Agenda of Sport and Recreation Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Sport and Recreation Committee MEETING

13 August 2018

Order of Business

NOTE: The Sport and Recreation Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Economic Development Committee and the extraordinary Council meeting. The format for the meeting will be as follows:

- Sport and Recreation Committee will open and adjourn immediately to follow the Economic Development Committee

- Economic Development Committee will open and adjourn immediately to follow the Council meeting

- 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. 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. Presentation - Sport Manawatu Page 7

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 45

“That the minutes of the extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 6 June 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

7. Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Sport Facility Plan 2018 - Implications for Palmerston North City Council Page 49

Memorandum, dated 1 July 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

8. Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Page 69

Report, dated 27 July 2018 from the Senior Planner, Jeff Baker.

9. Gordon Kear Forest Shelter Page 121

Memorandum, dated 24 May 2018 from the Leisure Assets Officer, Brian Way and the Forester, Mark Johnston.

10. Te Motu O Poutoa (ANZAC Cliffs) Co-Management Options Page 137

Report, dated 6 July 2018 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington and the Principal Maori Advisor, Todd Taiepa.

11. Massey University Easement at Bledisloe Park Page 149

Report, dated 10 July 2018 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

12. Powerco Easement at Norton Park - Andrew Avenue Entrance Page 157

Report, dated 10 July 2018 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington.

13. Reserve Management Planning Update Page 167

Report, dated 31 July 2018 from the Leisure Assets Planner, Jason Pilkington and the Senior Property & Parks Planner, Aaron Phillips.

14. Committee Work Schedule Page 177

15. 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
16.	Minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting - Part II Confidential - 14 May 2018	For the reasons setout in the Sport and Recreation Committee minutes of 14 May 2018, held in public present.

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), Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer (Ray McIndoe), Acting General Manager – Strategy and Planning (David Murphy), General Manager - Community (Debbie Duncan), Acting General Manager – Customer (Sheryl Bryant) Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson), General Manager - Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), 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.

Acting Governance and Support Team Leader (Stuart McKinnon) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Rachel Corser and Courtney Kibby), 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

Memorandum

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Sport Facility Plan 2018 - Implications for Palmerston North City Council

DATE: 1 July 2018

AUTHOR/S: Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst, Strategy and Planning

APPROVED: David Murphy, Acting General Manager – Strategy and Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council receives the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sport Facilities Plan (as presented by Sport Manawatū at this meeting) as a guidance document for the future planning development, management and operation of sport and recreation facilities in Palmerston North.

2. That the Council endorses the facility investment process framework in the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sport Facilities Plan (Attachment 1 to the report dated 1 July 2018 and entitled “Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Sports Facility Plan 2018 – Implications for Palmerston North City Council”) to guide decision-making for proposed sport and recreation facilities.

3. That the Council thank Sport Manawatū for driving the development of the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sport Facilities Plan.

1. ISSUE

Following the presentation of the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sport Facilities Plan (RSFP) by Sport Manawatū, the purpose of this report is to outline the implications for the Palmerston North City Council (PNCC). Although the RSFP is designed to provide direction on sports facilities across the region, it also captures local facility data and makes a number of recommendations for the Council to consider. These recommendations are considered in the context of Council’s sport and recreation planning guidance and current financial commitments.

The overall approach recommended in the RSFP is to adopt a mixed rationalisation and development approach for the region’s sports facility network. This means a combination of coordinated facility rationalisation, optimisation (this includes refurbishment, re-purposing or making programming improvements), and some new facility developments. This approach is designed to deliver the best outcomes for the region given population and demographic projections, existing sports facility stock, and geography.

The RSFP provides:

· A high level strategic framework for sport and recreation facility planning across the region for use by a broad range of stakeholders.

· Direction for what should and shouldn’t be done in terms of sports facility development, based on a stocktake and analysis of different sport asset categories.

· A network-wide focus with an emphasis on national, regional and sub-regional assets, as well as local level (individual council) facility data.

· A framework to enable a consistent approach to strategic decision making and a call for greater stakeholder collaboration regarding sport and facility planning and provision in the region.

· A ‘needs-based’ planning approach (rather than one that responds to ‘wants’).

· A framework to guide regional provision and individual councils’ levels of service for sport and recreation facilities.

· A facility investment decision-making process is an important mechanism to assess all potential facility projects.

· A mechanism to assist the coordination of sport and recreation facility provision and optimisation through implementation actions.

The RSFP also recognises the challenges that impact on the sport and recreation sector in the region including:

· The distribution of population in the region that has a mix of small towns and larger urban populations – this impacts on the ability to support different facility types.

· Population growth in particular areas in the region including in Palmerston North – this impacts on ensuring facility planning accounts for population growth.

· An ageing population – this impacts on the types of facilities and services that will need to be offered to ensure they meet community needs.

· There are a range of entities (e.g. councils, education providers, private businesses, trusts) providing sport and recreation facilities and they are all faced with ageing assets, maintaining facility sustainability, and meeting legislative requirements (e.g. meeting the Building Code, and earthquake prone requirements).

· The ability to secure funding for ongoing maintenance and operations; capital funding for facility upgrades or ‘new builds’ is easier to obtain whereas ongoing costs are more difficult to secure.

· Sport and recreation participation preferences are constantly changing – this means facilities need to be more adaptable to changing demands and the network needs to be more flexible (such as the need for providers to enter into more partnership arrangements).

· The need to work collaboratively to improve programme delivery and sustainability of sport and recreation facilities – for example, the education sector is seen as an important part of the solution to providing sustainable sport and recreation facilities in local communities.

· The sport and recreation sector’s ability to meet legislative challenges such as liquor licensing, and health and safety requirements.

Many of these considerations have been reflected in the PNCC’s Active Community Plan which notes that the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sports Facilities Plan will help ensure that the city responds to identified needs in the most effective way and that Council decisions about investment in sport facilities are informed by a wider regional perspective as well as by local community needs.

Given the wide range of sports facilities covered in the RSFP, the focus of this report is to highlight recommendations, and the implications of these for: indoor courts, aquatic facilities and playing fields (sportsgrounds/sportsfields).

2. BACKGROUND

A Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference were agreed for the development of a Regional Sport Facilities Plan (RSFP) for the Manawatū-Whanganui Region to develop a strategic vision and plan for the future development of appropriate and sustainable sports facilities. The key objective of the plan was: to develop a snapshot of the current provisions of indoor and outdoor sport facilities and spaces across the region, and provide a clear pathway for the future development of future facilities that are fit for purpose, sustainable and meet the needs of those communities that use them.

The RSFP was developed using a range of approaches including facility surveys of council, non-council and education sector facilities, review of strategic documents, and engaging with Regional Sports Organisations (RSOs) and selected groups to gain their insight on code participation trends and facility issues.

The process to develop the RSFP started in June 2016. Council contributed financially to the development of the RSFP and officers were involved in the steering group that met regularly to discuss progress and have input into the Plan. The development of the RSFP has been a collaborative approach between the seven local authorities that make up the region, Sport Manawatū, Sport Whanganui and Sport New Zealand. Sport Manawatū was the project co-ordinator and has provided key liaison with the appointed independent contractor, Visitor Solutions, and other parties involved in the project.

The Manawatū Regional Chiefs Forum (CEOs and Mayors) supported the development of the Plan as the project governance group. Trevor Shailer, the Sport Manawatū CEO, presented an update progress with the Plan at the September 2017 meeting of the Sport and Recreation Committee. The Plan received endorsement from the Regional Chiefs on 28 March 2018.

Through the 10 Year Plan the Council has contributed to funding of a regional facilities facilitator role at Sport Manawatū to oversee the investment process for decisions on regionally significant sports facilities (refer programmes 1422 and 1527) and delivery of this role will be subject to contract negotiations between the Council and Sport Manawatū.

3. SUMMARY OF RSFP key findings

3.1 FACILITY INVESTMENT process FRAMEWORK AND Decision-making criteria

The RSFP proposes a facility investment decision-making process to enable stakeholders to work collaboratively to ensure facilities reflect the needs of their communities whilst taking a ‘network’ view of facilities. Adoption of this process is not intended to replace legislative requirements or other decision-making processes but it recommended to be integrated or used alongside existing sport and recreation planning process.

A series of evaluation criteria are recommended to assist stakeholders to assess any sports facility development being considered, and/or assess the development priority that may have been given to facilities. The purpose of applying set criteria is to ensure all sports facility projects are evaluated in a structured and consistent way and are considered within the facility investment decision making process.

As part of this process, reference to national guidance provided by Sport New Zealand will also assist in evaluating projects to enable decisions to be made e.g. “go or no go” decisions or allocation of funding towards needs assessments/feasibility studies.

The evaluation criteria recommended in the Plan are broken down into two levels:

1. Level One or Gateway Criteria – these look at the degree of alignment the facility/proposed facility has with national, regional and local plans and strategies (including alignment with the principles, criteria and recommendations of the Plan); the degree to which the projected needs are met, and the track record of the proponent organisation.

2. Level Two Criteria – the potential for operational and/or capital partnerships between stakeholders, the degree to which a (proposed) facility complements or optimises the existing or proposed network, the degree to which demand exceeds supply and the facility can meet the identified gap.

The process has six key work stages:

1. Facility Concept Outline: A short outline which summarises the proposed project and key facts.

2. Preliminary Feasibility Assessment: A high level assessment which tests the viability of the facility concept.

3. Detailed Feasibility Assessment: A detailed assessment which examines holistically all areas of the potential facility development.

4. Memorandum of Understanding: A MoU will set out what different partners expectations are, provided they have decided to progress examining the project further.

5. Detailed Business Case: This analysis examines the financial implications of the proposed development in greater detail.

6. Negotiate Partner and Funding Agreements: Should the project be supported following the earlier analysis stages, partnership and funding agreements will need to be negotiated between the parties.

A flow chart outlining this proposed process is included as Attachment 1.

While the RSFP recommends that all proposed facilities should go through this process the project scale will determine how detailed the analysis in each stage of the process will need to be. It is recommended that Council endorses the facility investment process framework to guide decision-making for new or proposed sport and recreation facilities.

3.2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING APPROACH

The RSFP proposes a preliminary funding approach recognising that funding streams differ depending on the category of facility (i.e. international, national, regional, district or local) under consideration. This approach has been recommended to enable ‘cross boundary’ facility partnerships between territorial authorities (and other partners). The development of a regional facility partnership funding policy and a coordinated funding Memorandum of Understanding/accord between stakeholders that sets out funding priorities for a set period have been recommended.

It is noted that a regional facility fund was proposed in the draft Horizons Regional Council 10 Year Plan as a response to the RSFP. Council supported the establishment of such a fund in its submission to the 10 Year Plan, however, this initiative was not adopted.

The more ‘joined up’ approach espoused through the RSFP to meet regional facility outcomes will potentially require both capital and operational funding being transferred between authorities. Council has allowed for $25,000 in the 10 Year Plan to assist with the evaluation of sports facility projects serving a region-wide need and likely to need a rigorous assessment approach to be taken (using the Plan’s investment decision-making process). Staff will work with Sport Manawatū through the contract negotiation process to finalise any details for a contribution towards a regional facilities facilitator role at Sport Manawatū.

PNCC staff will also be involved in the RSFP implementation phase that will consider the recommendations made about the development of a regional facility partnership funding policy and a coordinated funding approach.

3.3 KEY FACILITY FINDINGS – INDOOR COURTS, AQUATIC FACILITES AND PLAYING FIELDS

As a general comment, from the analysis undertaken most of the region’s sports facilities are meeting user needs and there are no major demand constraints (pressures on facilities by users) or ‘gaps’ given the number, and type, of facilities. This has meant that the focus of the recommendations is more about improving existing facilities (i.e. optimisation of individual facilities but taking a network view of provision) rather than a demonstrated need for planning or constructing new sport and recreation facilities. In some cases there may be a case for rationalisation where there are too many facilities (based on current and predicted demand).

