Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

7 May 2018

Order of Business

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

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

- Community Development 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. Declarations of Interest (if any)

Members are reminded of their duty to give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda and the need to declare these interests.

4. 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.)

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 9 April 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Significance and Engagement Policy Annual Report - 2017 Page 15

Memorandum, dated 8 March 2018 from the Head of Community Planning, Andrew Boyle.

7. Pedestrian Facilities and Safety (NZTA) - March 2018 Page 21

Memorandum, dated 22 March 2018 from the Senior Transportation Engineer, Glenn Connelly.

8. Draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions and adoption of the Bylaw Page 29

Memorandum, dated 28 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

9. Uplifting Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions Report Page 95

Memorandum, dated 24 April 2018 from the Committee Administrator, Carly Chang.

10. Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions Page 97

Memorandum, dated 9 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

11. Committee Work Schedule Page 155

12. 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), General Manager, Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), and Communications Advisor (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

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 09 April 2018, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillors Duncan McCann (in the Chair), Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Non Members:

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

Apologies:

The Mayor Grant Smith (on Council Business) and Councillor Tangi Utikere.

When the meeting resumed at 10.50am Councillor Adrian Broad was not present. He was not present for clauses 18 to 23 inclusive.

When the meeting resumed at 10.50am Councillor Jim Jefferies was not present. He entered the meeting again at 11.19am during consideration of clause 18. He was present for all clauses.

14-18

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 14-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

15-18

Submissions - Dog Control Policy

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

Tim Gibbes (3)

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

- Biodegradable bags for dog poo would be a very good idea.

- The dog poo can be used as fertiliser.

Sue Cooper (51)

Ms Cooper spoke to her submission and presented a PowerPoint presentation and made the following additional comments:

- No specific safety concerns were documented. It is hard to believe that there are safety concerns with these three walkways, but not with the Ashhurst Terrace, Frederick Krull, Schnell Wetland, Manawatu Riverside or Mangaone Stream walkways, which are listed as off-leash areas.

- An off leash area needs safety for dogs (away from roads especially), safety for the human half of the partnership, accessibility and be interesting for the dog.

- No valid reasons have been given for the change.

- The only two areas that may be left for off-lead exercise on the Massey side of the river are unsuitable for the purpose.

- Travel to the nearest legal alternative (the river bank on the other side of the river) takes twelve minutes and 7.3 km of driving, there and back.

Liz Cross (57)

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

- The dog signage on the walkways to keep your dog under control with a picture of a dog on a leash is confusing and misleading so need to rethink and change the sign.

- Fixed dog leashes should be used and not the extending dog leashes as they have more control over the dog.

Chris Teo-Sherrell (100)

Mr Teo-Sherrell spoke to his submission and made the following additional comments:

- You cannot predict the behaviours of dogs on the basis of their breed, despite their reputation as benign animals.

- Acknowledges that companion animals can have positive effects on people’s health and well-being but it is a really sad comment on people’s lives if they cannot be apart from their pets at any time. Most people spend a relatively small amount of time in the CBD and it is not unreasonable for them to have to be apart from their animals while there.

- Council has commendably been discouraging smoking in the CBD, making it more comfortable and safer for the majority of people, and allowing dogs in the CBD will be going in the opposite direction, making it less safe and less comfortable and pleasant for the majority of residents of the city.

- What will happen to the dogs in the CBD when their owners want to go into shops? They will have to leave their dogs unattended outside which can result in the dog biting a person if someone touches the dog or acts in a way they think is threatening.

- There are just too many possibilities for dogs in the CBD proposed policy to have serious adverse consequences as well as to more generally detract from the increasingly pedestrian-friendly nature of the CBD, for it to be sensible to even trial, so please do not.

- With regards to sports fields, there will be an issue with faeces being left on the playing surfaces when people come to play on them, which is not only unpleasant but is also a health factor.

- Regarding the riverside and various other walkways, dogs should generally be on a leash in such areas with only specific areas being set aside for them to be off leash.

- Aspects of this proposed policy are going in exactly the opposite direction to that in which we should be going. There should be greater restrictions on cats and dogs in urban areas to decrease the nuisance and danger caused by their behaviour.

- Please leave the current restrictions in place and extend them where there have been problems identified or where there is potential for such problems or for the consequences to be serious.

Paul Godbaz (120)

Mr Godbaz spoke to his submission and made the following additional comment:

- Has mixed thoughts about allowing dogs into the CBD. Tourists that come to the city might be scared of dogs and those people have a right to go around out city without being threatened. There would need to be strict conditions for the trial to go ahead.

Kathleen Moore (121)

Ms Moore spoke to her submission and presented a PowerPoint presentation and made the following additional comments:

- The Summerhill Reserve is the only safe area that people can train or play with their dogs without cyclists and runners getting in their way.

- Dog walkers in the Summerhill/Aokautere area should be allocated at least one walkway for exercising dogs off leash and suggested the Poutoa Walkway as the closest to Summerhill Reserve.

- Create a dog friendly off leash play corner for their dogs in Summerhill with easy care play equipment set up as recommended by any of our local dog training teams.

