of the consultation on the RDP, that the name “Waitoetoe Park” be changed to reflect the cultural and historical significance of the site.
OPTION 1:	Change the name of Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Reserve to reflect the cultural significance of the site.
Community Views	Stakeholders at this park are generally in support of the name change to express the cultural significance of the site. The public were generally very supportive of recognising the cultural significance of the site.
Benefits	Bolster and progress relationships with Rangitāne O Manawatū. Pull the existing land and the newly purchased land together into a “new start” for the park area with a new and significant name.
Risks	The community continue to recognise the park as Waitoetoe Park.
Financial	There are very minor financial implications covered within existing operations budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not change the name of the park.
Community Views	Stakeholders at this park are generally in support of the name change to express the cultural significance of the site. The public were generally very supportive of recognising the cultural significance of the site.
Benefits	Easier for people to continue to use the name they know.
Risks	Council signals through this move that it does not consider Rangitāne tikanga and sites of cultural significance in the appropriate manner.
Financial	There are no financial implications with this option.
OPTION 3:	Refer to the park as Ahimate Reserve/Waitoetoe Park to reflect both the cultural significance and the existing name.
Community Views	Stakeholders at this park are generally in support of the name change to express the cultural significance of the site. The public were generally very supportive of recognising the cultural significance of the site.
Benefits	Some stakeholders early on suggested that the area retain the old name in some sense.
Risks	The area becomes far too complex for naming purposes, with three names (Waitoetoe, Ahimate and Paneiri) being used for what is now a relatively singular piece of land.
Financial	There are very minor financial implications covered within existing operations budgets.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Acknowledging of Rangitāne aspirwations are key elemenst of the Maori Community Strategy and Manawatū River Framework. The proposed renaming of Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Reserve strengthens the cultural presence of Rangitāne in Palmerston North.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 In 2017 the Palmerston North City Council, as directed by the Manawatū River Framework, began the process of creating a reserve development plan for Waitoetoe Park.

1.2 During the consultation and stakeholder engagement process, Council become aware that the site (in particular the Old Allied Concrete Site purchased by Council in 2014) was a site of cultural significance to Rangitāne O Manawatū.

1.3 The site was an ancestral Pā site known as Ahimate Pā. Rangitāne, amongst other requests in relation to recognising the significance of the site, requested that Council change the name of the park to reflect the former and original name of the area – Ahimate Reserve.

1.4 Council, in recognising Rangitāne Tikanga and to further develop and deepen the historical recognition of the City, agreed to consult on the name change as part of the re-development of the area in general.

1.5 The Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan was adopted by Council on 25 September 2017. In that report Council resolved “That the Council direct the Chief Executive Officer to complete the process required for renaming the park from Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park” (as per the Palmerston North City Council Reserves and Walkways Naming Policy).

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The site of Waitoetoe Park was originally named Buick Park, after the original colonial landowner that settled and farmed the area in 1890. The name of the farmstead on the site was Waitoi Farm.

2.2 In 2002 the park was renamed Waitoetoe Park, in order to recognise the name of the farm that existed on and around the site in 1890. Waitoetoe is a conjunction of wai (meaning water) and toi toi, the native plant species prevalent in the area.

2.3 The original Waitoetoe Park consists of the area closest to Dittmer Drive, containing large specimen trees, an area of native bush and a large open space with manicured grass. The solid green in the aerial below describes the current 16 hectare Waitoetoe Park.

Figure I: Waitoetoe Park (green) and Paneiri Park (yellow) - current

2.4 In 2014 the Council purchased the site adjacent to Waitoetoe Park that was used as the old Allied Concrete Works, an industrial site. This extended the original Waitoetoe Park by 13 hectares. The solid red area in the aerial below describes the area of the new purchase.

Figure II: Old Allied Concrete Works

2.5 Once the purchase was completed Council directed Officers to consult with the public on what they would like to see happen in the newly acquired area. In addition to this, local groups advocated to Council (since 2009) that the beach access at Waitoetoe should be considered a strategic river entranceway. Funding was provided in the 2015-25 10 Year Plan to develop this access area including car parking.

2.6 In 2016 Council adopted the Manawatū River Framework. This document directed Council to develop a Reserve Development Plan (RDP) for Waitoetoe Park, developing the area as a “natural play space”.

2.7 In late 2016 Officers began the Stage 1 Early Consultation phase of developing the RDP. During that phase, Officers became aware that the site (particularly the newly purchased site of the old Allied Concrete Works) contained a site of significance to Rangitāne – Ahimate Pā site. Officers then worked with Rangitāne to identify Rangitāne’s aspirations for the site, the general history and culture of the area and what activities might or might not be appropriate in such a space.

2.8 The blue circled area in the aerial above signifies the approximate area of the Pā site proper, acknowledging that Rangitāne obviously had various activities and ancillary sites all along this area, and related to the Pā site.

2.9 One of the key aspirations that Rangitāne identified for the Pā site was a name change: to recognise the Ahimate Pā, and thereby those that inhabited this area in the centuries prior to colonisation.

2.10 The name of Paneiri Park was adopted in the past to recognise the Paneiri Tribe that lived in this area, under the protection of Rangitāne, having immigrated to the area from the Hawkes Bay.

2.11 The tribe from the Hawkes Bay bought with them (what is for Maori) a rather unusual practice – cremation. The name Ahimate refers to the act of cremation practiced in the area by this tribe, and would have signalled a point of difference by which to recognise the area and its people for both locals and visiting traders.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Change the name of Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park to reflect the cultural significance of the site.

3.2 Option 2: Do not change the name of the park.

3.3 Option 3: Refer to the park as Ahimate Reserve/Waitoetoe Park to reflect both the cultural significance and the existing name.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Change the name of Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park to reflect the cultural significance of the site.

4.2 The Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan was adopted by Council on 25 September 2017. In that report Council resolved “That the Council direct the Chief Executive Officer to complete the process required for renaming the park from Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park” (as per the Palmerston North City Council Reserves and Walkways Naming Policy).

4.3 When considering adopting a name or changing a name on a reserve or walkway the Palmerston North City Council Reserve and Walkway Naming Policy requires Council to:

· Consider bilingual or dual-naming.