The table below shows the main types of sports facilities and a summary of key findings from the region-wide stocktake.

Type of Sports Facilities	Summary of RSFP findings – region-wide
Public Indoor Sports Venues/Courts	- 31 indoor courts/gyms – with much higher individual court numbers; several additional facilities at secondary schools - Wide variety of indoor court spaces available - Does not appear to be a major lack of capacity overall - Court capacity potentially available in many secondary schools if programming and partnership arrangements can be optimised
Aquatic/Pool Facilities	- 32 aquatic pool/pool facilities across the region - Many (130+) additional school facilities (many very basic, small, unheated and uncovered – seasonal use only) - At most facilities there are few indications of significant physical capacity issues - At larger and more popular aquatic centres there are some peak-use lane space constraints reported
Playing Field Facilities	- 80 playing field facility sites across the region including some school grounds - Virtually all sites are meeting sporting needs - The condition of fields in terms of drainage and/or irrigation provided capacity or quality concerns has been identified for some sites

Source: Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sport Facility Plan – Reference Report (March 2018)

Attachment 2 is a table showing key findings for the other facility types covered in the RSFP. In summary some of the findings require more localised research such as for bowls, gymsports and cycling provision (BMX tracks.)

Figure 1 shows these types of facilities across the region and numbers according to the types (local, district, regional) assigned in the RSFP.

Notes:

1. The number of indoor courts and playing fields are sites and not the number of individual courts or fields.

2. This graph does not include school facilities.

Figure 1 shows that across the region there are many facilities serving a local need with fewer facilities having a district or regional or higher function. There are 19 sports facilities in the region supporting sports fixtures played at a national or international level.

Figure 2 shows a breakdown of indoor court provision, aquatic facilities and playing fields for each of the region’s territorial authorities. This shows the critical role the PNCC plays in providing facilities that meet a range sporting needs, from hosting local to international level fixtures. As the ‘regional capital’ Palmerston North stands out in terms of the range of sporting facilities compared to other councils which are characterised by local and district level provision.

4. Indoor courts, aquatic facilites and playing fields - IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

Given the wide range of sports facilities covered in the RSFP, the focus of this report is to highlight recommendations made about the Council’s main sport/recreation facility types i.e. indoor courts, aquatic facilities and playing fields (sportsgrounds). The development of these facilities come at significant cost and therefore require detailed analysis of supply and demand factors to guide planning decisions.

The following section provides analysis of the PNCC responses (so far) to the recommendations to ‘maintain and develop a sustainable and accessible facility network’.

4.1 Indoor courts – RSFP RECOMMENDATIONS

To maintain and develop a sustainable and accessible facility network:

- Programming assessment to ensure optimisation of network particularly given perceived capacity issues with Arena Manawatū (short term)

- If demand at peak times continues then recommendation to undertake an options assessment for increasing indoor court capacity (short-medium term)

- Formalise facility partnerships with the university and high schools to ensure quality community access (short -medium term)

- Assess current facilities for potential future changes in use e.g. Ageing population and sports participation trends (medium term)

Current PNCC response:

· The RSFP recommendations are similar to those contained in the Recreation Needs Assessment (RNA) (September 2016) indoor courts section relating to the Central Energy Trust Arena. RNA recommendations have mostly been addressed through management approaches, particularly in implementing recommendations from various operational reviews, and through the development of the Arena Master Plan. Council’s ongoing financial commitment to ensure that Central Energy Trust Arena retains its competitive advantage in large-scale indoor sports events as well as providing for community needs, has recently been endorsed through the 10 Year Plan.

· The Arena Manawatū Master Plan includes a rebuild of Arena 5 into a two court multi-purpose facility to (replacing Bell and Barber Halls) but this is beyond the timeframe of the 2018-28 10 Year Plan.

· Capacity issues raised in the RSFP and comments regarding “inter-code” competition at Central Energy Trust Arena’s indoor court facilities are being resolved as much as practicable by continuous programming and scheduling assessments carried out by the Venues staff.

· Schools and tertiary providers currently meet some community demand for indoor court space and Council continues to work on partnerships to ensure community access and wider needs are met.

· Active Community Plan actions:

o Work with and formalise Council’s role in supporting sport and recreation activities at Massey University.

o Investigate opportunities for partnerships between Council and education providers.

o Through contract and facility management, and discussions with facility managers, optimise the use of Council aquatic facilities and the Central Energy Trust Arena.

Further response to the RSFP:

· Continue to closely monitor trends in indoor court sports noting the rise in popularity of sports such as basketball and futsal including carrying out a review of the indoor courts section of the Recreation Needs Assessment in two years’ time (2020/21). This review will provide an overall context for any detailed feasibility work required addressing any capacity issues. This work will require a new programme to be put forward to the 2020/21 annual budget as it would be an amendment to the Active Community Plan.

· In 2021/22 prepare a feasibility study for the rebuild of Arena 5 following the review of indoor court facilities outlined above (this study would examine participation and demographic trends and the use of school and university indoor courts in terms of what level they are supporting ‘community use’ including for tournaments). This work will need to be included in the next Active Community Plan.

· Continue to monitor the implications of an ageing population that may require adaptation of existing facilities as part of asset management planning e.g. type of floor surfacing that will need to be considered in renewals budgets.

4.2 AQUaTIC FACILITIES - RSFP RECOMMENDATIONS

To maintain and develop a sustainable and accessible facility network:

- Undertake a scheduling analysis across the local network. If demand at peak use periods remains then undertake an options assessment for increasing aquatic capacity (e.g. accessing new pool space, potentially in partnership). This would potentially free recreational use of Council pools and structured swimming/water sports into school partnership pools. (short-term)

- Strategically review the overall network to identify long term infrastructure needs (this could include development of a 'recreational pools' plan that examines casual use of school facilities in across the city and include entering into facility partnerships with targeted schools to ensure enhanced quality community access. (short-medium term)

- Assess current facilities for potential future changes in use due to the aging population. (short-medium term)

Current PNCC response:

· Options for PNCC to obtain additional lane space at peak times at either Council-owned or other pool facilities was reported in March 2017 and led to investigation of opportunities at Ashhurst School pool (Ashhurst Aquatic Centre). Programmes for capital improvements and on-going operating costs were approved in the 10 Year Plan (programmes #1489 (opex) and #1523 (pool enhancements)). The planned acquisition of this pool, and the recent upgrade at the Freyberg Pool, should alleviate some of the identified pressures expressed in the RSFP. This new development also links to the partnership approach being advocated in the RSFP and builds on the successful partnership approach with Freyberg High School.

· The RSFP recommendation for a scheduling analysis will be shared and discussed further with Council’s pool operations contractors, CLM.

· A needs assessment/feasibility study for aquatic facilities was considered but not funded as part of the 10 Year Plan (through the development of the Active Community Plan).

· Monitoring the implications of an ageing population, or other population requirements, that may require adaptation of existing facilities is part of day-to-day asset management planning.

· Active Community Plan actions:

o Facilitate the provision of an aquatic facility in Ashhurst by operating and upgrading the Ashhurst Community Pool (operating beginning 2018/2019 and upgrading by end of 2021/2022).

o Through contract and facility management, and discussions with facility managers, optimise the use of Council aquatic facilities and the Central Energy Trust Arena.

o Investigate opportunities for partnerships between Council and education providers.

Further response to the RSFP:

· Aquatic provision will be reviewed three years after Ashhurst Pool operations are assumed by PNCC to confirm whether immediate pressures across the local network have been relieved and to assess any capacity issues. This work will require a new programme to be put forward to the 2020/21 annual budget, as it would be an amendment to the Active Community Plan.

· Consider more school pool partnership opportunities if capacity issues exist or are forecast within five years following the review after three years of operating Ashhurst Pool. For example, capital investment into school pools could be further explored to improve the local network (and links to the partnership opportunities action in the Active Community Plan).

· The findings of the RSFP indicate that the Council should decline any future approaches for a regionally significant pool. It is noted that St Peter’s College put forward a 50x25m covered pool proposal to Committee as a deputation (in June 2017) but the project has not been considered further by the Council.

· Preparation of a development plan for the Lido and Freyberg pools is proposed for five years’ time and any recommendations made in this plan would inform subsequent development of programmes in the next reviews of Asset Management Plans and 10 Year Plan.

4.3 PLAYING FIELDS - rsfp RECOMMENDATIONS

To maintain and develop a sustainable and accessible facility network:

- Should capacity issues arise from formalised facility partnerships with targeted schools to ensure enhanced quality community access to fields. (medium-long term)

- Assess current facilities for potential future changes in use due to the aging population and sports participation trends. (ongoing)

Current PNCC response:

· The RSFP confirms Council’s research that no new sports fields are needed (this was a key finding from the RNA 2016), however, the issue to be addressed is playing surface quality. This issue will be addressed through drainage and irrigation programmes e.g. Memorial Park – sand carpet replacement (264), drainage to increase capacity (1097), Skoglund Park irrigation (1411) as well as the installation of artificial surfaces for field sports (i.e. a third hockey turf at Massey University, a football-specific turf (1133) and a Central Energy Trust Arena multi-code artificial pitch (1082)). The ‘quality’ factors sought by the sporting community also extend to increased demand for quality of sportsground associated facilities (e.g. lights, changing rooms, and clubrooms).

· Large sports field complexes are a key feature in the city and help attract events and tournaments as “regional premier venues”. Council facilities are complemented by sportsfields at other sites such as Massey University and at schools.

· Council continues to maintain the competitive advantages we have in the region through good asset management practices and maintenance regimes.

· A predicted further decline in participation of field sports, and bringing more artificial surfaces on-stream, will potentially lead to under-used or redundant sportsfields. Alternative uses will need to be explored, including possible rationalisation, holding land for future purposes or conversion of some sportsfields to local reserves. In the short to medium term, in the event of rapid growth or emergence of new any field sports, the re-allocation of fields to codes to meet demand is possible.

· Growth sports, such as football, where growth is projected only in Palmerston North, supports Central Football’s ambition to create a local Football Centre/Home of Football’; the planning for a football-specific turf is underway with a site selection process underway.

· The 2018/28 10 Year Plan signals a commitment to improving playing fields at the Central Energy Trust Arena with a multi-code turf soon to be installed and the improvement of the grass surfaces of the playing fields to follow as part of the Master Plan delivery.

· Active Community Plan actions:

o Provide and maintain…sportsfields, Arena Manawatū…sport and recreation facilities.

o Facilitate code-led developments where there is a demonstrated community benefit.

o Increase investment in sportsfield drainage to enable better use and availability.

o Give priority to Arena Master Plan programmes relating to multi-code artificial surfaces that enable greater community use and participation (by end of 2018/2019).

o Work with and formalise Council’s role in supporting sport and recreation activities at Massey University.

o Investigate opportunities for partnerships between Council and education providers.

Issues to progress further:

· Further planning for sport and recreation reserves in a Reserve Management Plan (RMP) is scheduled for 2019/20. This RMP will build on work done in the RSFP and other planning documents.

· Consider the impact of the planned artificial turfs on the existing supply of grass fields including developing a plan to reallocate any surplus fields for sport and recreation, or other use.

5. ACTIVE COMMUNiTY PLAN

The Active Community Plan signals that the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Sports Facilities Plan will help ensure that the city responds to identified needs in the most effective ways. The Plan also notes it will assist Council decisions about investment in sport facilities and these are informed by a wider regional perspective as well as by local community needs. General actions in the Active Community Plan that complement the recommendations in the RSFP are:

· Develop Flexible Future Facility guidelines on ways Council’s sport and recreation facilities can be flexible, easily adapted/repurposed to meet future needs and trends (by end of 2019/2020).

· Work cooperatively with adjoining councils to ensure the region’s sport and active recreation needs are met.

· Carry out research or analysis on active recreation trends and industry developments.

· Foster a strong working relationship with Sport Manawatū and Sport New Zealand.

· Facilitate discussions with sports codes or clubs where emergent issues involving Council’s recreation network need resolution.