Marilyn & Bruce Bulloch (129)

Mr & Mrs Bulloch spoke to their submission and made no additional comments.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee hear and receive the oral and written submissions.

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

Clause 15-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

16-18

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the ordinary Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 5 March 2018 Part I Public and extraordinary Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 19 March 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as true and correct records.

Clause 16-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

17-18

Summary of Consultation - draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018

Memorandum, dated 22 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the summary of consultation feedback on the draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy is received.

Clause 17-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 10.50am.

The meeting resumed at 11.06am.

When the meeting resumed Councillors Adrian Broad and Jim Jefferies were not present.

18-18	Draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 - Approval to Consult Report, dated 21 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Lili Kato. Councillor Jim Jefferies entered the meeting again at 11.19am.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the Council determines the form of the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual (contained in Appendix 1) is, subject to the outcome of public consultation, considered to be the most appropriate form of bylaw. 2. That the Council confirms that it has considered the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 and determines that it does not give any rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 3. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of any minor amendments to the Consultation Document.
	Clauses 18.1 to 18.3 above were carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Lew Findlay QSM. 4. That the Consultation Document (including the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual) be approved for consultation, subject to removal of ‘up until the fifth anniversary of the date of interment’ from clause 10.1.2 of the Administration Manual and the corresponding phrase in clause 11.2 of the Draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018.
	Clause 18.4 above was carried 10 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison and Jim Jefferies.

19-18

LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals

Memorandum, dated 13 March 2018 from the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council supports the following remit proposal at the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2018: “That LGNZ requests that the Government urgently implements a comprehensive and mandatory product stewardship programme for tyres.”

2. That the Council approve the letter attached as Appendix Two to the report titled “LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals” and dated 13 March 2018 from the Strategy and Policy Manager, from the Mayor to the President of the LGNZ National Council, Dave Cull, requesting that LGNZ advocate to the Government in support of initiatives to advance the uptake of electric vehicles.

Clause 19-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

20-18

Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Amendments - Deliberations on Submissions

Memorandum, dated 28 February 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council receives the submissions on the proposed amendments to the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw, as shown in attachment 1 to the report titled “Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Amendments - Deliberations on Submissions” and dated 28 February 2018 from the Policy Analyst.

2. That the Council amends the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw and the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Administration Manual by making the changes shown as tracked changes in the documents attached as attachment 2 and 3 to the report titled “Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Amendments - Deliberations on Submissions” and dated 28 February 2018 from the Policy Analyst.

Clause 20-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

21-18

Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions

Memorandum, dated 9 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That item “Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 – Deliberations on Submissions” lie on the table to the May 2018 Planning and Strategy Committee meeting.

Clause 21-18 above was carried 11 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Against:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison and Lorna Johnson.

22-18

Conference Opportunity - Building a vibrant, robust and resilient central business district

Memorandum, dated 23 March 2018 from the Governance & Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee approve the attendance of up to two elected member(s) to attend, with expenses paid, the ‘Build a vibrant, robust and resilient central business district’ course being held in Wellington on 24 May 2018.

2. That registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Governance and Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield, by 12 noon Friday 13 April 2018.

Clause 22-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

23-18

Committee Work Schedule - April 2018

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 23-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

The meeting finished at 12.20pm

Confirmed 7 May 2018

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2018

TITLE: Significance and Engagement Policy Annual Report - 2017

DATE: 8 March 2018

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee receive the Significance and Engagement Policy Annual Report – 2017.

1. ISSUE

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

As part of the Policy the Council prepares an Annual Community Engagement Report. This is the report for the 2017 calendar year.

2. BACKGROUND

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

Different people have different expectations of how much community engagement they expect from Council. Based on Communitrak Surveys some people (about 15%) want little engagement, some (about 25%) want detailed engagement on all issues. Most (about 60%) people are somewhere in the middle and want Council to engage on the major (to them) issues.

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

The following graph shows that satisfaction (very and fairly satisfied) fluctuates over time. Dissatisfaction shows a clearer trend - it has dropped from around 25% to just over 10%.

The survey also shows that Palmerston North residents are more satisfied than other similar Councils: PN satisfied 51%, peer Councils 44%; PN dissatisfied 12%, peer Councils 24%.

In 2016 the Council also used focus groups to get feedback from residents on its community engagement. The results show that most people are satisfied with the way they are involved in Council’s decisions. However, many people said that they are not really interested in being involved unless they are directly affected by the decisions, so this is often a fairly passive satisfaction:

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

Note: The Communitrak survey and the Focus Groups are both done for the Council by the National Research Bureau. The survey involves 400 randomly selected Palmerston North residents with landlines. The results are weighted to match gender, age and geographic distributions from the Census. The focus groups involved 60 residents from young singles to older empty nesters, with an emphasis on young and low income people. (NB: There is a growing issue with the representativeness of telephone surveys now that many people do not have landlines. To ensure that Communitrak remains a useful engagement tool, future surveys will include on street interviews, especially with younger people.)