· Consult with Iwi on a name or preferred names.

· Utilise the selection criteria (names of local people; Maori history; names related to flora, fauna or geographical features; European settler history; notable people; associations of family, person or community).

During the naming process Iwi are usually contacted first, in order to establish whether the area has enough significance to Rangitāne to warrant a special name.

4.4 Once that is established a set of possible names would be selected and a consultation process would ensue. During consultation Council would consult with:

· Iwi.

· Local historians.

· User groups and reserve users.

· General public.

4.5 Once consultation is complete, a review and feedback process is engaged in with the:

· City Archivist.

· Principal Maori Advisor.

· Leisure Assets Planner.

4.6 A report with recommendations would then be produced for Council, and a decision made. The adopted name would then be incorporated into the management of the reserve, and the name Gazetted under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.7 Council has already:

· Consulted with Iwi, who have signalled that the area is significant and provided Officers with a name.

· Consulted with the local park users, stakeholder groups and the general public on the proposed name change (through the Waitoetoe Reserve Development Plan).

· Reviewed the name in accordance with the policy and criteria – the name meets the criterion for Maori History.

4.8 During public consultation the public were predominantly in favour of recognising the cultural aspects of this site, including the name change. Most people were unaware of the cultural significance of the site, and were interested to know more. Some stakeholders expressed a desire for the name Waitoetoe to stay in some form, though they fully recognised the awkwardness (and potential for confusion) of having three names in one park area.

4.9 With the criteria for reserves naming having been met in the case of Waitoetoe Park, Officers now seek a resolution of Council for a name change.

4.10 Option 2: Do not change the name of the park.

4.11 The analysis for Option 1 remains relevant. Council did not initiate the name change, and this name change came to Council under the advice of Rangitāne O Manawatu.

4.12 Council has a strong and growing relationship with Rangitāne O Manawatu, and Council seeks to improve this relationship through partnership and working together. Recognition of culturally significant aspects of Rangitāne tikanga is a key component of building this relationship. Changing the existing park name to a culturally appropriate one is a practical step towards that recognition.

4.13 Council also has a legislative responsibility with regards enacting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; providing the opportunity for Maori to participate in decision-making processes and ensuring the views of Iwi and Hapu are sought when making decisions on parks and reserves that affect them (Reserves Act 1977).

4.14 This option distinctively works in a counter-productive manner with regards seeking the positive relational outcomes described in 4.12 & 4.13.

4.15 Option 3: Refer to the park as Ahimate Reserve/Waitoetoe Park to reflect both the cultural significance and the existing name.

4.16 The analysis for Option 1 remains relevant. Council did not initiate the name change, and this name change came to Council under the advice of Rangitāne O Manawatu.

4.17 This area is currently made up of both Waitoetoe Park and Paneiri Park. This option (with three names) would make the area itself and finding the reserve for out-of-towners overly complicated.

4.18 The Pa site itself is in the old Allied Concrete area, where the toi toi grows. So naming the manicured park area Waitoetoe and the old Allied Concrete Area Ahimate to delineate the areas would not make a lot of sense.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Rangitāne have identified the area known currently as Waitoetoe Park as a site of cultural significance, being an old pa site.

5.2 As a result, and amongst other things, Rangitāne have expressed a desire to have the cultural sugnificance of the site recognised through an appropriate name change – to Ahimate Reserve.

5.3 Council has carried out all due diligence with regards the requirements under Council policy in reference to the name change, during consultation on the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan.

5.4 The public and stakeholders were supportive of the name change, and though for the most part unaware of the significance of the site, expressed a desire to further develop the cultural aspects of the site.

6. Next actions

6.1 Change the name of Waitoetoe Park to Ahimate Park in Council documents, website and other appropriate platforms of communication.

6.2 Change the name of the Waiteotoe Park Reserve Development Plan to the Ahimate Reserve Development Plan.

6.3 Have the name formally recognised under the Reserves Act 1977.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The community engagement for the proposed name change took place under the process of the Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan.

7.2 That plan included;

· Stage 1 : pre-engagement (September 2016 – March 2017)

· Stage 2: consultation on the Draft Waitoetoe Park Reserve Development Plan March 2017 – June 2017)

Compliance and administration

The proposed name change will be required to be registered and Gazetted as per the Reserves Act 1977.

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

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan

DATE: 10 November 2017

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee adopts the “Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan”, attached to the 4 December 2017 Report titled “Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan” as a final.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan.

3. That the budgets for the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan be referred to the 2018-28 10 Year Plan process for consideration by Council.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Palmerston North City Council, key stakeholders, park users and local residents have worked over the past year to develop a Reserves Development Plan for Memorial Park. After a two-staged consultation process, the plan is now in a final form and ready for adoption by Council.
OPTION 1:	The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final.
Community Views	An extensive and successful two-stage consultation process was recently completed in order to achieve this final plan.
Benefits	Council has a timely development plan for Memorial Park prior to the 2018-28 10 Year Plan. The plan has been well consulted on and the community appear satisfied with the outcome. This should place Council in sound shape going forward into detailed design and construction.
Risks	Funding is limited or unavailable due to other financial commitments.
Financial	$990,000 Capital New; $260,000 Capital Renewals; $250,000 externally raised.
OPTION 2:	The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final with alterations adopted by the Sport and Recreation Committee.
Community Views	An extensive and successful two-stage consultation process was recently completed in order to achieve this final plan.
Benefits	Allows Council to make any additions that it sees fit after listening to hearings and having seen community engagement results.
Risks	Costs begin to add up. The bulk of the plan meets the expectations of the community – further Council driven additions or changes could unsettle this.
Financial	$990,000 Capital New; $260,000 Capital Renewals; $250,000 externally raised. Plus or minus additions or removals.
OPTION 3:	The Committee does not adopt the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final.
Community Views	An extensive and successful two-stage consultation process was recently completed in order to achieve this final plan.
Benefits	Potentially benefits would be dependent on the reasons to not adopt the plan.
Risks	Considerable effort and expense has gone into this plan from both Council and the community. May be seen as a waste of resource.
Financial	Would be determined – dependent upon reasons for non-adoption.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Establishing Reserve Development Plans and developing the unique characteristics of Palmerston North’s City Reserves is an expectation of the Active Recreation Strategy.