· Ensure that sport and active recreation projects benefit from a multidisciplinary/integrated approach.

· Prepare and review an Asset Management Plan for Recreation and Community Facilities and implement programmes (under the LGA).

· Carry out recreation and reserves planning functions under the Reserves Act 1977 and LGA including the preparation of Reserve Management and Development Plans and Master Plans.

· Plan for and provide sport and recreation facilities in urban growth areas.

· Establish an Active Community Forum with key partners and stakeholders to discuss and promote best practice approaches.

· Work collaboratively with other partners, stakeholders, community champions, and private facility providers or businesses.

Many of these actions support the need expressed in the RSFP for the presentation of verified facts and evidence-based decision-making. Specific actions where they relate to the type of facility are included in the section above.

6. NEXT STEPS

The RSFP will guide Council’s future sport and recreation facility planning by:

· Assisting with Council’s planning processes, especially in asset management planning and flow through to the next 10 Year Plan;

· Confirming operational approaches to renewal work or other operational decisions particularly timing of programmes;

· Informing upcoming research such as needs analyses and feasibility studies for particular sports facilities/assets;

· Policy and strategy development such as Reserve Management and Development Plans;

· Making facility and operational improvements by taking a ‘network’ approach i.e. looking beyond the City’s needs and recognising the wider role the Council’s sports facilities play in meeting regional sporting requirements;

· Identifying opportunities where there may be sports facility ‘gaps’ best met by Palmerston North facilities;

· Potentially assisting in fund-raising applications to external sources for sport and recreation facility development.

Further analysis of the other sports facility categories not covered in this report will be undertaken as issues emerge.

7. 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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A creative and exciting city
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan The action is: • Work cooperatively with adjoining councils to ensure the region’s sport and active recreation needs are met.
Contribution to strategic direction	The Active Community Plan signals that the Manawatū-Whanganui regional sports facilities plan will help ensure that the city responds to identified needs in the most effective ways. The Plan also notes it will assist Council decisions about investment in sport facilities (and that these) are informed by a wider regional perspective as well as by local community needs.

Attachments

1.	Sport Facility Investment Process Framework ⇩
2.	Key Findings of Sport Facility Types covered in RSFP ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Victoria Esplanade Masterplan

DATE: 27 July 2018

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

APPROVED: David Murphy, Acting General Manager - Strategy & Planning

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That the Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Framework attached as Appendix 1 to the report dated 13 August 2018 and titled “Victoria Esplanade Masterplan” be adopted.

2. That the associated budgets in the Schedule attached in Appendix 2 and titled ‘LTP Budget Schedule’ be adopted.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	A Masterplan has been prepared over the last 18 months and is now ready for adoption. It has as its core objective a desire to embrace the park’s heritage and values. To best deliver the range of capital projects associated with the Masterplan some realignment is required with the existing staging of budgets in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (‘2018-28 LTP’).
OPTION 1: (RECOMMENDED)	Adopt the Masterplan with associated realignment of existing 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets to the recommended delivery of capital projects within the plan.
Community Views	Support for improving the park was identified through submissions received through the 2018-28 LTP process and from key stakeholders. Many submissions, including those from the Esplanade Rail Society, favoured the Park Road/Cook Street intersection upgrade and associated internal works being undertaken in the short-term.
Benefits	The Masterplan provides a structured way of managing the ongoing use and development of the park. Realigning the budgets to speed up delivery of projects in the first 5 years of the 2018-28 LTP will improve the visitor experience by capitalising on the extra visitors using the Central Energy Trust Wildbase Facility and the nearby He Ara Kotahi Bridge. Implementation of projects included in the Masterplan will make a host of immediate safety and accessibility improvements for pedestrians within the park and additional car parking will help alleviate peak-time capacity issues. Upgrading facilities within the centre of the park will significantly improve the visitor experience and help capitalise on additional foot traffic to the Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery facility. The alignment of the Park Road entrance with Cook Street coupled with a new driveway will make immediate vehicle, cycle and pedestrian safety improvements particularly along Park Road and along the connection route to the He Ara Kotahi Bridge.
Risks	Nil.
Financial	The overall level of borrowing ($3.23m) to provide for the capital development projects over the 10 year period does not increase. However, the staging is changed to provide for greater spending in the first half and less in the second half.
OPTION 2:	Adopt the Masterplan with the existing alignment of 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets.
Community Views	As noted above. The Masterplan has received favourable support.
Benefits	By using the existing alignment of budgets, the figures published in the LTP document and used for accounting purposes, such as rating effects stay the same.
Risks	A significant opportunity is missed to speed up the delivery of key projects that improve the visitor experience and capitalise on additional visitors to the Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery facility and He Ara Kotahi Bridge.
Financial	$3.23m is available over the 10 year period of the LTP with the bulk of the money allocated in the second half.
OPTION 3:	Do not adopt the Masterplan.
Community Views	Not sought.
Benefits	Limits capital expenditure as only the approved 2018-28 LTP programmes 324 (Park Road/Cook Street Intersection upgrade), 1081 (Associated new access road) and 1127 (Bonsai House) can occur independent of a Masterplan.
Risks	Will not lead to maximising the visitor experience or create a sense of purpose or imperative to take coordinated actions. Further ad-hoc facilities will be proposed in the park with no coordinated structure of assessment. Will undermine the relationship built up with key stakeholders.
Financial	Nil.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A creative and exciting city
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Manawatu River Plan The action is: Implementing Reserve Management planning in the Victoria Esplanade including planning, design and implementation of identified projects.
Contribution to strategic direction		The recommended Option 1 will make an immediate contribution to the ‘Small city benefits, big city ambition’ vision and the goal ‘a creative and exciting city’ set out in the Creative and Liveable Strategy.

Rationale for the recommendations

Overview of the problem or opportunity

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

1.2 While the park functions well in its current state there is significant opportunity to improve the visitor experience through a range of improvements. While these can be achieved over time, there are works recommended as a priority in the short term to accommodate the increased use of the park with the upcoming delivery of Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery and the He Ara Kotahi Bridge.

1.3 The Masterplan included in Appendix 1 for the park will ensure that its unique character is preserved and enhanced through a structured regime for planning and delivering capital and renewal works along with day to day management arrangements.

1.4 There is some realignment required with existing budgets scheduled in the 2018‑28 LTP to tie in with proposed roll out of capital projects in the Masterplan. It is noted this does not change the overall quantum of capex planned for the park, just the staging of it over the 10 financial years needs some adjustment. The recommended schedule is contained in Appendix 2.

1.5 This report will introduce the background of the Masterplan including key aspects as part of the assessment of the three options. These include:

· The system by which it was prepared and how projects are delivered; (refer to the Concept Plan in Appendix 3 to view the proposed projects across the park)

· How it will work in practice;

· Specific feedback on the costs and feasibility is provided on the Chinese Garden, Mini-Golf, and Camellia Walk proposals as requested by the Committee of Council on 28 May 2018. The opportunity is also taken to comment on the Paul Dibble Sculpture in the Duck Pond Island and Wildbase Rail deviation – both also contemplated in the Masterplan; and

· A summary of public engagement techniques and response.

Background and previous council decisions

History

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

2.2 The land was cleared for farming but did not start to take shape as a park until 1897 when it was fenced and a path was formed into it from Fitzherbert Avenue. It was given the name ‘Victoria Esplanade’ in commemoration of the 60^th Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign and English trees were planted at its eastern end. Later, in 1917 Victoria Esplanade Drive was formed between Fitzherbert Avenue and Park Road. The structured spaces in the Victorian style, and range of now iconic facilities, were developed over the proceeding decades.

Usage

2.3 While there are no physical counts it is estimated around 600,000 people visit the park or nearby facilities per year. Reliable figures for the playground (180,000), conservatory (60,000) and railway (70,414 in 2017) indicate the popularity of its facilities. It is noted the park is the number one destination for visitors on the Trip Advisor website and is the first place that is recommended to visit by staff of the I‑SITE visitor centre.

Legal Status

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

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

Previous Council Decisions

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

2.7 In December 2017 following support of recommendations made to the Sport & Recreation Committee Council resolved:

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

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

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

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

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

2.8 In May 2018 following the Committee of Council meeting, the Council resolved:

That the Chief Executive ask staff to form an Esplanade Users Group.

That programme 114 be increased by $12,000 for the 2018/19 year specifically for the installation of 6 new bike racks to be installed at the Victoria Esplanade.

That the Chinese Garden, Mini Putt and Camellia Walk proposals be referred to the Esplanade Masterplan for further consideration and a report back on costs and feasibility.

Long Term Plan Status

2.9 Through the 2006/16 LTP, public submissions sought a range of improvements to the park. This culminated in the preparation of a draft Masterplan in 2008 which was never adopted. A suite of works priced at that time in the order of $14.9m were proposed for inclusion in the 2009/19 LTP process. However, with a change of Council and different financial priorities many of these were not funded and therefore not given effect to. Those that were delivered were the new Depot on Manawaroa Street, a renewal of the conservatory and playground, and Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery facility (currently under construction) whereby money allocated to the aviary upgrade was instead allocated to this project.

2.10 As part of the 2018/28 LTP process a total of $3.23m made up of four specific programmes as follows has been adopted:

· (324) New Park Road/Cook Street Intersection $656k

· (1081) New Park Road Entrance and Access Road $771k

· (1127) New Bonsai House $108k

· (1454) Masterplan Delivery $1,695m

Masterplan Preparation

2.11 Preparation of the Masterplan has taken place over the last 18 months and has been led by the author and the services of Wayfinder Ltd, a specialist landscape architecture firm. This has followed a traditional gather, understand, assess, critique and direct action approach. It has been significantly aided by expertise offered through a multi-disciplinary approach adopting a ‘place-based’ design philosophy for expert analysis as supported by the Urban Design Strategy (2010) and the Manawatu River Framework (2016).

2.12 A special note is also made of the generous and enthusiastic participation of key stakeholders through the preparation process, some having an association with the park over many decades. It is also noted the work undertaken in the previous Masterplan process 10 years ago has been considered and the final product to some extent can be seen to ‘stand on the shoulders’ of that work, such was the quality of the thinking at that time.

2.13 For the avoidance of any doubt the use of the term Masterplan throughout the body of this report, and indeed through the entire process, encompasses a hybrid approach whereby it is both a development plan and a management plan wrapped up in one entity.

How the Masterplan works

2.14 A key issue with the evolvement of the park has been the seemingly ad-hoc nature of development that has occurred over time without the guide of an overall plan. While this is an issue, the point is made that the park we have today is a credit to the common understanding of successive park managers and elected Councils over time of how best to deal with on their merits without a Masterplan.

2.15 The premise of the Masterplan is that a realistic and open approach will be taken to future proposed projects and ideas mooted by the public, Council staff and other key stakeholders. In other words, the plan contemplates these will continue to come in, the difference now is that there will be a clear regime to test proposals against the core values identified for the park overall, those within the 6 character areas, and the desired outcomes that are sought.

2.16 The assessment or testing element continues as it has always done by Council officers and through the Council Committee structure as and when necessary. However, an additional layer of scrutiny, in the form of a User Group Forum, will be established so that the views of these key stakeholders are also considered.

Project Delivery Stages

2.17 The diagram in Figure 1 shows the assessment hierarchy for capital projects recommended to be undertaken by the Masterplan. It is important to note the distinction that the Masterplan does not immediately enable projects to be built rather it provides the overarching system for assessing them against core values and desired outcomes. This point is best illustrated within the Main Park Entry Character Area. This large capital project then needs to go through stages 2 (developed design) and 3 (detailed design) before it is ready to be tendered for construction.

Figure 1 – Assessment Hierarchy for Major Projects in Victoria Esplanade

STAGE PARTICIPANTS

Feasibility of Additional Projects submitted through 2018-28 LTP Process

2.18 There are five projects (Heritage walk, Paul Dibble Sculpture, Mini-Golf, Chinese Garden and Rail Deviation) which have been lodged by external groups through the LTP submission phase which have been assessed as test cases using the core values and desired outcomes process recommended by the Masterplan. The table in Appendix 4 summarises the key details for each project.