3. Consultation during the year

A highlight for the year was that the Council, along with Opus International Consultants and Green Infrastructural Services, won the New Zealand Planning Institute’s Best Practice Award for its consultation on the He Ara Kotahi pedestrian/cycle bridge. The consultation included an online survey, letterbox drops, neighbourhood visits, an open day, two drop-in discussions and two public meetings. A key part of the material was still images of bridge locations and fly-by videos to give residents an indication of what a prospective bridge would look like.

Council consulted on a wide range of other topics during the year, including:

· the development plans for Ahimate and Memorial Parks. Council used a wide range of techniques to get peoples’ views: on site surveys and discussions with park users, barbecues and mini events at the parks; working with Rangitāne as a partner; meetings and working groups with key stakeholders; fliers seeking feedback in writing or online; articles in Square Circular; and a drone flyover video. Some of this involvement is ongoing.

· the Local Alcohol Policy. This involved submissions on the formal consultation document, plus drop-in sessions in City libraries to get a wider range of views. The drop-in sessions were advertised on social media. Videos were also used to promote the sessions and get peoples’ interest. The sessions worked best when they were linked with existing events at the libraries or held at busy times of the day. Council also offered to run facilitated feedback sessions for stakeholder groups, but only one group took this up, probably because Council has good working relationships with the groups and everybody already understood each other’s positions.

· City Centre Streetscape. This was a web and mobile phone-friendly micro-website that showed very visual presentations of City Centre development projects and asked people to prioritise them. People prioritised the projects simply by clicking on pictures of them. This made it very simple to use. People could add their email details so they could receive ongoing project updates, but this was not a requirement so registration was not a barrier to people giving their views. The site was promoted though the Council’s website, Facebook pages and Square Circular. It was successful in getting the views of younger people – over 40% of respondents were under the age of 35 years. The microsite was supplemented by presentations for CBD building owners and occupiers, plus a separate exercise in George St to link in with the Winter Festival.

Common themes in these are using a wide range of techniques and tools, particularly online; having material that makes the engagement “real” and relevant to peoples’ lives; and making it very easy for people to have their say.

There are some issues where this multi-layered approach will not be so effective, and that is when the issue is technical or has a limited target audience. For example, the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw review was about technical changes and was mostly relevant to waste management operators. Hence it is important to design the process around the issue and audience.

Staff have also noted that when running a variety of techniques it is important to take a planned and co-ordinated approach to gathering all the different bits of information.

Other key tools are Let’s Talk with a Councillor session, Councillor portfolios, village committee meetings, and displays and meetings in libraries or community centres.

Council has a 10 Year Plan target to hold at least 20 Let’s Talk sessions a year. In the 2016/17 financial year it held 24 sessions. The year included the three month election period, when no meetings were held.

As part of its focus on online engagement and social media Council upgraded its website to a new platform so it is as accessible from a smartphone or tablet as it is from a laptop or desktop computer. This was vital to meet the needs of the rapidly growing number of people who visit the site from mobile devices – now more than a third of users.

The language and layout of the consultation page was improved to make it more user friendly to encourage more feedback on projects (pncc.govt.nz/yourcouncil/consultations).

Council’s Facebook page has 11,300 followers. Topics with high reach and engagement typically include public information and community notices (e.g. water restrictions, rubbish bags, fire bans, roadworks, etc.). Other popular topics were one-off topics such as the Junior Road Safety Park, Palmy Unleashed events, and Maori Language Week.

The Council works alongside Rangitāne to increase Māori participation in all aspects of the City, including engagement in Council decision making. This includes bi-monthly staff meetings with Rangitāne and working proactively together on strategies and plans for the City. Rangitāne has signalled a desire to approach the Council in the medium-term to strengthen the engagement processes between Council and Iwi and build a more structured approach to the partnership.

During the year the Council has engaged stakeholders and residents on a wide range of topics, including:

· Animal and Bees Bylaw

· Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw

· Wastewater Bylaw

· Traffic and Parking Bylaw

· Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw (preliminary engagement)

· Dog Control Policy

· Planning Services Fees and Charges

· Waterloo Park Lease Proposal

· Review of Consent Conditions for Te Rere Hau Windfarm

· Memorial Park development

· Ahimate (Waitoetoe) Park development

· Maori Wards

· Village Gateways

· He Ara Kotahi Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

· Annual Budget

· City Centre Streetscape Plan

· Plan Change 16: Tangata Whenua and Resource Management

· Plan Change 23: Hokowhitu Lagoon Residential

4. NEXT STEPS

As part of its new strategic direction the Council is adopting an Active Citizens Plan. This complements the Significance and Engagement Policy. It has the aim of getting people and organisations from all sectors actively involved in a wide range of Council decisions because they can see the relevance of those decisions, and because there a wide range of easy to use engagement methods. Council will finalise the Plan when it adopts the 10 Year Plan.

