Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

5 March 2018

Order of Business

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

- Community Development Committee will open and adjourn immediately to following Council

- Planning and Strategy Committee will open and adjourn immediately to following Community Development Committee

- Council 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. Submissions - Traffic and Parking Bylaw Page 7

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 15

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 7 February 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Unreinforced Masonry Earthquake-Prone Buildings: Priority Roads, Footpaths and Thoroughfares Consultation Page 19

Memorandum, dated 12 February 2018 from the Policy Planner, Matthew Mackay.

7. Staff Supported - Elected Member "Let's Talk" engagement Page 35

Report, dated 16 February 2018 from the Head of Environmental Protection Services, Graeme Gillespie.

8. Committee Work Schedule Page 43

9. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

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

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

Chief Executive (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 Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 07 February 2018, commencing at 9.02am

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Non Members:

Councillors Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM and Leonie Hapeta.

The meeting adjourned at 9.03am.

The meeting resumed at 9.05am.

1-18

Public Comment

Public comment was made by Mr James Beard regarding Plan Change 22A-G.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the public comment be received for information.

Clause 1-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

2-18

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 4 December 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 2-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

3-18

Plan Change 22A-G

Memorandum, dated 13 November 2017 from the Senior Policy Planner, Jono Ferguson-Pye.

The meeting adjourned at 10.36am.

The meeting resumed at 10.54am.

Moved Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

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

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

Clause 3-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

4-18

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Susan Baty.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated February 2018.

Clause 4-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 11.15am.

Confirmed 5 March 2018

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 March 2018

TITLE: Unreinforced Masonry Earthquake-Prone Buildings: Priority Roads, Footpaths and Thoroughfares Consultation

DATE: 12 February 2018

AUTHOR/S: Matthew Mackay, Policy Planner, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Statement of Proposal Unreinforced Masonry Earthquake-Prone Buildings: Priority Roads, Footpaths and Thoroughfares Consultation be approved for public consultation.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal Unreinforced Masonry Earthquake-Prone Buildings: Priority Roads, Footpaths and Thoroughfares Consultation prior to public consultation.

3. That Council does not consult on whether there are priority earthquake-prone buildings that could impede a strategic transport route, under Section 133AF(2)(b)) of the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.

1. ISSUE

The system for identifying and managing earthquake-prone buildings changed on 1 July 2017 when the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (the Amendment Act) came into force.

Council is now required to identify public roads, footpaths, and other thoroughfares (roads) with sufficient traffic to warrant prioritisation because of the risk of part of an unreinforced masonry (URM) building falling in an earthquake. Identification of these roads must be completed with community input using the Special Consultative Procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Approval is sought to consult on the attached Draft Statement of Proposal. The Amendment Act sets a deadline of December 2019 for Council to undertake identification of earthquake-prone priority buildings. Consulting at this time will ensure sufficient time for Council to achieve this timeframe. Consultation is timed to coincide with the consultation on the Draft 2018 10 Year Plan.

The identification of roads is the first step to classify which URM buildings will also be categorised as priority buildings. As such, the proposal only impacts on URM buildings located on identified roads. Owners of priority buildings must strengthen or demolish these within 7.5 years instead of the standard 15 years.

2. BACKGROUND

Requirements of the Amendment Act

The Amendment Act makes systematic changes to the way earthquake-prone buildings are identified and managed. Many of the changes are to establish a consistent approach across the country.

One of the few exceptions to this standardisation is that individual communities are empowered to make a decision about two matters. Section 133AF states the requirements for Councils in medium or high seismic risk areas to identify certain priority buildings:

· Section 133AF(2)(a)) states that Council must use the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare in an area of medium or high seismic risk—

(i) onto which parts of an unreinforced masonry building could fall in an earthquake; and

(ii) that has sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritising the identification and remediation of those parts of unreinforced masonry buildings;

and

· Section 133AF(2)(b)) states that Council may, in its discretion, use the special consultative procedure to identify buildings that could impede a strategic transport route.

Government has developed guidance to assist Councils in this task. (Guidance Priority Buildings: A guide to the earthquake-prone building provisions of the Building Act, Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation (MBIE)).

Identification of Palmerston North Roads

It is considered that a number of Palmerston North roads meet the criteria developed by MBIE. These roads have been identified using the following methodology, developed in line with ministry guidance:

Ministry Guidance:

MBIE Guidance:

Roads that are:

· High pedestrian areas (people not in vehicles),

· Areas with high vehicular traffic (people in motor vehicles/on bikes)

and

URM buildings present:

Buildings that have masonry walls that do not contain steel, timber or fibre reinforcement. URM buildings are older buildings that often have parapets, as well as verandas, balconies, decorative ornaments, chimneys and signs attached to their facades (front walls that face onto a street or open space).

Council Methodology:

PNCC Method

Roads adjacent to land that is either Inner or Outer Business Zone

· Building Age Data

· Database of Completed Engineering Reports

It is considered that roads within the Inner and Outer Business Zones of Palmerston North generally meet the characteristics described in MBIE guidance. These roads have therefore been used as the basis for identification.