Habitat Improvements at Exotic Bird Aviaries

2.19 $60,000 for habitat improvements to the existing exotic bird aviaries is proposed. As this was not part of the original budget, work will need to be undertaken to identify how it can be progressed within existing budgets.

2.20 It is expected that design and construction would take place in the current 2018/19 financial year. The improvements would improve the habitat for the birds and the general appearance of the facilities until the new aviaries are constructed in 2021/22.

Description of options

Context

3.1 Both Options 1 and 2 recommend the Masterplan is adopted by Council as it comprehensively provides for the ongoing preservation and enhancement of the park and is therefore ready for the implementation phase to begin. The only difference between the options is the sequence or timing of budgets being available from the 2018-28 LTP.

3.2 The current timing of budgets in the adopted LTP reflects a slow approach to delivering projects in the Masterplan – pushing out the benefits to park users, and hence the overall experience, for many years in some cases. The recommended approach is to speed up the delivery of projects that will have the greatest impact.

3.3 The adopted and proposed scenarios are shown in the schedule in Appendix 2. For ease of reference the following table shows the key changes:

Table 1 – 2018-28 Long Term Plan Budget: Adopted vs Recommended Realignment

Year	Calendar	Approved Budget ($ ‘000s)	Recommended Budget ($ ‘000s)	Net Change (+/-) ($ ‘000s)
1	2018/19	0	165	+165
2	2019/20	158	1,825	+1,667
3	2020/21	1,447	310	-1,137
4	2021/22	325	410	+85
5	2022/23	0	145	+145
6	2023/24	325	120	-205
7	2024/25	0	95	+95
8	2025/26	325	90	-235
9	2026/27	325	70	-255
10	2027/28	325	0	-325
	TOTALS	3,230	3,230	0

Note - All figures are GST exclusive and are in today's dollars and therefore not inflation adjusted.

3.4 The effects of the change are best illustrated at the Park Road/Cook Street intersection realignment and associated multi-modal works along the entire western side of the park. Developed design needs to begin as soon as the Masterplan is adopted to ensure that this large project is delivered as soon as possible after the opening of the He Ara Kotahi Bridge (early 2019) over the Manawatū River to provide a host of safety and connectivity benefits for park users including road users.

3.5 Looking at the detail of this point, in the current 2018-28 LTP the capex budget to enable design to take place is not available until 1 July 2019 (19/20 FY) and physical works a year later from 1 July 2020 (20/21 FY). In other words, if the Masterplan is adopted in August 2018 nothing happens until 1 July 2019. It is recommended that both the design and build budgets are brought online a year earlier to enable design to start occurring through the remainder of the current 18/19 FY with a prospect of construction through the summer of 19/20, within a year of the bridge opening.

Description

Option 1 – Adopt the Masterplan with associated realignment of existing 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets to the recommended delivery of capital projects within the plan.

3.6 In this option, it is anticipated the Masterplan is adopted in August 2018. Key actions in the current 2018/19 financial year revolve primarily around forward planning and include:

· A Victoria Esplanade User Group Forum is formed in September 2018 with the inaugural meeting scheduled for October 2018;

· Developed design then detailed design for Park Central facilities;

· Developed design then detailed design of the Park Road/Cook Street intersection alignment and associated multi-modal works along the entire western side of the park;

· A comprehensive ‘Wayfinding’ signage plan is prepared for a suite of new branded signs to replace the multitude of different signs throughout the park;

· Design and construction of short term habitat improvements at the exotic bird aviaries

· The Paul Dibble Sculpture (known as ‘Dawn Chorus on the Fish of Maui’) is installed on the Duck Pond Island in late 2018 (this project is being undertaken by the Central Energy Wildbase Recovery Trust); and

· The ESR train track deviation works immediately south of Central Energy Trust Wildbase facility (project being undertaken by the Esplanade Scenic Railway with Council grant contribution of $15,000).

3.7 With the key forward planning done in Year 1 works are then programmed to occur over successive years. The main premise being that works that capitalise on the large increase visitor numbers as a result of the opening of Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery Facility and the He Ara Kotahi Bridge are prioritised.

Option 2 – Adopt the Masterplan with the existing alignment of 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets.

3.8 In this option after the adoption of the Masterplan in August 2018, the Victoria Esplanade User Group Forum is formed in September 2018 with the inaugural meeting scheduled for October 2018. If money is made available for the habitat improvements at the exotic bird aviaries then this will take place. The two external projects by the Esplanade Scenic Railway (track deviation) and the Central Energy Wildbase Trust (Dibble Sculpture) can also be expected to occur.

3.9 Aside from these actions nothing will happen through to 1 July 2019 where in that financial year $70k is available to provide for some forward planning. Beyond that no physical works would occur until the first tranche of capex funding of $325k in 2021/22.

Option 3 – Do not adopt the Masterplan.

3.10 In this option the Masterplan is not adopted and therefore has no status. However, as separate budgets have been approved in the 2018-28 LTP for some key projects in the park (eg. Bonsai house, Park Road/Cook street realignment, new Park Road entrance and access road along western side of the park) then these could still be delivered in its absence. It is noted that projects within Programme 1454 (Development Plan Delivery) could not be actioned as there would be no adopted plan.

Analysis of options

Option 1 – Adopt the Masterplan with associated realignment of existing 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets to the recommended delivery of capital projects within the plan.

4.1 Throughout the preparation of the Masterplan there has been no opposition expressed by any party to the principle of having a central entity that governs the development and use of the park. In fact, the challenge with the large number of issues, projects and people associated with the City’s premiere park is presenting a straightforward mechanism to achieve appropriate control and retain sufficient flexibility.

4.2 It is the view of the author the Masterplan achieves this balance and can be adopted with confidence that the first Masterplan in the history of the park provides a suitable regime as highlighted in these bullet points:

· The overall core values (Family fun, Seasonal, Victorian History, Native Bush and Community) of the park and those for the specific character areas have been identified from public engagement and stakeholder input and are the foundation of the Masterplan;

· The six character areas (Park Central, Main Park Entry, Dugald MacKenzie Garden, Play Zone, Victoria’s Garden, and the Native Bush area) identified and supported by various experts and stakeholders best represent the collective heritage elements protected in the Masterplan;

· The desired outcomes for the park overall and within each character area provide an opportunity to test and critique thinking with a long-term focus as new proposals come forward over time;

· The formation of a User Group Forum ensures that key stakeholders get a chance to use their expertise in an advisory role to review proposals as they come forward over time and provide recommendations to Council; and

· The use of a planning toolkit evaluation approach - where individuals or groups have to lodge a project description form requiring them to consider park values and desired outcomes for which the User Group Forum and Council staff then asses requires long term thinking and a more communal viewpoint.

4.3 In terms of the proposal to realign the budgets in the adopted 2018-28 LTP, as noted earlier in the report, that intention is to simply speed up the delivery of projects. This is where they have the most impact on improving the visitor experience and can capitalise on the imminent arrival of the Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery facility and He Ara Kotahi Bridge.

4.4 In the interests of brevity it is not intended to comment on all of the individual projects and the reader is instead referred to the schedule and Concept Plan in Appendix 3 and the plans within the Masterplan Framework to see what is proposed. It is important to reiterate that realignment of the budgets does not have any impact on the overall quantum ($3.23m) of money set aside for capital development projects.

Option 2 – Adopt the Masterplan with the existing alignment of 2018-28 Long Term Plan budgets.

4.5 The same analysis contained under Option 2 applies here as the assessment regime proposed under the Masterplan will still apply. However, the speed of delivering of projects associated with the plan will be slow and is not tailored to specific projects. The majority of the Masterplan delivery money (programme 1454) is located in the second half of the 10-year plan (2023/24 onwards).

4.6 The main issue with this is that improvements to the visitor experience through the park will be delayed. For example, in Park Central the redevelopment of the exotic bird aviaries (budget of $400k allocated for construction ideally in Year 4: 2021/22) will either be insufficient in any given financial year (not enough available until Year 10 2027/28) or not aligned such that contracts cannot be lined up to gain efficiencies in terms of the work programme.

Option 3 – Do not adopt the Masterplan.

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

4.8 The Masterplan is critical to secure its future and is the most appropriate way to maximise the visitor experience. The Masterplan approach is used by officers now on most major projects to achieve the best outcomes. It also provides continuity as officers and elected members come and go ensuring that a clear vision is followed over time.

Conclusion

5.1 The Masterplan has been formulated using a ‘place-based’ philosophy focussed on improving the experience of park users primarily for pedestrians. However, an increase in periphery carparking will alleviate congestion at peak times.

5.2 The Masterplan promotes a system for guiding the development and use of the Victoria Esplanade which has as its core objective the need to protect and enhance the heritage and values of the park. All significant proposals will be assessed for alignment with the core values and desired outcomes for the park overall and those within the specific character area in question.

5.3 A User Group Forum is proposed to be set up to ensure that key stakeholders within the park can use their expertise to have input on proposals in the park and management issues as and when necessary.

5.4 It is anticipated that the delivery of the various capital projects identified in the Masterplan, including the headline changes to the Main Park Entry and Park Central areas, will make a significant improvement to the visitor experience of the park. The proposed realignment of budgets over the 2018-28 LTP will capitalise on the increased number of visitors coming into the park to visit the Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery facility and nearby He Ara Kotahi bridge.

5.5 The Masterplan can be adopted with confidence that the premiere role the park plays in promoting civic pride here and along the Manawatū River will be preserved and enhanced over the long term.

Next actions

6.1 A Victoria Esplanade User Group Forum will be set up in September 2018 and the inaugural meeting expected to be held in October 2018. It is expected to have a representative from all key stakeholders in the park including the Esplanade Cafe, Esplanade Rail Society, Orchid Society, Croquet Club, Camellia Society, Forest & Bird, Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery, and a Council staff member. The terms of reference, frequency of meetings and other details will be prepared in advance of the first meeting for discussion at that forum.

6.2 If budgets are realigned as recommended then developed design will begin as soon as possible on the Main Park Entry and Park Central areas. In addition, a Wayfinding and Signage Plan will be prepared, and plans will be formed up for the habitat improvements to occur on the exotic bird aviaries.

Outline of community engagement process

7.1 There has been consistent community engagement, mainly with key stakeholders, throughout the Masterplan process culminating with formal submissions being received through the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process. A central theme running right through this period is how much the park is loved by the public and the nostalgic thoughts it provokes with many people having visited there as a child and are now visiting with their own children or grandchildren or great grandchildren.

7.2 As noted earlier in the report most of the detailed work has occurred with key stakeholders who have considerable expertise in the operation of the park. In fact, this expertise is directly reflected in the assessment regime proposed by the Masterplan. This is because the core values and desired outcomes in the park now form the foundation of any project appraisal going forward. In addition, the suggestion from the Esplanade Scenic Railway to form a User Group Forum has been included as a central feature in the Masterplan. When this is set up later this year it will form a key body for providing input on the use and development of the park.

7.3 A table is included in Appendix 5 summarising the various groups and forums used to engage with people and their comments. These reflect traditional consultation methods with a feature of the process being the more personalised face to face approach for communication.

Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

1.	Appendix 1 - Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Framework ⇩
2.	Appendix 2 - LTP Budget Schedule ⇩
3.	Appendix 3 - Victoria Esplanade Masterplan Concept Plan ⇩
4.	Appendix 4 - Additional Projects Table ⇩
5.	Appendix 5 - Community Consultation Summary Table ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Gordon Kear Forest Shelter

DATE: 24 May 2018

AUTHOR/S: Brian Way, Leisure Assets Officer, Infrastructure

Mark Johnston, Forester, Infrastructure

APPROVED: Ray McIndoe, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council approve establishment of a campsite for Te Araroa hikers in Gordon Kear Forest at the Toko Corner Road Intersection.