The Council will continue to engage residents and organisations in its decisions by using - where appropriate to the topic and audience - a wide range of techniques. In particular these will include social media and online engagement. This approach is meeting most peoples’ expectations.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual (clause 166)	Yes
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?
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

Andrew Boyle

Head of Community Planning

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2018

TITLE: Pedestrian Facilities and Safety (NZTA) - March 2018

DATE: 22 March 2018

AUTHOR/S: Glenn Connelly, Senior Transportation Engineer, City Networks

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Committee note the progress and actions regarding pedestrian safety and crossing facilities outlined in this report

1. ISSUE & BACKGROUND

1.1 The Planning and Policy Committee at its 7 March 2016 meeting considered a report titled ‘Pedestrian Facilities Update on Remedial Works and Improvements’ dated 22 February 2016 from the Senior Transportation Engineer (Glenn Connelly). The Committee in consideration of that report resolved (Reference Resolution 8-16 below) that officers report; annually regarding the audit of pedestrian facilities / crossings, and quarterly regarding the New Zealand Transport Agency’s progress to improving pedestrian safety on State Highways.

8-16 Pedestrian Facilities Update on Remedial Work and Improvements

8.1 That an annual report be placed on the Committee Work Schedule that provides an update on the annual audit of pedestrian facilities/crossing points within the city, with the next report due to the September 2016 Planning and Policy Committee meeting. This report will also include actions taken to address the specific issue identified in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the report.

8.2 That a quarterly report be placed on the Committee Work Schedule that provides an update on the NZTA progress and plan for future work related to improvement of pedestrian safety, with the next report due to the June 2016 Planning and Policy Committee meeting.

With regard to resolution 8.1, the text of paragraphs 11 and 12 follows:

11. PNCC manages the State Highway traffic signals on behalf of The Transport Agency. This generally enables work to be carried out in a consistent manner albeit there may be differences in timing due to budgets. The Transport Agency is funding the renewal of State Highway traffic signals with the focus on getting new controllers and LED lanterns installed. All new software / programming include settings such as head start times and red arrow protection for pedestrians where practical. PNCC plan to review all the pedestrian facilities on local roads and State Highways later in the year to identify where additional facilities might be needed and / or adjustments made.

12. An issue with mobility access arose at the Princess St / Broadway Ave intersection when hot mix was overlaid on the intersection. A hot mix step was created at the storm water channel which made access for wheeled pedestrians difficult. The matter is being addressed and discussions are continuing with The Transport Agency and their contractor to ascertain how issues such as this can be avoided in the future.

1.2 Arising from submissions to Council’s 2015/25 Ten Year Plan, the Road Planning Team Leader (David Lane) reported to the Planning and Policy Committee’s 1 August 2016 meeting regarding pedestrian safety on State Highway 57 adjacent to the Summerhill Shopping Centre. The report was titled ‘Aokautere Drive Pedestrian Facilities’ and dated 22 July 2016. Consideration of this report led to the Committee recommending a technical investigation is carried out, as per Resolution 53-16 below.

53-16 Aokautere Drive Pedestrian Facilities

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the Chief Executive be instructed to undertake a technical investigation of pedestrian facilities in Aokautere Drive by the Summerhill Shopping Centre to Pacific Drive and report back in February 2017.

2. DISCUSSION

Annual Pedestrian Facilities / Crossing Review

2.1 The last annual review of pedestrian facilities / crossings was completed and reported to the Planning and Strategy Committee 21^st November 2016. The current annual review has been completed and included the review of approximately a third of all zebra crossings as indicated in the previous report; presented to the Committed October 2017. A few issues have been identified with most having already been remedied as maintenance items.

2.2 There was one road marking issue found which was associated with road works. The need to reinstate markings to standard has been stressed to those overseeing the work and contractor involved.

2.3 No major issues were found with the black and white poles; one needs an additional white band. One warning sign was missing. There were several signs found to have been rotated out of position and discussions are being held with contractor to establish how this can be mitigated.

2.4 Several orange missing or faded belisha discs were replaced under routine maintenance prior to the inspection. The fluorescent sheeting fades quicker than standard materials and further replacements are planned to keep the signs in good condition. All older fluorescent discs are being inspected.

Zebra Crossings

Issue / Recommendation

Progress

Annual review

A review of approximately one third (21) of the crossings has been completed.

Ten crossings were identified as being wider than desirable

As per previous report …

These have been identified for treatment and will be progressed through the minor improvements programme over the next 3 years.

Concept plans have been developed and design work is progressing.

The design of the Heretaunga St Zebra crossing is being progressed as a priority.

Kea Crossings

2.5 No compliance issues were identified at Kea Crossings in the 2016 review.

Issue / Recommendation	Progress
Annual review	A review of half (three) of the crossings has been completed and no significant issues were found.

Roundabouts

2.6 The following table summarises issues, progress and planned work relating to roundabouts.

Location / Topic	Comment
Ruahine St / Church St	Construction is complete.
Albert St / Te Awe Awe St	As per previous report … The concept design has been developed and land negotiations are underway. Construction is now 2018/19 given time required to address land issues.
The Square	Roundabouts to be rebuilt as part of the CBD streetscape upgrades
Pedestrian Facilities at Roundabouts	Initial / conceptual review completed. Work being developed, prioritised and designed for inclusion in minor improvements programme. Detailed external review of some roundabouts planned for late 2017 was delayed due to resourcing. A consultant has now been briefed.