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 year to develop a Reserve Development Plan for Memorial Park.

1.2 After a two-staged consultation process, the plan is now in a final form and ready for adoption by Council.

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 community’s desires for Memorial Park. Stage I consultation comprised of the following:

· 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 (20 March, 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 20 March 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 The top three 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.

Equal Priority Features were:

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 workshop 20 March 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 was completed under the approved 2016/17 Memorial Park Capital Development Programme).

· 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 In March 2017 The Sport and Recreation Committee received the draft Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan. In that meeting Councillors decided that the plan was not yet in the right state to go to the public for consultation. There were some key elements of the draft that Councillors requested be changed:

· That the memorial side of the plan be raised to a higher standard, and include the Workers’ Memorial.

· Officers complete more up-front work with the sporting organisations (mainly Central Football) regarding planned alterations to the sporting field features of the park, prior to public consultation.

· Be more specific regarding the work required to make the park a Gold Standard accessibility City Reserve; both in terms of retrospective work and planned work going forward.

· That the splash pad feature in the draft include an option for a more developed and expensive option, which would be subject to external funding.

· That having lights at Memorial Park to light the skating rink (subject to community fundraising) be included in the plan as a consultation point.

2.8 In addition, and arising from the views expressed at the Council meeting/workshops, Officers have also had the plan altered so that the front part of the duck pond be filled in and planted out (this is the shallow, concrete-bottomed part of the pond which gets very dirty and easily accumulates rubbish). This part of the pond would be developed in conjunction with the storm water engineers to either create a natural wetland that will then feed water into the duck pond, or filled in and planted out.

2.9 See Community Engagement Process section of this report for Stage II consultation process.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final.

3.2 Option 2: The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final with alterations adopted by the Sport and Recreation Committee.

3.3 Option 3: The Committee does not adopt the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final.

4.2 The general feedback from both Councillors and the community during both consultation phases 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; and to fill in the front part of the pond for planting and a potential wetland feature).

· 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, installation of 20 pound WWII guns at the park, 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.

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

· Fill in the front part of the duck pond – the shallow feeder-end where rubbish accumulates in the water; and plant it out or create an artificial wetland that feeds water to the duck pond.

· 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 and ends.

· Works to soften the concrete edges of the old velodrome (including painting club emblems on one end).

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. The possibility of a larger splash pad (subject to external funding) has been included in this plan as a “potential future”.

· 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 There are a number of features that Council will work with other agencies on when rolling this plan out, should the draft become a final plan. They are:

· Council will work with New Zealand Defence/Linton Camp to remove and upgrade the old flagpole, build the “Memorial ‘Heroes’ Wall” and new entranceway area and to move the old flagpole to this new entranceway. They will also work with Council on all works to install new 20 pound WWII guns at the park.

· New Zealand Defence Force, Linton Army, the Library Historical and Archives unit of Council and the Palmerston North Defence Heritage Advisory Group will work with Council to develop the “Memorial ‘Heroes’ Wall”, new entranceway and the Memorial Walk through the park.

· CCS Disability Action to form a Working Party to ensure construction and detailed planning going forward meets accessibility needs.

· The Fitzherbert Lions will work with Council to build the boardwalks and viewing platform that will form part of the duck pond upgrades.

· Central Football will work with Council to paint the sports field area as per the plan, and to paint their local football emblems along the northern end of the park.

· Local Trade Unions to ensure the Workers’ Memorial garden is upgraded and revitalised, and that interpretive signage regarding the worker that lost his life in 1904 is remembered in conjunction with the Workers’ Memorial Theme – the promotion of workplace safety. This work is currently underway.

4.6 There were also a number of themes that came out of the Stage II consultation (See Attachment 2 of this report). They are:

· The bulk of respondents were ultimately happy with the plan and proposed upgrades.

· Issues that emerged tended to be spread thinly across various areas of concern – none of which tend to concentrate around a theme that we might have missed.

· There were a large proportion of respondents that stated Council missed nothing, or everything was there.

· The bulk of concerns are already captured by the plan.

4.7 Some concerns were:

· Concerns regarding what appears to be a celebration of war (Memorial)

· Concerns from skating groups regarding the loss of the flat area in the sports fields to a grass mound

· Concerns that the lighting and gear shed should be worded more permanently.

· Toilets closer to playground

· Playground activity for older kids – teenagers

· More seating

· Focus on significant infrastructural upgrades at the sports field (2nd story on existing).

4.8 With regards the first concern. The work and proposals for the memorial side of this park is centred on community commitment, integrity and strength during a period of intense hardship. This has softened the “war” aspects and intensified a number of other attributes that can only be described as humanist with a dash of fun. This will be a first of its kind in New Zealand and will not ultimately be a celebration of war in and of itself, but of selflessness, self-sacrifice and community spirit.

4.9 With regards the second – the proposed earthworks have removed the proposed earthworks from the final plan and the flat area will remain available for skating events.

4.10 With regards the wording – this has been changed in the final document, in order to better facilitate funding applications made by the Memorial Park Sports Trust.

4.11 Toilets – too far. Once the toilet upgrades are complete, there will no longer be a shortage of toilets. The existing toilets are currently close enough to capture little emergencies.

4.12 Better playground activities for the older kids. When further playground kit is designed for this park, Officers will take this into account along with (and provided that) the equipment doubles as accessible play equipment. It is also believed that the splash pad combined with the pool will provide fun for all ages and abilities.

4.13 More seating. The plan provides for a lot more seating, and this appears to be an over sight on the part of submitters.

4.14 With regards the proposed additional upgrades to the sports fields (additional road-level floor added to existing). Council has a budget to upgrade the toilets in the 20/21 year of the 10 Year Plan. Central Football is currently working with designers to achieve this upgrade, and they will be required on existing 10 Year Plan budgets to provide $100,000 towards the project (externally raised funds). Council remains open to a business case from Manawatu Skating or Central Football to further develop the existing change rooms, and would address this if and when it occurs.