2. That Council note the funding and timing for installation of campsite infrastructure.will be referred for consideration to the 2019/20 Annual Plan process.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council has decided to retain ownership of Gordon Kear Forest (GKF) as a commercial operation (Finance and Performance, February 2018). Council Resolution dated 26 February No 11-18

1.2 The forest road network through Gordon Kear Forest is a critical link, south of Palmerston North, on the route of the Te Araroa Trail (TA). The forest road network links Scotts Rd to the northern end of the Department of Conservation’s Burttons Track. As well as serving Te Araroa trail this route is also used by local trampers and cyclists for a one day back country journey through to Shannon.

1.3 This memo proposes the provision of a shelter and toilet for Te Araroa trail walkers at a preferred camping location in GKF to manage the fire safety and hygiene risks associated with public use of a commercial forest.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In 2002 PNCC adopted an Outdoor Recreation Strategy for the City with a key objective of developing the Kahuterawa Valley as an outdoor recreation hub.

2.2 In July 2006 PNCC acquired the Woodpecker Forest property, now known as Arapuke Forest Park, in exchange for a portion of the Council’s commercial forestry operation at Gordon Kear Forest on Scotts Rd. This exchange was progressed to focus public recreation activity in the area at the end of Kahuterawa Rd, which included existing recreation assets such as Sledge Track and Hardings Park as well as Back Track leading to the Woodpecker Holdings property where mountain bikers were building trails. This allowed commercial forestry operations in Gordon Kear Forest to proceed unhindered by unmanaged public access.

2.3 The exchange also provided the opportunity to manage roading demand by concentrating recreational access on Kahuterawa Rd, thereby avoiding the need for costly upgrades to Scotts Rd whilst also separating recreation and forestry traffic to some extent.

2.4 In 2008 Council adopted the Kahuterawa Outdoor Recreation Plan (KORP). This plan defined Gordon Kear Forest as a “Controlled Access Zone” with three specific activities noted

· Public foot access on designated Te Araroa trail route

· Approved access with permit for organised groups and events

· Allowance to restrict access where necessary for forest management.

2.5 On 26 February 2018 Councillors approved recommendations from the Finance and Performance Committee deliberations on the future of Gordon Kear Forest. Council committed to retaining ownership of the forest and requested follow up reports on the potential of the property as a future water supply and requested that “the Chief Executive investigates the establishment of a shelter for Te Araroa walkers at Toko Corner Rd intersection in GKF.”

2.6 For Te Araroa walkers, the centre of Gordon Kear Forest is 28km from Palmerston North and 32 km from the Makahika Outdoor Centre, east of Levin – two x 1-day walks. Te Araroa trail walkers are already using sites within Gordon Kear Forest for overnight camping. Given this activity is already occurring, it makes sense to designate a safe and preferred camping location within this operating commercial forest environment. This memo considers the options to achieve this objective.

2.7 Options for managing camping activity in Gordon Kear Forest include:

a. Ban camping

b. Continue with status quo i.e. uncontrolled freedom camping within the forest

c. Provide an approved camping site within the forest

Implications include:

a. Banning camping is likely to result in significant non-compliance. Enforcement at this remote location would be difficult and costly.

b. The status quo has worked without any issues for the past 4 years of increasing Te Araroa trail numbers with no issues. If numbers further increase issues with human waste and fire risk will become more prominent.

c. Providing an approved campsite in a safe location is the preferred option.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 The Toko Corner Rd intersection, where this infrastructure is proposed, is located centrally in Gordon Kear Forest. (See map in Appendix 1) The area around Toko Corner Rd intersection has been left unplanted to provide emergency helicopter access to a nearby lake for firefighting purposes. There is a flat grassed area with a small stream running alongside. It is located at the intersection of three roads and three valleys, providing a relatively sheltered location within the surrounding hills. (See images in Appendix 1)

3.2 This site provides an ideal location for campers. As a camping location becomes known and popular within the Te Araroa community (currently estimated at 600-800 hikers per season) issues with waste, fire and litter will become more prevalent. Providing basic infrastructure for campers at a selected, safe and approved location can help to minimise problems at other locations in the forest. This will include:-

· Constructing a simple, open, 3-walled, concrete-floored structure, with internal seating/sleeping platform would provide shelter for hikers in inclement conditions.

· Providing a bench for food preparation and a concrete apron for gas cookers will help with basic hygiene and keep open flame away from dry grass.

· Providing a picnic table adds comfort for dining.

· Providing a toilet (or seasonal portaloo), this removes the risks of hundreds of people digging cat-holes for their toileting around a campsite.

· Providing a 200L rubbish bin should serve these lightweight travellers well for their minimal waste – perhaps needing emptying 2-3 times per season.

This type of facility is common on long distance trails in the USA such as the Appalachian Trail (See image in appendix 1).

Shelter

3.3 The small shelter (4m x 5m) pictured in Appendix 1 was recently installed in Arapuke Forest Park to service park users. A similar structure to this would be suitable for Gordon Kear Forest.

3.4 A more substantial structure, such as the 6m x 6m Totalspan barn proposal/quote included in Appendix 2, reflects the rural environment and would provide improved protection from the weather without the maintenance that an enclosed tramping hut would require.

3.5 Either shelter option could be completed and fitted out with a sleeping platform and food preparation bench for around $28,000.

3.6 Programme 165 – Outdoor Adventure Reserves – Arapuke Forest Park / Kahuterawa Development budgets included allowance for shelters and other physical assets to support development of the Kahuterawa Recreation Hub. The 18/19 budget of $38,000 was intended to provide facilities, including a shelter, at a Gordon Kear Forest campsite.

Toilet

3.6 Self-contained dry-vault Permaloo toilets, as installed at Arapuke Scotts Rd Carpark and Ruamahanga Wilderness Area come at a cost of $45,000 installed. As Te Araroa hikers tend to carry their own toilet paper servicing the toilet will be a minor undertaking and limited to the summer hiking season. The annual servicing cost will be in the vicinity of $2,500.

3.7 An alternative toilet option is to place a serviced, hire Portaloo at the site for the summer season at a cost of around $1,500 per season. It is proposed to start with the serviced Portaloo and monitor how suitable this option is over time. If a more permanent solution is required then the self-contained dry-vault Permaloo toilet could be installed.

Other campsite assets

3.8 A picnic table and rubbish bin can be provided at the site from existing walkways or Arapuke budgets

Timing

3.9 To cope with the existing tendency to camp in Gordon Kear Forest, as a minimum, placing a seasonal Portaloo at the preferred camping location in Gordon Kear Forest beginning in the 2018/19 Te Araroa season is critical. Signage identifying the site as a permitted Te Araroa campsite would further encourage camping at this suitable site rather than at other less safe sites in the forest.

3.10 Providing a shelter is second in terms of timing. All Te Araroa hikers carry a tent however the budget for a shelter is in place and it would be ideal to have this in place for the 2018/19 summer.

3.11 Programme 165 – Outdoor Adventure Reserves – Arapuke Forest Park / Kahuterawa Development has a budget of $38,000 in 2018/19. This programme allows for shelters and was intended to cover the cost of a shelter to complement this proposal for developing a campsite in Gordon Kear Forest

3.12 The requirement for a permanent toilet can be monitored and assessed as campsite usage is better understood.

4 BUDGETS

4.1 The budget for this project is to be provided through Programme 165 in the 2018/19 Annual Budget. Programme 165 – Outdoor Adventure Reserves – Arapuke Forest Park / Kahuterawa Development which has a budget of $38,000 in 2018/19. The purpose of this programme is to implement the Kahuterawa Outdoor Recreation Plan - through provision of tracks and bridges, fencing, signage, shelters and furniture. The current budget is intended to fund the shelter in the 2018/19 financial year.

4.2 Capital new costs

Shelter = $28,000

Permaloo Toilet = $45,000 (Following assessment of need over time)

Rubbish Bin = $1,800

Picnic table = $2,500

Total capital cost $77,300.

4.3 Operating costs

Portaloo for 5 months – mid Nov – mid March, fortnightly service = $1,500 per year

Seasonal servicing of a Permaloo - if a need is established over time = $2,500 per year

Weed eat grass in vicinity to reduce fire risk x 2 per season = $300 per year

Empty and dispose of rubbish x 3 = $300 per year

5 NEXT STEPS

5.1 Confirm proposal to provide a Te Araroa campsite in Gordon Kear Forest

5.2 Install signage, picnic table and rubbish bin (existing budgets)

5.3 Organise a serviced Portaloo for 5 months - mid November 2018 to mid-March 2019.

5.3 Refer funding of the shelter and permanent toilet facilities for consideration to the 2019/20 Annual Budget process.

6 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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A creative and exciting city
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan The action is: Extend the walking and cycling network, including completing and upgrading parts of the existing network.
Contribution to strategic direction	This recommendation supports users of the Te Araroa Trail, locals using the Burttons Track, and any organised recreation events that might be held in GKF. The proposal supports the enhancement of Te Araroa, New Zealand Trail, which will see increasing numbers of hikers passing through our city as the trail grows in popularity.

Attachments

1.	Gordon Kear Forest Shelter Report Appendix ⇩
2.	Gordon Kear forest shelter quote from Totalspan ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Te Motu O Poutoa (ANZAC Cliffs) Co-Management Options

DATE: 6 July 2018

AUTHOR/S: Jason Pilkington, Leisure Assets Planner, Infrastructure

Todd Taiepa, Principal Maori Advisor, Strategy and Planning

APPROVED: Ray McIndoe, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

David Murphy, Acting General Manager, Strategy and Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council instructs the Chief Executive to design a co-management Council Committee as per Option 1 of the 6 July 2018 Report titled “Te Motu O Poutoa (ANZAC Park) Co-Management Options”.

2. That the Council instructs the Chief Executive to report back to the Sport and Recreation Committee on the details of the co-management committee with further recommendations in December 2018.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Rangitāne o Manawatū and the Palmerston North City Council have collectively signalled their desire to work more collaboratively as partners. One key aspect of this desire is to ensure that this expression of partnership is appropriately established through the co-management of Wāhi Tūpuna or ancestral sites. Both Council and Rangitāne have agreed that Te Motu o Poutoa (ANZAC Park) is the most appropriate site to begin this collaboration.
OPTION 1:	Establish a Council Committee to function as a co-management Committee, as per Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Community Views	Community views would be tested on this option through a consultation process aligned to that required by the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002.
Benefits	Achieves a high degree of partnership. Allows further Wāhi Tūpuna sites to be incorporated into the group’s mandate at a later time, if and when appropriate.
Risks	May be interpreted as relinquishing an unreasonable or inappropriate degree of power to a non-governmental organisation.
Financial	This option will have the most significant financial implications. Financial implications will be developed and reported on at the details phase of this process.
OPTION 2:	Establish a co-management group as the Administering Body of Te Motu o Poutoa, as per the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	Community views would be tested on this option through a consultation process aligned to that required by the Reserves Act 1977.
Benefits	This option provides a moderate degree of partnership. This option is potentially less complex and involved than Option 1.
Risks	This option may not be seen by Rangitāne as having the right balance of equity required for partnership. This option does not accommodate any further sites that are not held as reserves by the Council to be incorporated under the partnership model.
Financial	There will be financial implications involved in setting up and operating an Administering Body. These are likely similar but less than those in Option 1, and will be developed and reported on at the details phase of this process should this option be adopted.
OPTION 3:	Establish a Memorandum of Understanding between Rangitāne o Manawatū and Palmerston North City Council on the co-management of Te Motu o Poutoa.
Community Views	Community views would be tested on this option through a consultation process aligned to that required by the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002.
Benefits	This option does not require significant legal advice, establishment costs, change to operating procedures, policies or funding.
Risks	That the option will not be supported by Rangitāne, and Council will likely need to suspend or extend the timeframes for any reserve co-management planning or development potential for this site.
Financial	This option does not have any significant financial implications. Financial implications of this option would be developed and reported on at the details phase of this process should this option be adopted.