Building age data provides a valuable tool to identify the likely location of URM buildings. Research completed by the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineers (NZSEE) identifies that URM building construction in New Zealand peaked in 1930 before declining sharply. (Prevalence Of New Zealand’s Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Alistair P. Russell1 and Jason M. Ingham2, Bulletin Of The New Zealand Society For Earthquake ENGINEERING, Vol. 43, No. 3, September 2010). They were generally not constructed after 1940. Overlaying building age data with the Inner and Outer Business Zones reduces the extent of likely roads; only roads where a URM building may be present need to be identified.

Care needs to be taken when relying on building age data. This is because many buildings (particularly in the City Centre) are recorded as “Mixed Age”. The construction date is therefore not clear and the data has limited value.

Council also has a reasonable dataset available from the Engineering Assessment Programme run by Customer Services. These reports identify the location of many likely earthquake-prone buildings. The dataset is however limited as it does not clearly differentiate between general earthquake-prone buildings and those that are also URM buildings.

The proposed consultation document identifies a number of streets in the City Centre using this methodology. The method is somewhat conservative, which is in keeping with the MBIE guidance; the intent is not to identify all individual URM buildings. Consultation with the public, building owners and relevant groups will help refine and/or expand this list of identified streets.

Consultation Questions

MBIE has developed a template Statement of Intent for the purposes of consultation. This is attached and asks three direct questions:

1. Do you agree with the thoroughfares identified for prioritisation?

2. If not, which thoroughfares do you disagree with and why?

3. Are there any other thoroughfares that meet the criteria but are not listed?

Identification of strategic transport routes

The Amendment Act states in Section 133AE(1)(f) that a priority building also includes:

a building that a territorial authority has identified under section 133AF(2)b) as having the potential to impede a transport route of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response) if the building were to collapse in an earthquake.

The Amendment Act enables, but does not require, consultation on this matter.

It is recommended that there are no strategic transport routes in Palmerston North that could be impacted by building collapse. This is largely because the grid layout of Palmerston North streets provides alternative access to all parts of the City. This has been confirmed by discussions with emergency service providers. It is therefore recommended that Council does not consult pursuant to Section 133AF(2)(b).

3. Consultation and NEXT STEPS

Consultation must follow the Special Consultative Procedure of section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Consultation on the Statement of Proposal will run in parallel with the consultation on the Draft 2018 10 Year Plan. There are two compelling reasons for this:

· Consulting now will ensure sufficient time for Council to complete priority building assessments within the statutory timeframe;

· The identification of priority roads, footpaths and thoroughfares overlaps with capital, regulatory, and funding programmes in the Draft 2018 10 Year Plan.

Council staff ran an information session on the Amendment Act in November 2017. This included messages about the upcoming URM Priority Building Consultation. At this time Council will

· write to all owners who are on Council’s list of earthquake-prone buildings contact database;

· update the Website and Facebook with information on the proposal;

· hold 1-2 information evenings in late March/early April.

Following the close of submissions, submitters will have the ability to present their views to Council before the Council makes a final decision.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 168.1	Yes
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	Yes
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

Statement of Proposal - Unreinforced Masonry Earthquake-Prone Buildings: Priority Roads, Footpaths and Thoroughfares Consultation ⇩

Matthew Mackay

Policy Planner

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 March 2018

TITLE: Staff Supported - Elected Member "Let's Talk" engagement

DATE: 16 February 2018

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee determine if it wishes to continue the funding of additional staff resource to support the Let’s Talk Van initiative.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	To determine if the staff supported Elected Member “Lets Talk” Engagement Initiative should be extended or made permanent following the end of the trial in March 2018
OPTION 1:	Discontinue the Let’s Talk Van staff support at the conclusion of the trial
Community Views	· Not sought
Benefits	· None identified
Risks	· Loss of opportunity to provide prompt response to queries · Councillor’s community engagement time is not optimised
Financial	· No impact.
OPTION 2:	Extend the trial in its current form for a further twelve months to more fully understand the costs and benefits.
Community Views	· Not sought
Benefits	· Allows prompt response to queries · Allows councillors to focus on community engagement without the distraction of having to set up and dismantle the van and its associated equipment. · Acknowledges that there is limited information from the trial on which to make a fully informed decision · Has enabled the staff member employed as part of the initiative to become skilled in ensuring the van and equipment is set up and dismantled in a timely manner that supports the efforts of elected members · Enables those attending Lets Talk events to focus on their respective roles
Risks	· No known risks
Financial	· The cost of extending the trial would be up to $6,000 per annum for all direct and overhead costs, which could be funded from existing budgets
OPTION 3:	That the provision of additional staff support to the Let’s Talk Van initiative be made permanent
Community Views	· Not sought
Benefits	· Allows prompt response to queries · Allows Councillors to focus on community engagement without the distraction of setting up the van · Provides certainty and continuity in respect to the on-going staff support of the Let’s Talk Van · Enables a team approach to be developed between staff and elected members that will maximise the community engagement experience for all concerned
Risks	· None identified
Financial	The cost of the initiative being permanently supported would be up to $6,000 per annum for all direct and overhead costs which could be funded from existing budgets.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	This contributes to Council’s understanding of the diverse views of the city’s people and therefore helps to make prudent decisions.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 An additional staff member was employed by the Customer Services Unit to drive the Let’s Talk Van to and from events. To provide support for Elected Members, by ensuring the van was delivered, set up and returned to the garage for events that Elected Members attended where they sought to engage with the public.