4.15 Memorial Park Draft Reserve Development Plan Hearings - Concerns (clauses 4.16 – 4.26 below are concerns raised through the hearings process)

4.16 Workers Memorial – more prominence. Council is currently working with the Trade Unions to develop the Workers’ Memorial further and this work is currently underway. The unions have raised $1,500 towards the project, and PNCC plans to make up any shortfall.

4.17 Conscientious objector – added to the “local heroes” feature. Council is currently working with the Palmerston North Defence Heritage Advisory Group (PNDHAG) to develop the local heroes feature. This would best be considered by that group.

4.18 A walkway from the top carpark to the existing bottom carpark. Access into the park as an issue did not feature prominently (in 5 submissions only) in the consultation process, either via submissions or drop-ins. This appears to be a costly solution to something that does not appear to be a problem.

4.19 Addition of exercise equipment. Not including exercise equipment in the draft park plan was something that was made very explicit in the flyers. This was intentionally requested by Councillors in order to assess the impact on submitters and park users by this being excluded in the draft plan. Adult exercise equipment was mentioned by 5 submitters and was not mentioned at any drop-in sessions. The lack of response by the public and park users to something that was openly included as an omission appears to reinforce that the correct choice was made to leave this equipment out of this particular park.

4.20 Do not fill in the front of the duck pond. Submitters were overwhelmingly in support of tidying up the duck pond – including filling in the front, shallow part of the pond.

4.21 Develop a sensory garden with adequate access. This is in the plan.

4.22 Removable handrails. This appears to be a relatively easy engineering fix (and providing this is the case) Officers will work with Manawatu Skating to address this concern through the implementation of the development plan.

4.23 Ensure there is a photo of the old memorial plinth. This can be worked through with the PNDHAG.

4.24 More accessibility parking in the current park carpark. This is an excellent idea, fits with the recommendations in the existing plan, and will be developed during implementation (including mothers with children carparks).

4.25 Too many trees will block sight lines next to the rink. The pictures in the plan are conceptual only, and should not be taken as an actual finished product.

4.26 Rink music should be done differently (i.e. be set up in the grandstand as it used to be, not as a platform with electricity). If the Memorial Park Skating Trust is willing to fund a sound system in the park around the rink area, then Officers would support an appropriate proposal. However, Officers believe having a platform next to the rink with electricity will be useful to people (including the public) using the rink.

4.27 Budgets: Given the nature of the work to be carried out in accordance with the Memorial Park Development Plan, the budget has elements of both capital new and capital renewals, as described in the table below.

Upgrades Budget (upgrades to existing features in the park)	New Capital Required (for consideration in the 2018-28 10 Year Plan under Programme 93)	Existing Capital Renewals (for consideration in the 2018-28 10 year plan under various renewal programmes)	External Funding/Work
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	10,000
WWII – Memorial restoration (materials and some labour)	$80,000	0	Linton Army - (entrance wall, gun installation and flagpole)
Safety surfacing (Poppy Playground)		$45,000
Perimeter landscaping and fencing	0	$20,000
Upgrade the BBQ area	$10,000	7,000
Paint the sports field grandstand frontage	0	$15,000
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	$381,250	$195,750
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		$250,000
Pool slide	$7,000	0
Duck pond boardwalk and seating platform (materials only)	$15,000	0	Fitzherbert Lions (installation)
Wetland/planting in shallow end of duck pond	$30,000	0	Development and installation with storm water team
Sensory garden	$6,000	0
Earthworks and landscaping.	$35,000 (materials only)	0	Plant and labour in-kind contributions from NZ Army and Fitzherbert Lions
Gear shed for skate groups	$25,000	0
New Features Totals	$368,000	0
Sub Total	$749,250	$195,750
Contingency (20% of sub-total)	$143,256	$39,150
Project Management and Design (12-13% of total)	$96,700	$23,490
Totals	$989,206	$258,390	$250,000
Existing Capital New (2015/25 10 Year Plan)	$54,206	n/a	n/a
Total New Funding suggested for 2018-28 10 Year Plan	$935,000	n/a	n/a

4.28 As part of 2018-28 10 Year Plan deliberations, proposed Capital Works Programme 93 “City Reserves/Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan Implementation”, has been included for prioritisation. It provides the following budget costs over the ten year period.

2018/19	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28
$54,206	$301,000	$51,000	$277,000	$51,000	$51,000	$51,000	$51,000	$51,000	$51,000

4.29 This gives a total of $989,206 (uninflated budgets), which can accommodate the required capital sum identified under clause 4.27 above.

4.30 The splash pad and new toilets would be specific projects and require a total funding amount for the year in which they were built, namely years 2019/20 &.2021/22. Therefore these years require the full amount for the project. The balance has assumed a flat-line budget of $51, 000 to stage the remainder of the development plan works.

4.31 Similarly, the 2018-28 10 Year Plan has presented renewal programmes, such as Programmes 186 & 98 which have been prepared to accommodate the $258,390 Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan component identified in clause 4.27 above.

4.32 Option 2: The Committee adopts the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final with alterations adopted by the Sport and Recreation Committee.

4.33 The analysis for Option 1 holds.

4.34 Any changes to the analysis and corresponding budgets would be dependent upon the nature and scope of the alterations adopted by the Committee.

4.35 Option 3: The Committee does not adopt the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan as a final.

4.36 Under this option the Committee will need to advise how they wish to proceed with establishing a new reserve development plan for Memorial Park.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Council has undergone a rigorous consultation process (consisting of 2 stages of consultation) and have produced a final Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan based on those results.

5.2 Consultation on the Draft Plan has revealed sound satisfaction with the plan across multiple platforms.

5.3 The plan should be adopted, and budgets for implementation considered during the 2018-28 10 Year Plan process.

6. Next actions

6.1 Consider implementation budgets for the Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan during deliberations on the 2018-28 10 Year Plan.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 In September 2017 Stage II consultation began. Stage II consultation (consultation on the Draft Plan is now complete – running from 10 September 2017 until 6 November 2017). A complete report describing the analysis is attached to this report. The Stage II consultation comprised the following:

· A 3600 household mail drop – with self-addressed submission form and info flyer (76 returned forms).