The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A connected and safe community

The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy

The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Cultural and Heritage Plan

1. The Culture and Heritage Plan, where the imperatives are to ‘Incorporate Rangitāne history and aspirations in modern day Palmerston North’, and ‘Collaborate with Rangitāne on major Council projects, particularly … the Manawatū River Park’; and

2. The Active Community Plan, ‘To establish a framework for mana whenua to partner and participate in policy, planning, design, development and management of parks and open spaces based on recognition and respect, which may include co-governance of particular parks and open spaces’, and ‘Work with mana whenua to identify, protect, preserve and manage wāhi tūpuna and other places of significance within the public open space network.’

Contribution to strategic direction

The primary strategic imperatives underlying this report can be primarily found in the Creative and Liveable Strategy, with its emphasis on recognising the status of mana whenua in relationship to ancestral sites and landscapes. Underpinning this Strategy is an an emphasis on collaboration between the Council and Rangitāne to work together in the recovery, protection, promotion and ongoing management of the cultural heritage of the iwi.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Rangitāne o Manawatū and Palmerston North City Council have collectively signalled their desire to work more collaboratively as partners.

1.2 One key aspect of this desire is to ensure that this expression of partnership is appropriately established through the co-management of Wahi Tupuna or ancestral sites.

1.3 Both Council and Rangitāne have agreed that Te Motu o Poutoa (ANZAC Park) is the most appropriate site to begin this collaboration. Officers have developed a recommendation that will ensure an equitable and productive partnership to manage and care for this important site.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Te Motu O Poutoa – the place of Poutoa (also known as ANZAC Park) is arguably the most significant site to Rangitāne o Manawatū in the Palmerston North area. It is listed in the Palmerston North District Plan Appendix 17B as a site of cultural significance.

2.2 Poutoa was an ancestor of Rangitāne. His descendents include Paewai, Te Awe Awe, Te Rangiotu and other families. The Urupā was attacked and destroyed by Ngāti Apa ki Rangitīkei about 1820. The Urupā (burial site) was on the river flat between the bridge and the cliff. Bones were taken to Rangiotu and reburied in the 1880’s, and it is contentious as to whether the actual bones or just the grave markers were taken.

2.3 The land was purchased from the Kairanga County Council as ANZAC Park in 1916. It is assumed that at some point prior to this date that the Patriotic Society renamed the park.

2.4 From 1962-1963 the site was changed significantly. A ridge was lowered 20 metres to form the plateau that exists today and in 1964-65 a lookout station, car park and picnic spot were formed.

2.5 In 1968 the land was vested in the Palmerston North City Council by the Kairanga County Council as a reserve. The Palmerston North Astronomical Society observatory was built in 1971.

2.6 In recent years capital budgets for the development of this site have been proposed through various 10 Year Plans. However, without the full backing of any development on this site from Rangitāne, work has yet to occur.

2.7 The park and car parking area have fallen into a relatively poor condition, there is often rubbish left on site and anti-social behaviour occurs at the park which has resulted in the park being closed at certain hours. As a key cultural site that boasts the best geographical high-point in the City, it is essential that Council and Rangitāne come to an understanding on moving forward at this site.

2.8 In recent years Rangitāne o Manawatu have agreed a Treaty Settlement with the Crown, and are currently organising the iwi along a more cohesive set of systems and processes. In addition, the Council has expressed an interest in working more closely and cohesively with Rangitāne, and has directed Officers to begin work on co-management options for Wāhi Tūpuna sites. Te Motu o Poutoa was identified by both Council and Rangitāne as the most appropriate site to begin this work.

2.9 Workshops were held with Rangitāne where members discussed the values Iwi hold for this special site, their vision for the future and how they would like to see a working partnership between Council and Rangitāne established to develop and manage the site.

2.10 A workshop was held with Councillors where discussion of potential co-management options was undertaken, and the main sites of cultural significance to Rangitāne were laid out on a map and discussed. The purpose of the workshop was to expose Councillors to which sites Rangitāne have interests in, and the possible ways to manage Te Motu O Poutoa as partners.

2.11 Officers developed a set of options for co-management based on that direction and the direction given to Officers by Rangitāne. This option was developed in collaboration with Paul Beverley of Buddle Findlay Lawyers. Mr Beverley has significant and unique expertise in developing co-management and co-governance frameworks with Iwi across the country. This preferred option allows Council and Rangitāne to act as partners in the co-management of Te Motu o Poutoa, while simultaneously ensuring that the co-management committee is able to encompass further sites should this be appropriate at a later time.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Establish a Council Committee to function as a co-management Committee, as per Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.2 Option 2: Establish a co-management group as the Administering Body of Te Motu o Poutoa, as per the Reserves Act 1977.

3.3 Option 3: Establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Rangitāne o Manawatū and Palmerston North City Council on the co-management of Te Motu o Poutoa.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Establish a Council Committee to function as a co-management Committee, as per Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

How Council Currently Works With Rangitāne

4.2 The table above describes a relationship continuum – with Iwi on one side and Council on the other. This continuum describes the range of possible levels of decision making sharing that Council currently has with Rangitāne, or could have. It should be noted that Council and Rangitāne operate across a number of levels – depending on the subject matter. In some cases Council actively consults with Rangitāne (such as issuing an easement over a park with no significance to Rangitāne), and in other cases, where Wāhi Tūpuna sites are being discussed/planned, Council actively negotiates solutions with Rangitāne as a key stakeholder.

4.3 However, in some cases at present, such as developing the Te Motu o Poutoa Reserve Management Plan, Council is moving into the space where sharing responsibility and authority is beginning to “organically” emerge. Rangitāne and Councillors have expressed the desire to formalise this “organic movement” so as to ensure and uplift the mana of Rangitāne o Manawatu and to work in true partnership on key sites. Council also recognises the opportunities that partnership offers for the City.

Forging a Partnership

4.4 Partnership implies a certain level of equity, and the formalisation of partnership should ideally reflect that through the appropriate decision-making framework, legal status and hierarchy.

4.5 A number of key actions and features going forward will ensure the appropriate balance is met. These are:

· Establish an over-arching kawenata or foundation document (partnership agreement – to include purpose, values, principles and commitments of the new committee).

· Committee established as a Committee of the PNCC local authority (under Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002).

· Rangitāne Chair or co-chairs and other members appointed as appropriate from 50% Council representatives and 50% Rangitāne representatives.

· Establish a Te Reo Māori name for the Committee with Rangitāne.

· Documents such as standing orders, code of conduct and delegations to reflect a partnership approach.

· Explanatory document – describing who makes what decisions and exercise what powers. This should be clear and agreed from the outset.

· Establish an induction process to advise Committee members, Iwi and staff that will interact with the new committee of appropriate protocols.

4.6 The establishment of these key features in the spirit of partnership will see the Council begin to move beyond the stakeholder relationship with Rangitāne and into a full partnership and sharing authority approach to the management of Te Motu o Poutoa.

4.7 As a Council Committee, operating under a general kawanata agreement, this committee will also be capable of incorporating other appropriate Wāhi Tūpuna sites into its sphere of authority with relative ease. The Committee would have the legal framework and logistical capacity already in place to accommodate any additional appropriate sites. Therefore this option future-proofs any further work in this sphere without Council and Rangitāne having to re-think process, frameworks, etc.

4.8 The Council, as administering body of Te Motu o Poutoa under the Reserves Act 1977, has delegated authority on behalf of the Minister of Conservation to approve a number of actions. These actions encompass:

· Approving leases and easements

· Adopting Reserve Management Plans

· Entering into land exchanges

· Revoking the reserve status of a reserve, etc.

4.9 These delegations do not pass on to an administering body of a reserve that is not a local or territorial authority. However, if the new co-management group is a Council Committee then the committee likely retains the powers of delegation. It is important to note that the roles and functions that Council currently holds as the Administering Body of Te Motu o Poutoa would transfer to the new Council Committee.

4.10 All decisions made by the new Council Committee would ultimately be subject to final Council approval in the same manner that Council approves the resolutions of its committees at present, as per Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002. This option provides the fullest sense of partnership available under the existing local government legal framework, and Council retains the right ultimately to veto, as with any other Council Committee.

4.11 Option 2: Establish a co-management group as the Administering Body of Te Motu o Poutoa, as per the Reserves Act 1977.

4.12 Palmerston North City Council is currently the Administering Body of Te Motu o Poutoa under the Reserves Act 1977. This means that Council is the organisation legally responsible for the day-to-day running of the reserve in accordance with the Act.

4.13 Under Section 30 of the Reserves Act 1977 a board may be established as an administering body to control and manage a reserve for the purposes of its classification. Council may apply to the Minister of Conservation to establish a board to administer Te Motu o Poutoa.

4.14 Partnership implies a certain level of equity, and the formalisation of partnership should ideally reflect that through the appropriate decision-making framework, legal status and hierarchy.

· Establish an over-arching kawanata or foundation document (partnership agreement – to include purpose, values, principles and commitments of the new administering body). This document would be limited to principles and values specifically related to the direct administration of Te Motu o Poutua.

· Administering body established and would likely report to a Council Committee or full Council, with recommendations. Council would be required to make a decision on whether the administering body had carried out its functions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, and in some instances this decision may require approval from the Minister of Conservation. This option therefore places the administering body in an asymmetrical relationship to a Council Committee.

· Rangitāne Chair or co-chairs and other members appointed as appropriate. It is suggested there be a balanced representation of 50% Council representatives and 50% Rangitāne representatives.

· Establish a Te Reo Māori name for the administering body with Rangitāne.

· Establish terms of reference as per requirements of an administering body under the Reserves Act 1977. Terms of reference would be limited to the administration of the reserve, but may be made wider through an MoU or some such other formal but non-legal document.

· Explanatory document – describing who makes what decisions and exercise what powers. This should be clear and agreed from the outset. It should be noted that decision-making powers would be more limited legally than if the controlling structure were a Council Committee, established under the LGA 2002.

· Establish an induction process to advise members of the new administering body, Iwi and staff that will interact with the new committee of appropriate protocols.

4.15 An administering body that is not a Council does not have the right to approve a number of actions in relation to the control and management of a reserve, and must seek approval of either Council or the Minister of Conservation. The outcome is that basic powers over the land, such as issuing easements, approving Reserve Management Plans, classifying a reserve, approving structures on land, leasing portions of a reserve, etc. would be subject to Ministerial oversight and final approval.

4.16 This option would see the powers of the new co-management group limited to decisions related to the particular reserve in question. The option would also see many powers currently exercised by Council severely reduced and a significantly higher level of over-sight exercised in relation to the of decision making responsibilities over Te Motu o Poutoa.

4.17 In addition, the legal status of elements such as the terms of reference and Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) have a lesser weight than the functions developed for a Committee that is established under the LGA 2002.

4.18 In relation to the power-sharing continuum described in 4.1 of this document, this option would see a more prominently asymmetrical relationship established between Rangitāne, Council and the Minister of Conservation than Option 1. This would likely place the administering body more squarely in the stronger end of the Negotiating section of the continuum of power-sharing described in 4.1 of this document, but squarely outside Sharing Authority and Responsibility.

4.19 Option 3: Establish a MoU between Rangitāne o Manawatū and Palmerston North City Council on the co-management of Te Motu o Poutoa.

4.20 This option is certainly the weakest of the three options on the power-sharing continuum described in 4.1 of this report, with Rangitāne sitting more firmly at the weaker end of the Negotiating spectrum towards the Seeking Consensus section.

4.21 A MoU does not have a significant legal framework on which it is based, and this option would see Council likely establish a kawenata, or foundation/principles document, with little more in the way of actual powers being divulged and shared.

4.22 As such this form of relationship is unlikely to be seen by Rangitāne as a true partnership and not likely to be acceptable to Iwi going forward – particularly on the Te Motu o Poutoa site. This is not to say that MoU’s are not appropriate relationship tools with Iwi, and in some instances and with regards to some activities and at other sites an MoU may well be appropriate and all that is needed.