Traffic Signals

2.7 The following table summarises issues, progress and planned work relating to traffic signals.

Location / Topic

Comment

Traffic signal controllers

All traffic signal controllers have been upgraded.

Pedestrian Facilities

Additional arrows to protect pedestrians have been installed at several intersections.

A complete review of pedestrian facilities has been undertaken to identify what facilities are present and potential areas for improvement.

An external review of three intersections has been completed in conjunction with NZTA as part of a crash reduction study. No major issues were identified and we await the final report.

Other

2.8 The following table summarises issues, progress and planned work relating to other pedestrian facilities.

Location / Topic	Comment
Grey St Pedestrian islands	Central islands were installed on Grey Street, near Mana Tamariki and Aorangi Specialists Centre (June 2017) to help pedestrians cross the road and have received positive feedback. Further appreciation has been expressed regarding the facilities to assist the visually impaired; the yellow tactile ground surface indicators.
Mid-block pedestrian islands and crossings	An initial review of midblock crossings found that the facilities have little in the way of maintenance requirements. The main issue is the maintenance of keep left signs and hold rails, if present, which are occasionally hit by passing vehicles. The concern is that these facilities are often inadequate and other facilities would be preferred. There is however a need for balance and these facilities are often where the pedestrian volumes are modest and / or school patrols are not present.
Ferguson Street Crossing Removal	The zebra crossing on Ferguson Street (west of Linton St) is no longer patrolled by the PN Intermediate Normal given the changes to their access. The use of the crossing is low and has the potential to create a false sense of security. It is therefore proposed to remove the zebra crossing but retain the kerb extension and islands. It is expected that traffic signals with pedestrian facilities will be installed at the Ferguson / Pitt intersection in due course.

New Zealand Transport Agency

2.9 The following matters and comments relate to pedestrian safety on State Highways with an indication of progress within comments.

Location / Topic	Comment
State Highway 3 / Roberts Line	It is understood that funding has been included in the Regional Land Transport Programme for the next 3 years to address the section of Napier Road (Keith St – Stoney Creek Rd) including this intersection. The detailed business case will now progress given the announcement of the alternative route for the Manawatu Gorge.
State Highway 3 (Sutton Pl to Stoney Creek Rd) Speed Limit	The existing temporary 80 kph speed limit is to be retained with a wider review of speed limits now embodied within development of the business case for the highway.
UCOL Crossing	Traffic signals appear to be the best option to provide an increased level of service for users as requested. The NZTA has reiterated that they consider the existing facilities to be appropriate; they have and are performing adequately. The crossing is likely to need to be staged to ensure the efficiency of the highway if NZTA are to consider alternative facilities. A staged crossing is one that has separate phases to cross each direction of the highway with a pedestrian island / refuge in the middle of the road. This may impact on the level of compliance with the crossing facilities due to extra delay to pedestrians. Further analysis by PNCC will be required to demonstrate the effects on traffic efficiency before further progress can be made with NZTA.
Summerhill Shops	NZTA are supportive of work on the side roads. They agree with further work being completed to the islands on the State Highway but want to see the details before final approval is given. This option will reduce the crossing distance. NZTA reiterated that the road is significant strategically and the speed limit and use of the road in context with the highway network need to be considered. This is of particular relevance given the closure of the Manawatu Gorge and the impact on the broader strategic network.
Aokautere Village	Concepts for the provision of pedestrian facilities have been developed. The NZTA have expressed support in principle for providing wider shoulders for pedestrian use. They also expressed concern about the provision of a central refuge island and the safety risk this might present. The NZTA have requested that consideration be given to the school bus dropping students off on both sides of the road to avoid the need for the students to cross the road.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 The next steps are as outlined above.

Attachments

NIL

Glenn Connelly

Senior Transportation Engineer

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2018

TITLE: Draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions and adoption of the Bylaw

DATE: 28 March 2018

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council confirms that the Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

2. That the Council adopts the draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 and draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 Administration Manual, as attached as Attachment 2.

3. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 and draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 Administration Manual prior to publication.

4. That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back to the Committee on the establishment of a ‘Cat Management Advisory Group’ including proposed terms of reference and group membership.

5. That programmes #1457 and #1491 be referred to the 10 year plan deliberations process.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Council has undertaken consultation on the draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw and received fifty-six submissions. Deliberations on these submissions and officer comment are included in Attachment 1.

1.2 This report recommends several changes to the draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw and Administration Manual, as a result of consultation, and recommends the adoption of these documents (Attachment 2).

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Sections 145(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 2002 grant the Council the power to make bylaws to protect the public from nuisance and to protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety. Regulating the keeping of animals, bees, and poultry is further enabled through 146(a)(v) of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.2 In June 2017 the Planning and Strategy Committee received a report under Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 that recommended that (in a general sense) a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the range of public health and safety, and nuisance problems, caused by the keeping of animals (other than dogs) within Palmerston North. It was noted in the Section 155 report that this bylaw is not entirely effective on its own, and the issues that arise through the keeping of (domestic or companion) animals in the city need to be supported with education and on-going support to animal welfare agencies such as the SPCA.