· An online survey form, Facebook and social media platforms (59 online forms completed; 19,550 people reached).

· Radio and Newspaper advertising (including local Manawatu Standard media interest stories).

· Nine drop-in sessions at Memorial Park (118 people spoken to at the park).

· Signage at the park and opportunities to email and ask questions of staff

· Emails and on-the-ground work done with a number of key stakeholders (Army/Historical/Disability/Trade Unions/Skate Groups, etc.).

· Survey forms and promotional material at – PNCC Customer Service Centre; Central Library; Sport Manawatū Offices and Hancock Community House)

7.2 Stage II consultation has achieved a wide reach, and appears to have had a successful outcome – with a combined response of 262 people (survey and drop-ins); and nearly 20,000 reached on social media.

Compliance and administration

The Memorial Park Reserve Development Plan was developed in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

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.	Memorial Park Development Plan ⇩
2.	Stage I Consultation Results ⇩
3.	Stage II Consultation Results ⇩

Jason Pilkington

Leisure Assets Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017

TITLE: Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Documentation

DATE: 20 November 2017

AUTHOR/S: Jeff Baker, Senior Planner, City Future

Dave Charnley, Urban Designer, City Future

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That the Draft Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Documentation be adopted for public consultation.

2. That the formal public engagement associated with the Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Documentation is undertaken alongside the 2018/28 Long Term Plan consultation process.

3. That the Draft Esplanade Masterplan Documentation identify the Park Road / Cook Street intersection and new access alignment (including pedestrian, cycle and car parking facilities) and pedestrianisation works (including the effects on vehicle circulation and parking) as the initial priority, noting that the final decisions will be subject to the 2018/28 Long Term Plan process and confirmation of the Masterplan.

4. That the final Esplanade Masterplan be confirmed by Council following the adoption of the 2018/28 Long Term Plan.

5. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Sport and Recreation Committee be authorised to make minor amendments and additions to the Victoria Esplanade Character Study prior to public consultation once feedback is received from Rangitāne.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	A Victoria Esplanade Masterplan will have as its guiding purpose to be the premier park in the City for enjoyment of its unique character and special relationship to the Manawatū River. This identity can be strengthened over time by reinforcing the use and role of six core character areas within the park. A guiding principle of these areas will be ease of movement within and through these areas, particularly to the Manawatū River, for pedestrians as a priority.
OPTION 1: (Recommended Option)	Adopt the draft masterplan documentation for public consultation and deliver a new Park Road/Cook Street intersection in the short term and core pedestrian related improvements in the short term, subject to decisions made in the 2018/28 LTP process.
Community Views	Not yet sought. Note familiarity with public submissions in 2007/2008 and some stakeholder observations from current preliminary work help inform views expressed.
Benefits	Maximise the connectivity, accessibility and safety benefits to enhance the experience for all park users. Give a level of ‘vibe’ or excitement around improvement of the park and therefore engender a greater sense of civic pride. Demonstrate to the public that Council is committed to early delivery of capital projects where a strong justification exists. Align with other new capital projects associated with the delivery of the Manawatū River Framework.
Risks	Perception that the money could be better spent elsewhere in the park or in the City. Increases Council borrowing in the short term where there might be a perception that it is not needed.
Financial	TBA as detailed investigation evolves.
OPTION 2:	Adopt the draft masterplan documentation for public consultation and deliver a new Park Road/Cook Street intersection in the short term and core pedestrian related improvements in the medium to long term, subject to decisions made in the 2018/28 LTP process.
Community Views	Not sought.
Benefits	Allows for a ‘wait and see’ approach before making capital expenditure prioritising pedestrians throughout the park. Allows time to pass for other initiatives to be raised and planned in the park that might not have been contemplated through this process. Structures capital expenditure over a longer term period. Will ultimately provide for connectivity and accessibility benefits to enhance the experience for park users.
Risks	Does not maximise the visitor experience by using the catalyst projects as a driver for a step change to pedestrian focus. Could result in potential user conflict and safety concerns due to increased usage particularly around Wild Base Recovery and ‘Park Central’ in general. May be viewed by the public as Council not responding quickly in a coordinated manner to projects that will increase the scale and intensity of usage of the park.
Financial	TBA as detailed investigation evolves.
OPTION 3:	Do nothing – Abandon the Masterplan process.
Community Views	Not yet sought. Note familiarity with public submissions in 2007/2008 and some stakeholder observations from current preliminary work help inform views expressed.
Benefits	Limits capital expenditure. Park has operated for over 140 years with no particular plan so is it really needed? Staff can focus on other priorities. Provides for a ‘wait and see’ type approach.
Risks	Will not lead to maximising the visitor experience or create a sense of purpose or imperative to take coordinated actions. Further ad-hoc facilities will be proposed in the park with no coordinated structure of assessment.
Financial	Nil.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	The recommended Option 1 will make an immediate contribution to the ‘Small city benefits, big city ambition’ vision and the goal ‘a creative and exciting city’ set out in the draft Creative and Liveable Strategy. By prioritising vehicle access improvements at the Park Road/Cook Street intersection alongside a suite of pedestrian focussed works this will greatly enhance the visitor experience across the park and also appreciation of the Manawatū River.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Victoria Esplanade (hereafter ‘the park’) is the premier park in Palmerston North. It holds a special place in the hearts of all residents, many of whom have a lifelong and sometimes an intergenerational relationship with its charms. It is also the key destination to explore by visitors to the City and therefore plays a crucial role in promoting a positive experience of the City in general.

1.2 While the park functions well in its current state there is significant opportunity to improve the experience through a range of improvements that will firmly put pedestrians as a priority in the park. While these can be achieved over time, there are works recommended as a priority in the short term to accommodate the increased use of the park with the upcoming delivery of the Junior Road Safety Park, Wild Base Recovery and the He Ara Kotahi Bridge.