4.23 This option is not recommended as it does not allow Rangitāne and Council to move forward into the realm of partnership at the Te Motu o Poutoa site, and would be seen in all likelihood by Iwi as a step back from the existing relationships.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Rangitāne o Manawatu and Palmerston North City Council are “organically” moving towards sharing responsibility and authority at some Wāhi Tūpuna sites, such as Te Motu o Poutoa.

5.2 Both Council and Rangitāne have expressed the desire to formalise this relationship, as many other Councils have done in recent years.

5.3 Establishing a Council Committee under Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides the fullest expression of this desire.

5.4 Rangitāne has also expressed a desire to have other Wāhi Tūpuna sites, predominantly sited along the Manawatū River environment, as sites where a partnership arrangement exists.

5.5 This option future-proofs any further additions that may be deemed appropriate at a future time, given that the Committee would have the legal framework and logistical capacity to accommodate any additional sites.

6. Next actions

6.1 Develop a draft kawanata or foundation document.

6.2 Develop a proposal for a new co-management Council Committee and a proposed name.

6.3 Develop a draft explanatory document to elucidate the proposed new committee structure.

6.4 Report to Council in December 2018 to the Sport and Recreation Committee with further detail and recommendations.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The proposed community engagement process will be established as part of the December 2018 report to the Sport and Recreation Committee with regards to further detail.

Compliance and administration

Local Government Act 2002

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

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Massey University Easement at Bledisloe Park

DATE: 10 July 2018

AUTHOR/S: Jason Pilkington, Leisure Assets Planner, Infrastructure

APPROVED: Ray McIndoe, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council adopts the alterations to the Massey University easement at Bledisloe Park (LOT 1 DP 8981) as described in Appendix I of the 10 July 2018 Report titled “Massey University Easement at Bledisloe Park” to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Massey University has discovered through recent survey work that an existing water supply pipe that crosses Bledisloe Park is not fully covered by their easement agreement with Palmerston North City Council. The University seeks to tidy this situation up, and ensure their easement covers their water supply pipe.
OPTION 1:	Adopt the proposed alterations to Massey University’s easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	This easement and the water supply pipe has been in place since 1971, and there have no community concerns. A public notice will be issued where the public will be able to submit and be heard should anyone desire to do so.
Benefits	This option allows the University to tidy up this easement and ensure that they are fully legally compliant.
Risks	The easement is no longer desired by Council.
Financial	There are no financial implications to this option. All fees and Officer time are charged out to Massey University as part of the easement processing fee.
OPTION 2:	Do not adopt the proposed alterations to Massey University’s easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	This easement and the water supply pipe have been in place since 1971, and there have no community concerns. A public notice will be issued where the public will be able to submit and be heard should anyone desire to do so.
Benefits	No further work is required.
Risks	Damage to Council’s relationship with Massey University. The water supply pipe continues to be used without full legal compliance.
Financial	There are no financial implications to this option.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Economic Development Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan · Carry out recreation and reserves planning functions under the Reserves Act 1977 and LGA including the preparation of Reserve Management and Development Plans and Master Plans.
Contribution to strategic direction		This action ensures Council meets its legal obligations under the Reserves Act 1977 with regards to reserves planning and legislative requirements for utilities sited in reserves.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Massey University has discovered through recent survey work that an existing water supply pipe that crosses Bledisloe Park is not fully covered by their easement agreement with Palmerston North City Council.

1.2 The University seeks to tidy this situation up, and ensure their easement covers their water supply pipe, and thereby ensure legal compliance.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 In 1971 Massey University and Palmerston North City Council entered into an easement agreement to allow Massey University to pipe water supply from their water tower on Atawhai Road to the University across Bledisloe Park.

2.2 This easement went through the Local Government Act 1974 process for establishing easements. This was the relevant legislation prior to the establishment of the Reserves Act in 1977.

2.3 The easement was duly surveyed and added to the title for Bledisloe Park. The easement location can be seen in yellow in Appendix I of this report.

2.4 In 2017/18 Massey University has been reviewing and auditing its assets. Part of this has included survey work. During this process the University discovered that the easement across Bledisloe Park did not match the location of the water supply pipe. The University believes that the original survey work completed in 1971 was not done correctly, as the pipe has remained in the same place since that time.

2.5 Massey University approached Council to tidy the existing easement up. This would require Council to grant additional easement over some areas which would then fully cover the existing water supply pipe. The proposed widening of the existing easement to include the path of the water supply pipe can be seen in Appendix I of this report. The proposed new easement is described in blue.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Adopt the proposed alterations to Massey University’s easement to go out for public notice under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.2 Option 2: Do not adopt the proposed alterations to Massey University’s easement to go out for public notice under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Adopt the proposed alterations to Massey University’s easement to go out for public notice under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 This option allows the existing water supply pipeline to be fully covered by an easement, and therefore ensures that the pipeline is legally compliant with the Reserves Act 1977. This likely has beneficial outcomes for Massey University’s exposure to risk.

4.3 The University would therefore seek an additional 80-100 m₂ of land at Bledisloe Park - to be covered by the easement agreement.

4.4 The additional easement land covered is relatively minor; the water pipe is under ground and does not currently impinge upon recreation users of the park. Moreover, the proposed addition is adjacent to the old easement and therefore does not require Council to agree to an easement over a vastly different portion of land.

4.5 It is therefore considered expedient and cost-effective to simply make an addition to the existing easement rather than adding land to the easement in some places, and relinquishing the easement over other parts of the park where the pipe does not in fact run.

4.6 Massey University seek a permanent addition to their existing easement. Any easement over 60 years is considered a “permanent effect” under the Reserves Act 1977, as per advice from the Minister of Conservation. Therefore as a “permanent effect” the Reserves Act consultation process is triggered and Council must consult with the public on the proposed establishment of the easement under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.7 Iwi must also be consulted on any permanent easement proposal under Section 45 of the Conservation Act, prior to adoption of the easement.

4.8 Option 2: Do not adopt the proposed alterations to Massey University’s easement to go out for public notice under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.9 This option would see Massey University water supply pipe line partially exposed to risk given that it is not legally covered by an easement agreement.

4.10 The result would likely be that the University would alter the pipeline to fit the easement, which would be far higher in cost to the University than altering the legal easement boundary on the property title.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Massey University, while surveying their assets, have discovered that a water supply pipeline that crosses Bledisloe Park and the corresponding easement area do not match.

5.2 The University, seeking to address this risk, seeks to expand the easement agreement to include the actual path of the pipe.

5.3 The University agrees to meet all costs associated with altering this easement.

6. Next actions

6.1 Issue public notice of the intention to grant an easement in accordance with Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977.

6.2 Inform Rangitāne o Manawatu of the intention to grant an easement and seek any feedback as per Section 45 of the Conservation Act.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Public Notice under Section 119 of the reserves Act 1977.

7.2 Officers believe that because the easement and pipe have been in place since 1971 without public issue, and that the proposal does not alter anything on the ground, that the minimum legal requirements for consultation should be employed in this case.

Compliance and administration

Reserves Act 1977, Section 119.

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

Attachments

Appendix I ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Powerco Easement at Norton Park - Andrew Avenue Entrance

DATE: 10 July 2018

AUTHOR/S: Jason Pilkington, Leisure Assets Planner, Infrastructure

APPROVED: Ray McIndoe, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council adopts the proposed Powerco easement at the Andrew Avenue Entrance to Norton Park (Lot 17 DP 17130 & LOT 3 DP 64311) as described in Appendix 2 of the 10 July 2018 Report titled “Powerco Easement at Norton Park – Andrew Avenue Entrance” to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Powerco currently have a transformer located at the Andrew Avenue entrance to Norton Park. They desire to upgrade the existing transformer and make an addition to it to make it compliant with current safety regulations.
OPTION 1:	Adopt the proposed Powerco easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	This transformer has been in place since 1968. As far as Council is aware there have not been any public concerns raised. Community views will be further tested through a public consultation process as required by the Reserves Act 1977.
Benefits	The transformer is upgraded to meet current regulations which will presumably make this equipment safer for the public.
Risks	This is a service entranceway to Norton Park and Council will need to ensure all existing access is maintained.
Financial	There are no financial implications with this easement. All costs are met by Powerco as per Councils Easements Policy.
OPTION 2:	Do not adopt the proposed Powerco easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.
Community Views	This transformer has been in place since 1968. As far as Council is aware there have not been any public concerns raised. Community views would not be further tested through a public consultation process as required by the Reserves Act 1977 on this option.
Benefits	No additional entranceway space is taken up by the addition.
Risks	Safety to the community with regards the transformer upgrade. Environmental issues if oil leakages occur in a stream and stormwater location.
Financial	There are no financial implications with this option.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Economic Development Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of The Active Communities Plan. · Carry out recreation and reserves planning functions under the Reserves Act 1977 and LGA including the preparation of Reserve Management and Development Plans and Master Plans.
Contribution to strategic direction		This action ensures Council meets its legal obligations under the Reserves Act 1977 with regards to reserves planning and legislative requirements for utilities sited in reserves.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Powerco currently have a transformer located at the Andrew Avenue entrance to Norton Park. The existing transformer was established on site in 1968 and no longer meets current Powerco standards.

1.2 When the transformer was established the site was taken under Section 23 of the Electricity Act. Powerco, in line with current policy, seeks to develop permanent easement agreements to cover all old sites that were originally taken under the Act.

1.3 They desire to move to easement agreements gradually as they upgrade old transformers like the one proposed in this report, as part of an ongoing works programme.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Powerco currently have a transformer located at the Andrew Avenue entrance to Norton Park. The existing transformer was established on site in 1968 and no longer meets current Powerco standards for safety or technical specifications.

2.2 In 1968 the Electricity Act provided the legal basis for utilising land for the purposes of conveying electricity. In 1977 this method of utilising land in reserves for the purposes of conveying electricity was superseded by the Reserves Act 1977. In recent years Powerco have been bringing the legal status of their electricity conveyance utilities into alignment with that Act – which requires the establishment of an easement. Powerco are achieving this, for efficiency, as they upgrade their utilities.

2.3 Any form of utility for services on reserve land requires an easement (or some comparable form of approval to use the land for purposes that are not recreation based activities), as described in the Reserves Act 1977. The location of the transformer can be seen in the aerial picture below.

2.4 Powerco are currently seeking to make upgrades/alterations to older transformer sites in two ways. They are:

· Seeking to physically upgrade the engineering specifications of their transformers to bring them up to modern Powerco standards.

· Seeking to cover all old transformer sites that were taken under Section 23 of the Electricity Act with easement agreements under the Reserves Act 1977.

2.5 The transformer housed in the existing concrete bunker was installed in 1968 and no longer meets Powerco standards. The primary concerns regarding the transformer in its current condition are potential for oil leakages, operational failure or the potential for a health and safety incident due to the confined space. The existing concrete bunker will be replaced by a modern equivalent with a small additional footprint.

2.6 Powerco also seek to extend the bunker site to include a new ring main unit. See Appendix 1 and 2 of this document for the location and layout of the new bunker and cabling locations.

2.7 The installation of the Ring Main Unit behind the bunker is to improve safety by providing a safer connection to the network, and remote operation via Powerco’s SCADA System. This will allow Powerco greater network load control and will increase safety and efficiency by minimising the requirement for staff or contractors to operate the transformer.

2.8 Powerco also seek to cover all old transformer sites that were taken under Section 23 of the Electricity Act with easement agreements under the reserves Act 1977. This will bring the legal status of the site up to modern legislative requirements and lessen Powerco’s legal risk.