2.3 A further report was presented to the Committee on 2 October 2017 to approve the draft bylaw for consultation and this was approved by Council on 24 October 2017. Consultation was carried out in November and December 2017. Fifty-six submissions were received over this period. Ten submitters spoke to their submissions on 19 March 2018 at an extraordinary meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee.

3. Analysis of submissions

3.1 A summary of submissions was provided to Council at the Hearing on 19 March 2018. Submissions covered a wide range of opinions ranging from philosophical concerns with aspects of the bylaw, to specific re-wording or suggestions for the addition of new clauses.

3.2 Attachment 1 records the key submission points, officers’ comments in relation to these points, and a concluding statement about whether or not a change is recommended to the draft bylaw.

3.3 Amendments to the draft bylaw have been made in consideration of the submissions and further research by officers including seeking legal advice on clause 8.7 relating to cat micro-chipping and desexing. Changes proposed to the draft bylaw and Administration Manual are in Attachment 2.

3.4 An outcome of the analysis of submissions is that most of the draft bylaw provisions are recommended for adoption. This will maintain the permissive nature of the bylaw that allows residents to keep animals without overly onerous regulatory requirements. Having some degree of regulation allows the Council to exercise its enforcement powers to manage any nuisance and any health and safety concerns that can occur through keeping animals and bees.

3.5 The many detailed and well-considered submissions received have been considered by officers, and key changes are made on the following parts of the bylaw:

· Wording amendments to clause 2.2 (the purpose of the bylaw) to align it to the Local Government Act 2002.

· Addition of an additional sub-clause to clause 7.1 to outline living requirements for stock.

· Addition of the words ‘per dwelling’ to clause 8.1 to clarify the expectations of the limit in relation to cats being able to be kept on any private land in the urban area.

· Amendments to clause 8.7(a) to clarify the expectations regarding microchip registration to particular microchip registries; it is noted that the intention of this clause is not for Council to develop and manage the registration of cats, but rather for cat owners to have their cat’s microchip registered with an existing microchip registry.

· A further amendment to clause 8.7(a) is recommended to make this requirement apply to cats from 4 months of age. This is aimed at aligning with the date of cat de-sexing.

· Amendment to clause 8.7(b) to change the age by which of desexing should occur from six months to four months.

· Amendment to clause 8.7(b) to clarify the cat breeders’ bodies that exempt registered breeding cats from this requirement.

3.6 A number of submitters suggested that Council has, or should take on, more responsibility for animal welfare. Particular concerns have been raised about the Council making cat traps available to people and the need to make people using these fully aware of their responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Unintended consequences of the introduction of new mandatory requirements regarding these bylaws have also been raised, such as abandonment of cats, should people be unable to afford these procedures. It seems some work needs to be done to better communicate organisational role clarity for those involved in animal welfare and animal management.

3.7 It is noted that a number of submission points refer to general, or more operational, aspects that Council should consider, such as:

· Offering better education and educational resources to animal owners.

· Considering subsidisation of the costs of cat desexing and cat microchipping procedures proposed to be made mandatory.

· The need for cross-sector consensus on cat management given the complexities involved and wide ranging views on appropriate cat management measures.

· Providing more support for animal welfare organisations and groups.

· Developing a policy position on feral cats.

While these matters are worthy of Council’s attention, they generally fall outside the parameters of the bylaw. 3.9 Only minor amendments are recommended to the Administration Manual and these are included in Attachment 2.

4. ANALYSIS OF MANDATORY CAT CLAUSES (CLAUSE 8.7)

4.1 Further analysis of draft clause 8.7 is provided given that this section of the bylaw received the most submissions and has resulted in the re-drafting of clause 8.7.

4.2 This table shows this clause as included in the draft bylaw and the amendments proposed.

Draft bylaw clause 8.7

Every person who keeps cats must ensure:

a. Cats are microchipped and registered with a recognised microchip registry.

b. Cats over six (6) months are desexed (unless kept for breeding purposes and are registered with New Zealand Cat Fancy Ltd. ).

Amended bylaw clause 8.7

Every person who keeps cats must ensure:

a. Cats over four (4) months of age are microchipped and registered with the New Zealand Companion Animals Register, or other Council approved microchip registry.

b. Cats over four (4) months are desexed (unless kept for breeding purposes and are registered with a nationally recognised cat breeders’ body including New Zealand Cat Fancy Ltd. and Catz Inc.).

4.3 Advice on the lawfulness of these provisions has been obtained from CR Law and is included as Attachment 3. CR Law has identified that there is a ‘moderate legal risk’ to the Council that the provisions as drafted are reasonable, and outline the areas of general concern including consideration of the extent to which the provisions are a reasonable response to the nuisance problem. CR Law’s concerns centre mainly on the requirement for mandatory desexing and the lack of a clear ‘cause and link effect’ between the proposed control and the nuisance problem.