1.3 A masterplan for the park will ensure that capital and renewal works and management arrangements can best provide for its unique status. This report sets out the background to the process and explains at a high level the conceptual thinking at this early stage. It recommends a ‘place-based’ design philosophy, promoting pedestrian focussed outcomes. These are prompted by three catalyst projects that could promote a step-change to the experience of the park.

2. Background and previous council decisions

History

2.1 The park lies within the rohe (region) of the Rangitāne people and for hundreds of years was part of a large tract of native bush in the wider area. It was used for traditional activities such as mahinga kai (food gathering) given its very close proximity to the Manawatū River and the nearby Ruāhine Pā (near Hokowhitu Lagoon) and the fortified Pā on top of the bluff known as Te Motu O Poutoa/ANZAC Park. It formed a tiny part of the purchase of some 100,000 hectares from the Ngāti Raukawa and Rangitāne people by the Crown in 1858. This parcel of land, about 146 hectares in size, was later granted to the City Council (then known as the ‘Borough of Palmerston North’) in 1877.

2.2 The land was cleared for farming but did not start to take shape as a park until 20 years later when it was fenced and a path was formed into it from Fitzherbert Avenue. It was given the name ‘Victoria Esplanade’ in commemoration of the 60^th Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign and English trees were planted at its eastern end. Later, in 1917 Victoria Esplanade Drive was formed between Fitzherbert Avenue and Park Road. The structured spaces in the Victorian style, and range of now iconic facilities, were developed over the proceeding decades. A ‘boom’ period in the 1960s saw the construction of the playground, the rose garden and miniature railway. In recent years there has been a focus on renewal of existing facilities such as the playground, the Depot and pathways. Currently, the Junior Road Safety Park at the park’s eastern side is to be opened in November 2017, Wild Base Recovery in the middle of May 2018, and the He Ara Kotahi Bridge (in Dittmer Reserve adjacent to the park on its western side) in the first half of 2019.

Usage

2.3 While there are no specific counters it is estimated around 500,000 people visit the park per year. In particular, reliable figures for the playground (180,000), conservatory (60,000) and railway (over 65,000 in 2016) indicate the popularity of its facilities. It is noted the park is the number one destination for visitors on the Trip Advisor website and is the first place that is recommended to visit by staff of the I-SITE visitor centre.

Legal Status

2.4 As noted above, the park was originally vested by the Crown to the City under the Wellington Reserves Act 1876 and the Wellington Reserves Amendment Act 1877 ‘.. for the use and benefit of the Inhabitants of Palmerston North …. as a Public Park and Recreation Ground and Botanical Gardens’. Later, the park came under the control of the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922 which enabled Council to lease reserves for the purposes of ‘recreation, public gardens, parks and domains and … outdoor games’.

2.5 There is no specific Management Plan or Development Plan for the park. Over the decades it has been managed by operational staff on a day to day basis and new facilities and major changes have been considered on their merits by the various City Park Managers, Parks Officers, Committees and elected Councils as and when they have arisen. It is noted that neither the 1877 nor later 1922 Act required the preparation of a specific Management or Development Plan. While this is a requirement of the Reserves Act 1977, the park is not subject to that Act.

Long Term Plan Status

2.6 Through the 2006/16 Long Term Plan (‘LTP’) public submissions sought a range of improvements to the park. This culminated in the preparation of a draft Masterplan in 2008 and included a period of intense public consultation. A suite of works priced at that time in the order of $14.9m were proposed for inclusion in the 2009/19 LTP process. However, with a change of Council and different financial priorities many of these were not funded and therefore not given effect to. Those that were delivered were the new Depot on Manawaroa Street, a renewal of the conservatory and playground, and Wild Base Recovery (currently under construction) whereby money allocated to the aviary upgrade was instead allocated to this project. It is noted the Junior Road Safety Park was never part of that masterplan process. Instead this was a community raised initiative that received $100k of capital funding from Council on the basis that the balance of $240k+ was raised externally.

2.7 In June 2016 Council resolved that the preparation of a combined Development and Management Plan be undertaken for the Victoria Esplanade as a priority bearing in mind the upcoming delivery of the Junior Road Safety Park, Wild Base Recovery and He Ara Kotahi Bridge projects. There were also concerns expressed about the seemingly ad-hoc nature of proposals for inclusion in the park without any sort of guiding plan.

2.8 The current 2015/25 LTP includes programmes for the Junior Road Safety Park and Wild Base Recovery projects. In addition there is provision for an upgrade to the intersection of Park Road and Cook Street to provide for a new entrance to the park ($478k for delivery in 2018/19) and a new Bonsai House ($94k for delivery in 2019/20).

2.9 As part of the 2018/28 LTP process a total of $2.73m (made up of two new programmes) has been included as a ‘place-holder’ for delivery of the masterplan that eventuates from this process noting this will be subject to change as the process evolves. Timing and budget allocation for the Bonsai House and Park Road/Cook Street intersection upgrade have also been updated to align with the masterplan. It is noted that any works arising out of this process will be aligned, both in terms of design and construction, with works associated with delivery of the Manawatū River Framework.

Approach

2.10 The preparation of the masterplan will encompass both capital development and renewal projects and day to day management of the park and consider the short, medium and long term.

2.11 To date officers have used a multi-discipline approach to preliminary work which supports the masterplan. This includes officers collaborating from the planning/urban design, parks, roading and operational divisions using principles and direction from the Urban Design Strategy (2010) and the Manawatu River Framework (2016). In addition preliminary meetings have taken place with some of the key stakeholder parties associated with the park and with Iwi. A draft Character Study has been prepared by a Landscape Architect and is included in Appendix 1. (It remains at draft status until consultation is completed with Rangitāne on their particular section). Maps are included in Appendix 2 (Proposed Character Areas), Appendix 3 (Proposed Pedestrian Circulation Map) and Appendix 4 (Proposed Vehicle Circulation Map) as part of the masterplan bundle of documentation.

2.12 For continuity of assessment purposes the current process can be seen to ‘stand on the shoulders’ of the previous work in 2007/2008. Officers are familiar with the large body of public submissions made at that time and note that many of the opinions expressed in these submissions remain relevant.