1.2 The staff time for the support was initially estimated to be approximately 40% of an FTE. The remainder of the time was to be spent on other duties in the Unit.

1.3 Approval was given by Council in May 2017 to undertake a trial until March 2018. The results of the trial were to be reviewed to assess the effectiveness of the support to elected members.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 On 1 May 2017 the Planning and Strategy Committee recommended:

2.1.1 That Council endorse a staff supported Elected Member “Let’s Talk” engagement trial until March 2018

2.1.2 That Council approve a trial, funded from existing budgets.

2.2 The recommendation by the Committee was adopted by Council on 29 May 2017

2.3 The trial commenced on 3 July 2017 following the employment of additional staffing resource. This included appropriate communication.

2.4 Up until 12 February 2018 staff support to Councillors was provided to the Let’s Talk Van for 7 events. A further 3 events are planned between the date of this report and the end of March 2018.

2.5 The Let’s Talk van is frequently used by Council staff for consulting in the community on a range of policy and operational issues.

2.6 The total staff time spent during the Let’s Talk Van trial is estimated at being 70 hours. This is significantly less than that predicted. The utilisation during the trial cost just over $1000.

2.7 The cost is determined by the use of the Let’s Talk van. The Let’s Talk van is currently being used for an average of three Councillor engagement events per month. Should this continue over a year, with 36 events annually, the projected cost would be $6,000.

2.8 The key benefits have been:

2.8.1 Enabled Councillors to focus on the community engagement without having to worry about setting up and dismantling the van.

2.8.2 Captured questions/queries from the public that were entered into the Council system on the next working day for follow up. . This enabled the member of the public to be confident their query/issue was being attended to in a timely and customer focussed manner

2.8.3 Enhanced relationship building with residents, ratepayers and elected members through personal contact and prompt dealing with queries.

2.8.4 The conveying of a positive and professional image of Council that was focussed on engaging with the community to hear their views

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Discontinue the Let’s Talk Van staff support at the conclusion of the trial.

3.1.1 It would have the responsibility for the driving and setup of the Let’s Talk Van reverting back to Councillors.

3.1.2 It would result in the loss of the benefits identified.

3.2 Option 2: Extend the trial in its current form for a further twelve months to more fully understand the costs and benefits.

3.2.1 This option would take into account the limited use of the Let’s Talk Van during the trial period and allow additional time for the acquisition of more information before making any on-going commitment.

3.2.2 It would allow for the use of the Let’s Talk Van during the Long Term Plan consultation to be supported and be a part of the evaluation.

3.3 Option 3: That the provision of additional staff support to the Let’s Talk Van initiative be made permanent

3.3.1 This option would accept that the staff support of the Let’s Talk Van was considered to provide benefits and was cost effective.

3.3.2 Council wishes to increase its engagement with all residents and the Let’s Talk van is a vehicle for achieving this. Because the Let’s Talk van goes into the community it facilitates engagement with people who may not contact Council through more traditional consultation processes.

4. Analysis of options

5. Conclusion

5.1 The staff support of the Let’s Talk Van has added value to the effectiveness of Councillors engagement with the community. It has removed the challenge of seeking to have the van set up at the same time as meeting community needs during the engagement event. It has also enabled the staff member employed as part of the initiative to become skilled in ensuring the van and equipment was set up and dismantled in a timely and effective manner which has supported the efforts of elected members attending events.

6. The key consideration of the Committee is to determine if the benefits of providing staff support to the Lets Talk van initiative will enable it to achieve the goal of improving the extent and level of engagement with the community.

7. Next actions

7.1 If the Committee decide to either extend the period of the trial or make the provision a permanent arrangement a recruitment process will be undertaken.

7.2 Once any recruitment has been completed training will be undertaken and an appropriate communication plan implemented.

7.3 <Enter text>

8. Outline of community engagement process

8.1 Not relevant

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

Attachments

Nil

Duncan McCann (Chairperson)
Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Susan Baty	Karen Naylor
Rachel Bowen	Bruno Petrenas
Jim Jefferies	Tangi Utikere

S 1	Kiwi Property Group Ltd (The Plaza Shopping Centre)
S 2	Marilyn Bulloch
S 4	MidCentral DHB