4.4 The National Cat Management Strategy (NCMS) Discussion Paper 2017 contains a number of recommendations for local government. This document notes that: “The cat overpopulation problem is complex and it is important that the cat categories reflect that complexity and the need for different management strategies for different cat populations.” [page 11].

4.4.1 The NCMS contains a wide-ranging suite of recommendations including:

· Creation and implementation of a national cat action plan and supporting legislation in the form of a National Cat Management Act and local bylaws is required. These will allow for mandated, comprehensive and consistent implementation of nationwide humane management of all cat populations in New Zealand….The National Cat Management Act should allow for the creation and implementation of local cat bylaws which will allow for cats to be managed through a variety of mechanisms, as deemed appropriate by the relevant Council. [recommendation #9]

· Local governments should consider establishing cat management advisory groups with terms of reference that include:

o Monitoring the implementation of cat management legislation and compliance with mandatory requirements

o Consulting with key local stakeholders

o Identifying key metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of cat management legislation [recommendation #11]

4.4.2 It is recommended that the establishment of a Cat Management Advisory Group is further explored by officers.

4.4.3 Sharing the responsibility for managing the issues is also a key theme emerging from the NCMS. Mandating certain aspects of cat management only provides part of the solution [page 97] and the NCMS recognises that: “Enforcement of regulations is also important but is considered secondary to the other educative and support roles the council can pursue.” [page 97]

4.5 There are options available to Council regarding clause 8.7. These include:

Option	Pros	Cons
A. Include clause 8.7 as amended	- Reflects the submitters’ points and earlier concerns expressed by the SPCA - Council can exercise its powers made available under the LGA 2002 in lieu of there being national legislation in place	- A moderate level of legal risk has been identified as discussed in Section 4.3 of this report, particularly with the mandatory de-sexing requirement (8.7(b)) - Enforcement will be challenging without adequate resourcing
B. Not include clause 8.7	- Allows time to undertake further research and have more discussion on these clauses to come up with a local response to cat management - The bylaw could be amended at a later date to reflect an agreed position - Council and stakeholders could carry out an education campaign to encourage these procedures (subject to funding being made available)	- Submitters indicated a high level of support for these clauses to be in included and will be disappointed if they are not included
C. Only include clause 8.7(a) – microchipping	- Reasonable control measure given issues - Reflects some submitters’ points and earlier concerns expressed by the SPCA - Council can exercise its powers made available under the LGA 2002 in lieu of there being national legislation in place	- A moderate level of legal risk has been identified - Enforcing this clause will be challenging
D. Only include clause 8.7(b) - desexing	- Reflects some submitters’ points and earlier concerns expressed by the SPCA - Council can exercise its powers made available under the LGA 2002 in lieu of there being national legislation in place	- A moderate level of legal risk has been identified - Enforcing this clause will be challenging

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Two programmes (#1457 and #1491) were considered during the development of the proposed 10 Year Plan (through the Safe Community Plan) but were not included in the final proposed plan.

Programme 1457 was to develop and implement an animal education programme to target animal owners and residents on safety, protection, and etiquette around animals at the cost of $37,000 per annum (as an operating expense).

Programme 1491 was developed to promote the microchipping and desexing of cats, and to administer and enforce the microchipping and registering of cats. The operating cost of this was estimated at $82,000 for 2018/19, $135,793 for 2019/20 and $138,640 for 2020/21. No capital costs were estimated.

5.2 The bylaw, should Council decide to include the clauses relating to mandatory desexing and microchipping, will not be effective without the allocation of funding and resources towards implementation. Council will need to decide whether or not it takes a proactive approach to enforcing these measures or whether it anticipates that a more passive approach is taken. With the latter approach it is assumed that the bylaw will act as a ‘behaviour change’ mechanism and action will only be taken on the basis of a nuisance or health and safety-related complaint.

5.3 In future, Council may wish to consider subsidisation of microchipping and desexing procedures for this bylaw to be more effective.

6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The Council is required by S155 of the Local Government Act 2002 to determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any concerns under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

6.2 A full consideration of these matters was provided in a report presented to the Committee in June 2017, and was confirmed again in the October 2017 report that approved the draft bylaw for public consultation. At each stage, the Committee determined and confirmed that a standalone form of bylaw was the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that the bylaw was unlikely to give rise to any concerns under NZBORA.

6.3 Following consultation, the assessment remains the same. The standalone form of bylaw remains the most appropriate for the Animals and Bees Bylaw. No concerns under NZBORA have been identified.

7. Next STEPS

7.1 If the Council adopts the draft Animals and Bees bylaw it will replace the current 2011 bylaw. The new Animals and Bees bylaw will be published on the Council’s website, with physical copies placed in the Customer Service Centre.

7.2 The submitters will be contacted and advised of the outcome of the consultation process, and given a copy of the adopted bylaw.

7.3 A public notice will be published in the Manawatū Standard and The Tribune advising of the adoption of the new bylaw and its commencement date.

7.4 The suggested amendments to the Animals and Bees bylaw 2018 will improve the overall document, and address a number of concerns raised by submitters.