2.13 The draft masterplan will be confirmed following the 2018/28 LTP process.

3. Description of options

Rationale

3.1 The first two options assume it is given that a masterplan is needed for the park. Officers have identified a large number of elements ranging from installation of wayfinding signage, path works right through to Rangitāne expression opportunities that can be made to improve the function and thereby overall experience of the park. At this time it is recommended that the key aspect to firm up is a ‘place-based’, design philosophy which promotes a pedestrian focus throughout the park.

3.2 Officers note that the ‘place-based’ approach reflects best practice in historical and contemporary park layout and design and is evident all over the world. For example Hyde Park and Kew Gardens in London, Boston Public Garden, the Royal Botanical Gardens in Sydney and Melbourne to name a few. In the New Zealand context the Wellington Botanical Gardens and Hamilton Gardens also exhibit a strong focus to the pedestrian experience with vehicles moved to the periphery.

3.3 There are a number of ways to stage the package of ‘place-based’ works focussing on pedestrians. These can most easily be described as two main options – fast or slow – rather than a myriad of sub-options.

Option 1 - Adopt the draft masterplan documentation for public consultation and deliver a new Park Road/Cook Street intersection in the short term and core pedestrian related improvements in the short term, subject to decisions made in the 2018/28 LTP process.

3.4 In this option two actions are undertaken in the short term within the next 5 years. Firstly, a new vehicular entrance to the park is formed from Park Road in direct alignment with the end of Cook Street with generous width walkway and cycle lanes included along with additional carparking as part of this realignment. Secondly, the present thoroughfare between the Park Road and Manawaroa Street entrances is discontinued for use by the general public. As part of this move Palm Drive is pedestrianised along with the section of Victoria Esplanade Drive between Palm Drive past the Duckpond/Wild Base Recovery to the Playground carpark.

Option 2 - Adopt the draft masterplan documentation for public consultation and deliver a new Park Road/Cook Street intersection in the short term and core pedestrian related improvements in the medium to long term, subject to decisions made in the 2018/28 LTP process.

3.5 In this option the intersection, pedestrian, cycle and parking improvements still go ahead as a priority at the western end of the park as these are critical with the arrival of the He Ara Kotahi Bridge in 2019. However, the pedestrianisation of Palm Drive and the Duckpond/Wild Base Recovery section of Victoria Esplanade are staged over the medium to long term. In the meantime some relatively modest shared surface platforms and traffic calming measures are constructed to prioritise pedestrians and slow down traffic in these areas.

Option 3 - Do Nothing (Abandon Masterplan process).

In this option the masterplan process is abandoned prior to any public engagement taking place. Planned works for a new Bonsai House and the Park Road/Cook Street intersection that are already in the LTP could be abandoned as part of the 2018/28 LTP process. Or else these could stay in the LTP and proceed in the absence of any overall plan as another two additional ad-hoc improvements.

4. Analysis of options

Core Philosophy

4.1 Overall the recommended direction for the masterplan is ‘place-based’ whereby the experience of people on foot is the foremost priority.

4.2 As part of this approach six core character areas have been identified in the park as discussed in the draft Character Study in Appendix 1 and shown in the map in Appendix 2. In order to best reinforce the overall identity of the park is it is recommended that pedestrian movement is prioritised within these areas, between them, and where they interface with a core external connector. For example safe, easy and convenient connections are a priority for improvement from the ‘Native Bush’ character area to the Manawatū River immediately south of it. At the ‘Main Park Entry’ character area these attributes are also crucial from Park Road at the northern end and to the Manawatū River at the southern end.

4.3 The safe and efficient movement of vehicles, particularly for servicing and operational reasons, coaches and passenger vans, and for those with mobility needs, is important to the function of the park. However, it is recommended these are relegated (in hierarchical terms) to appropriate sections of internal roads and periphery carparking. This will promote a step-change in the current focus of the park which is overly vehicle orientated.

4.4 The needs of cyclists are important too, particularly at the western end, to promote safe ‘desire-line’ connection from a new Park road entrance to the Manawatū River Pathway and future He Ara Kotahi Bridge. It is the intention of the masterplan to promote slow cycle speeds as part of the focus on pedestrian movement.

4.5 The function of the character areas will be protected, supported and managed through the masterplan. This will reinforce their identity and also ensure all future capital projects or operational programmes (such as events) are appropriately located with the area(s) where it best supports user experience of the park.

4.6 As Wild Base Recovery is a catalyst for pedestrian improvements in the Park Central character area, so too is He Ara Kotahi Bridge to the Main Park Entry area. Except that by aligning all improvement works here in time for the bridge opening in 2019 it will also have the added external benefit of prioritising all movement be it foot, cycle or vehicle through the high amenity setting of the park, away from the residential area of Ruha Street, Henare Street and Dittmer Drive.

4.7 It is noted in the 2007/2008 masterplan process it was planned to realign the Park Road entrance with Cook Street with one option being the construction of a new access road parallel to the existing one and repurposing of the old road to car parking. While the intersection upgrade programme was supported at that time, there was no bridge proposal nearby to act as a catalyst for action. 10 years on it is the view of officers that a legible, safe and high amenity experience should now be prioritised in this area for park users of foot, cycle or in a vehicle.

4.8 The perspectives in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6, also part of the masterplan bundle, illustrate one option of constructing a new road aligned with Cook Street and reusing the old access road as a generous multi-purpose space which could act as a pedestrian link day to day but also an events space from time to time (such as a Cherry Blossom Festival). There is also scope to introduce a significant area of additional carparking (70+ spaces), potentially in stages - as demand warrants it - between the new access road and the eastern side of the Lido grounds. Another option is a ‘dog-leg’ entrance arrangement from the realigned intersection whereby a new section of access road connects into the existing road. As with the new road option, preliminary investigations suggest sufficient space for new carparking, cycle lanes and pedestrian movement in this case too. These options, along with any others, will be thoroughly assessed through the detailed design stage.

4.9 It is considered critical to have these works at the western end of the park completed by 2019 in time for the bridge opening. It is also critical that the assessment of pedestrian/cycle movement extend right through to the new bridge in the Dittmer Reserve in a holistic manner. To this end it is noted that work on this is already underway as part of the Manawatū River Framework implementation ‘key river entrances’ design work. The scope of this work includes the linkage from the park to the bridge (along the edge of the Holiday Park) as shown in the map in Appendix 3.

4.10 It is important to bear in mind that use of the Scenic Rail facility continues to grow and it is expected to top 70,000 users in 2017. Scenic Rail representatives have consistently expressed a need to reconfigure parking in this area and also increase the overall number of carparks based on peak demand issues they regularly observe. It is also noted that at this location a new station has recently been granted resource consent to replace the original station. Works are scheduled to occur in the summer of 2018/19.

4.11 Turning now to Park Central, with the upcoming opening of Wild Base Recovery in 2018 there is expected to be another 110,000 visitors to the area per year. This is a catalyst to ensuring there is safe and legible, ‘desire-line’ pedestrian priority movement within the area and underpins the recommendation to discontinue the thoroughfare between Manawaroa Street and Park Road in the short term. With vehicles removed it would be appropriate to cluster new and/or renewed facilities, all facing north, to the west of Wild Base Recovery in the medium to long term. This could best provide for the use and function of the generous open space here. The perspective in Appendix 7 illustrates how this might look.

4.12 For vehicular access this means the park is separated into two parts both terminating at Park Central. One main entrance is off Park Road and realigned with Cook Street in a redeveloped pedestrian access and parking space next to the Lido. Access to parking can still be achieved down Victoria Esplanade Drive as far as the ‘playground carpark’ behind the hockey turfs. However, vehicles use a turning facility and go back out the Park Road entrance. The second main access continues off Manawaroa Street leading to a drop off/turning facility near the Café, or the ‘Croquet carpark’. All private vehicles must use this turning facility and go back out the Manawaroa Street entrance.

4.13 The same benefits of improved connectivity and user experience along the western side of the Lido apply here as with Option 1 through the prioritised delivery of works in time for the bridge opening in 2019.

4.14 The pedestrian improvements in Park Central would be delivered in the medium to long term. These could occur in a staged arrangement ultimately concluding with stopping the present thoroughfare through the park. So the same benefits for the safe and easy movement of pedestrians apply as with Option 1, except these are not realised in full for many years.

4.15 In practice a ‘sub-stage’ in the short term might be to simply build a shared surface platform on Palm Drive in front of the Café and one in front of Wild Base Recovery on Victoria Esplanade Drive. This would immediately slow traffic down by prioritising pedestrian movement in these target areas. However, in the next stage, potentially 10- 15 years in the future, it makes sense to pedestrianise Palm Drive and shut down the Wild Base Recovery section of Victoria Esplanade Drive at the same time. In other words, from a safety point of view to pedestrianise Palm Drive (thereby sending all through traffic past Wild Base Recovery), it is logical to stop the thoroughfare at the same time.

Option 3 - Do Nothing (Abandon Masterplan process).

4.16 If the process were to be abandoned it is considered opportune to do so prior to any public engagement taking place.

4.17 It is the view of officers that this would be the least desirable option. The park is going through the second largest era of development in its 140 year history – it is appropriate to plan into the future and record that work in one central document to be followed by all parties.

4.18 It is a credit to those who have presided over the park over the decades that it is such a special place in the City in the absence of a masterplan. However, a masterplan is critical to secure its future and is the most appropriate way to maximise the visitor experience. The masterplan approach is used by officers now on most major projects to achieve the best outcomes. It also provides continuity as officers and elected members come and go ensuring that a clear vision is followed over time.

5. Conclusion

5.1 An overarching ‘place-based’ design philosophy for the preparation of the Masterplan and related documentation is proposed with the reinforcement over time of six key character areas a central feature of that approach. This underpins the way forward going into the public engagement stage of the process with the masterplan bundle of documents, noting any future decisions on the scope of works or activities in the masterplan and the timing thereof will be made as part of the 2018/28 LTP process.

5.2 By doing so this will realise a package of benefits that will greatly improve the visitor experience both in terms of appreciating the quality of the Victoria Esplanade and also the Manawatū River.

5.3 The Junior Road Safety Park, Wild Base Recovery and He Ara Kotahi Bridge projects combine to form potentially a ‘once in a lifetime’ facility expansion at or near the park. They are catalysts for a step-change in the focus of the park away from private vehicles to pedestrian experience. Option 1 hastens that step-change process. The park will function more efficiently at character area level and in turn appreciation of its iconic status in the City and beyond will grow at a greater rate.

6. Next actions

6.1 Some minor detailing of plans and supporting documents and updating the draft Character Study with Rangitāne feedback will take place in preparation for public consultation in early 2018 alongside the 2018/28 LTP process.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 As noted earlier in the report, the body of work undertaken so far is preliminary investigation and conceptual assessment done ‘in-house’ as a lead up to formal public engagement early in 2018 alongside the 2018/28 LTP process.

7.2 Some key stakeholders and Iwi have been included in this preliminary work and this engagement will continue to expand as the process evolves.

7.3 Public engagement will be timed to coincide with engagement associated with the 2018/28 LTP process to avoid duplication and ‘consultation fatigue or overload’ issues. It is intended to have a focus on using digital techniques to best explain the masterplan documentation. Officers also wish to use ‘pop-up’ engagement techniques during summer and have a presence at the Esplanade Open Day on 4 March 2018 to share and test aspects of the plan at a more informal ‘face to face’ level.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?	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? (For Plan preparation)	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

1.	Appendix 1 - Draft Character Study ⇩
2.	Appendix 2 - Character Areas Map ⇩
3.	Appendix 3 - Pedestrian Circulation Map ⇩
4.	Appendix 4 - Vehicle Circulation Map ⇩
5.	Appendix 5 - New Access Road Perspective ⇩
6.	Appendix 6 - Flexi-space Perspective ⇩
7.	Appendix 7 - Palm Drive Perspective ⇩

Jeff Baker

Senior Planner

Dave Charnley

Urban Designer

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