8. 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?	Yes

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions - Draft Animals and Bees Bylaw - Deliberations ⇩
2.	Attachment 2 - Draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2018 ⇩
3.	Attachment 3 - Animals and Bees Bylaw - CR Law Legal Opinion ⇩

Ann-Marie Mori

Policy Analyst

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 May 2018

TITLE: Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions

DATE: 9 March 2018

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council adopts the Palmerston North Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 and Palmerston North Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 Administration Manual, as shown in attachments 1 and 2.

2. That the Council amends the Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 and Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual by making the changes shown as tracked changes in the documents attached as attachments 3 and 4 to this report.

1. ISSUE

The Council has undertaken consultation on the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw and received four submissions. Three of those submissions indicated either general support for the proposed Bylaw, or an interest in being informed or notified about any specific changes that may emerge in the future. One submitter raised concerns about how cyclists are provided for in the Bylaw, particularly the risks posed to cyclists using cycle lanes. This is discussed in more detail in section three of this memo.

This memo recommends that the Council adopts the Palmerston North Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual as shown in attachments 1 and 2. It also recommends the consequential amendment of the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw and the associated Administration Manual (which deletes clause 14 in relation to vehicles parked for the purpose of sale and removes words from the Administration Manual discussing the process for obtaining a permit for parking a vehicle for the purpose of sale).

2. BACKGROUND

The draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 is proposed to replace the current Bylaw which was adopted on 29 June 2011. That bylaw, made under the Local Government Act 2002, is required to be reviewed within five years or it is automatically revoked two years after that period. This means the current bylaw will be automatically revoked on 29 June 2018.

The Council approved the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 for public consultation in November 2017. Public consultation was carried out in November and December, with four written submissions received during that time. One submitter gave an oral presentation at a hearings meeting held on 5 March 2018.

3. analysis of submissions

Three out of the four submissions were broadly in favour of the draft Bylaw, or expressed an interest in being kept informed. One submitter, however, raised concerns about the extent to which the draft Bylaw addresses issues relating to cyclists and cycle lanes.

The submitter makes three requests:

- Use the review of the bylaw as an opportunity to adopt a more coherent approach to traffic management, especially provision of vehicle parking space, consistent with the stated goal of facilitating safe, user-friendly bicycle use.

- Revise the bylaw so that people who use bicycles are recognised as a specific type of vulnerable road-user.

- Revise the bylaw to specifically recognise the needs and requirements for parking bicycles.

While the issues raised by the submitter are valid and important, the Traffic and Parking Bylaw is not the appropriate place to address these issues. The Traffic and Parking Bylaw is a regulatory tool that provides Council with the appropriate legal mechanisms to set and enforce traffic and parking restrictions. Decisions relating to traffic management, provision of vehicle parking spaces, safe and user-friendly bicycle use, and the provision of appropriate cycle infrastructure and facilities are not driven by the Bylaw, but instead by the Council’s overarching strategic framework and the plans and policies that support those strategies. In particular, cycling and related matters are addressed in the draft Active and Public Transport Plan (under the draft Creative and Liveable Strategy). This includes a number of proposed actions, including:

· Develop a package of programmes to complete the Primary On-road Cycling and Shared Pathway Network, including higher cycle lane visibility, improved paint quality, and rearranged parking and kerb line layouts (by March 2020).

· Develop an integrated cycle implementation plan (by end of 2018/2019).

· Develop a pedestrian and cyclist amenity plan and implement projects identified in this plan (by end of 2019/20).

These proposed actions could encompass the issues raised by the submitter.

Additionally, the draft Strategic Transport Plan (under the draft City Development Strategy) includes the action to implement the proposed Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan provides another avenue for the Council to revisit issues such as the interface between cycle lane and motor vehicle parking infrastructure.

It is also important to note that the Council has a Street Design Manual that provides guidelines for designing new streets, and for resolving conflicts in existing streets. The Street Design Manual, which is planned to be reviewed as part of the draft Urban Design Plan, may be able to provide appropriate guidance for resolving conflicts between cycle lane infrastructure and motor vehicle parking.

It is noted, therefore, that the issues raised by the submitter will be referred to Roading and Planning Officers, who will address the issues through the relevant actions under the draft Active and Public Transport Plan, the proposed Parking Management Plan, and the review of the Street Design Manual. The Roading and Planning Officers will also provide a response direct to the submitter on progress to address those issues.

4. Next steps

If the Council confirms the Committee’s recommendation to adopt the Traffic and Parking Bylaw and amend the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw, then they will replace the current Bylaws. The new Traffic and Parking Bylaw and the amended Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw will be published to the Council’s website, with physical copies placed in the Customer Service Centre.

The submitters will be contacted and advised of the outcome of the consultation process, and given a copy of the adopted Bylaw.

A public notice will be published in the Manawatū Standard and the Tribune advising of the adoption of the new Bylaw and that it will commence on 25 June 2018, allowing time for implementation.

5. 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

1.	Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 ⇩
2.	Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 Administration Manual ⇩
3.	Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 (amended April 2018) ⇩
4.	Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual (amended April 2018) ⇩

Peter Ridge

Policy Analyst

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