2.9 Upgrades to the transformer will bring the legal status of their transformer sites up to today’s legal requirements, and they are doing this as part of a long term works programme, as upgrades to existing old transformers are completed.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Adopt the proposed Powerco easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.2 Option 2: Do not adopt the proposed Powerco easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Adopt the proposed Powerco easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 Council policy is to encourage, wherever possible, service companies to locate their services in the road corridor. If services are located in a reserve, companies are encouraged to situate them underground. These days Council tends to increase the roading corridor in new subdivisions to include “alcoves” that will house transformers. This allows service companies to operate under a standard roading corridor right-of-way.

4.3 This is not always possible or ideal, and in this case the transformer is located in a reserve space. In this case the transformer needs to be located above ground for access, and is best set back off the road or footpath to be located out-of-the-way.

4.4 The public have not complained about the transformer or its location in the 50 plus years that it has been at the entranceway. The proposed upgrades and addition will not significantly impose upon the site any more than at present, and the site is not located strictly in the park proper, or at a key entranceway to the park.

4.5 The Stormwater team at PNCC have looked over the proposal, and the proposal does not impinge upon service vehicles from PNCC that will need to access the reserve from this entranceway.

4.6 It is ideal that this transformer is upgraded and upgraded soon. The transformer is situated within 5 metres of a stormwater stream that runs into Norton Park. Any potential oil leakages at this site will be avoided by immediate upgrade.

4.7 Powerco seek a permanent easement. Any easement over 60 years is considered a “permanent effect” under the Reserves Act 1977, as per advice from the Minister of Conservation. Therefore as a “permanent effect” the reserves Act consultation process is triggered and Council must consult with the public on the proposed establishment of the easement under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.8 Powerco also propose, as per Appendix 2 of this document, an addition to the back of the transformer. The footprint of this addition will be approximately 6.2m², including the easement for the trenched cables on the eastern side of the transformer.

4.9 Iwi must also be consulted on any permanent easement proposal under Section 45 of the Conservation Act, prior to adoption of the easement.

4.10 Option 2: Do not adopt the proposed Powerco easement to go out for public consultation under Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.11 The Analysis of Option 1 holds for this option.

4.12 This option will place Powerco in a difficult position with regards the planned upgrade. In addition Council runs the risk that the old transformer begins to experience issues that are not caught quickly. This could result in leeching of oil into the stream, technical failures on the electricity network or harm to a Powerco worker.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Powerco are currently in the process of upgrading old transformers, and of bringing their legal status up to modern legislative standards.

5.2 It is important for legal, environmental, practical and health and safety reasons to complete the upgrade.

5.3 The transformer at Andrew Avenue entrance to Norton Park is one such upgrade, and Powerco seek to upgrade the physical structure and to enter into an easement agreement with Council for use of the site.

5.4 Any proposed easement agreement that is permanent must be go through a public consultation process as per Section 119 of the reserves Act 1977, and as per Section 45 of the Conservation Act. Powerco agrees to meet the cost associated with the proposed easement.

6. Next actions

6.1 Public notice as per Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 is issued describing the intention to enter into an easement agreement with Powerco.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Public notice as per Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 is issued describing the intention to enter into an easement agreement with Powerco.

7.2 The opportunity to object or support the proposal will be set in place; with opportunity to present to the administering body of the reserve, as per Section 120 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Compliance and administration

Section 119 Reserves Act 1977.

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

Attachments

1.	Appendix I: Transformer Upgrade Design Visual ⇩
2.	Appendix 2: Plan View of Transformer Location ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 13 August 2018

TITLE: Reserve Management Planning Update

DATE: 31 July 2018

AUTHOR/S: Jason Pilkington, Leisure Assets Planner, Infrastructure

Aaron Phillips, Senior Property & Parks Planner, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Ray Swadel, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council adopt the updated Reserve Management Plan delivery timeframes and priorities described under Option 1 of the July 31 2018 Report titled “Reserve Management Planning Update”.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Council is in the process of developing Reserve Management (RMP) and Development plans (RDP) reserves across the City. Council directed officers to report on the progress of these plans in August of 2018. This report describes that progress to date and in the light of some learnings and changes in circumstances recommends altering some of the priorities and timeframes for work going forward.
OPTION 1:	Adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities.
Community Views	Community views are assessed on the development of these plans as appropriate during the development of individual plans and as per the legal requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.
Benefits	Allows Council to make alterations to the priorities and timeframes in an agile manner based on learnings and changes in circumstances that have occurred over recent years.
Risks	Council seen to be inconsistent with earlier decisions.
Financial	There are no additional financial implications associated with this option.
OPTION 2:	Adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities, with some alterations as per Council directive.
Community Views	Community views are assessed on the development of these plans as appropriate during the development of individual plans and as per the legal requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.
Benefits	This option allows Council to make any changes to the timeframes and priorities due to reasons that may have been missed by Officers.
Risks	Any changes may not have had the benefit of officer analysis and input.
Financial	Financial implications for this option would be dependent upon the nature and scope of Council directives.
OPTION 3:	Do not adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities.
Community Views	Community views are assessed on the development of these plans as appropriate during the development of individual plans and as per the legal requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.
Benefits	This option may recognise something that Officers have overlooked.
Risks	This options will take longer and hold up the steady progress on work.
Financial	Financial implications for this option would be dependent upon the nature and scope of Council directives.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan • Carry out recreation and reserves planning functions under the Reserves Act 1977 and LGA including the preparation of Reserve Management and Development Plans and Master Plans.
Contribution to strategic contribution		This action ensures Council meets its legal obligations under the Reserves Act 1977 with regards to reserves planning and legislative requirements for utilities sited in reserves.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council has directed Officers to meet its legal obligations under the Reserves Act 1977 and develop Reserve Management Plans (RMP’s) and Reserve Development Plans (RDP’s) for all appropriate reserves. This was reiterated in the new 2018 Active Communities Plan.

1.2 A report describing the decision-making process for identifying, prioritising and delivering reserve management and development plans was adopted by Council in September 2015. From the information adopted in that report, and the adopted criteria for establishing RMP’s and RDP’s, a report went to Council in 2016 describing a recommended work schedule.

1.3 A significant feature of that work schedule was the reserves auditing exercise. RMP’s could not be developed for the Council’s reserves until that audit was complete. The audit will be completed this year, mid-to-late 2018, at a cost of approximately $146,000.

1.4 Since that time a number of Reserve Development Plans have been completed (Memorial Park RDP and Ahimate Reserve RDP). In addition work on the Victoria Esplanade and Te Motu O Poutoa is well underway. Given current work and contextual considerations a slightly altered work programme going forward is recommended.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 In 2015 a report went to Council describing the requirement to develop Reserve Management Plans, the required legislative process involved, possible plan structures, priorities and costs associated with the project. In addition a recommendation was made, given the significant workload associated with development of RMP’s, to have consultants complete the work.

2.2 The RMP process was split into two tranches of work. These were:

· Identification of appropriate land to be identified as reserve land (including early consultation with Iwi and report to Council on classification of reserves).

· Development of RMP’s (including all legislative requirements for consultation, etc.)

2.3 The categories for RMP’s above was recommended based on the clear desire to group reserves with similar management issues and requirements together and rough conformity with the New Zealand Recreation Association Reserve Classifications.

The recommendation was for consultants to complete the bulk of the work, and that some of the work be considered across various Council units, in house.

2.4 In the 2016 report a set of recommendations went to Council regarding the prioritisation of the RMP’s. Council adopted the following set of priorities and dates for completion:

Park or Reserve	Plan Type	Timeframe
Victoria Esplanade	RMP & RDP	2016/17-2017/18
Memorial Park	RDP	2016/17
Sport and Recreation Reserves	RMP	2016/17-2018/19
Recreation and Ecological Reserves	RMP	2017/18-2018/19
Te Motu O Poutoa	RMP & RDP	2018/19-2019/20
Ashhurst Domain	RMP & RDP	2018/19
Natural/Outdoor Adventure Reserves	RMP (review) & RDP	2019/20-2020/21
Aquatic Facilities		2019/20
The Square		2019/20-2020/21

2.5 The reporting timeframe to update the Councillors on progress on the development of the above priorities was set for August 2018.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities.

3.2 Option 2: Adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities, with some alterations as per Council directive.

3.3 Option 3: Do not adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities.

4.2 Recommendations to spread the work of producing RMP’s and RDP’s between various in-house experts and consultants has proven highly effective, in the development of RDP’s in particular.

4.3 Work achieved to date is described in the following:

· Memorial Park RDP – developed and adopted by Council in the 2016/17 year. Design and build begins in the 2018/19 financial year.

· Victoria Esplanade work is well underway with regards the RDP.

· Ahimate Reserve Development Plan was developed and adopted by Council in the 2016/17 year, as per direction in the Manawatu River Framework.

· The reserve auditing process was undertaken over two years in order to establish reserve status and classification, and will be completed in mid-to-late 2018.

· Work with Rangitane has proven highly productive in the last two years. Council now has a better understanding of their Wahi Tupuna sites and those sites that will be proposed for some form of co-management or shared management options.

4.4 With developments underway there have been a number of learnings, and the landscape within the organisation has changed significantly. Changes affecting the direction of the RMP and RDP process are described below:

· Iwi and Council have signalled that both are in a strong position to begin establishment of a co-management structure for the care of Te Motu O Poutoa. The position of Te Motu O Poutoa in the priority list was always dependent on both parties establishing acceptable partnership positions. Much of the background work with iwi and Councillors for this site has been achieved. Establishing a co-management structure is more in-depth than simply producing an RDP, and will require further consideration during the 2021-31 10 Year Plan.

· Council has desires to potentially become more directly involved in property development opportunities. Therefore some land whose future may be considered more broadly may best be excluded from any form of mass classification until more clarity exists regarding that development role.

· Council has signalled that the Manawatu River will become the next City Reserve as the City’s Manawatū Linear River Park. This will require some significant work around identification of park boundary, relationship of the park to Rangitāne and other partners – particularly Horizons Regional Council, and how future management agreements will operate.

Updates: Suggested Alterations

4.5 Officers suggest a change to the priority and timeframes as suggested below:

Timeframe	Reserve	Type of Plan	Who
2018/19	Victoria Esplanade Te Motu o Poutoa Reserve Status and Classification	RMP Co-management n/a	External Internal/external External
2019/20	Te Motu o Poutoa Manawatu Linear River Park	RDP RMP	Co Management body and City Networks City Networks & City Future
2020/21	Te Motu o Poutoa Ashhurst Domain	RMP RDP & RMP	Co Management body and City Networks City Future & City Networks
2021/22	Manawatu Linear River Park Sport and Recreation Reserves	RDP – Review RMP	City Future/External External
2022/23	Kahuterawa Outdoor Recreation Plan Recreation and Ecological Linkages (including shared paths and walkways)	RMP & RDP RMP	External External
2023/24	Aquatic Facilities	RDP	TBA
2024/25	The Square	RMP & RDP	TBA

4.6 Explanations for suggested changes are as follows:

1. Victoria Esplanade – no change, RDP underway.

2. Memorial Park – no change, completed.

3. Manawatu River Park – Officers and the Active Communities Strategy have identified the new Manawatū Linear River Park as the next City Reserve, making use of a series of existing plans, key park and activity areas and natural resources. This new City Reserve will require significant work to identify its boundaries and partners. This work should begin sooner rather than later, because the Manawatu River Park may well include existing reserves, strips and parks in its boundaries. These should be identified prior to developing any form of mass classification.

4. Te Motu O Poutoa. This RMP was on hold primarily due to uncertainty with Rangitane and their capacity. The ground has shifted here and Rangitane are now signalling that they are ready to engage in an RMP and a co-management agreement for this reserve. This will allow development of an RMP and RDP prior to 10YP budgets for this site coming online in 2019/20 & 2020/21. The increased effort required to establish co-management systems will require Council to push out the Square and Aquatic Facilities work.

5. Sport and Recreation and Reserves (Mass classifications of smaller reserves and strips). Officers have recommended putting this work out further as a lower priority as other plans. This will allow any shifts in the terrain regarding property development opportunities and the Manawatu River Park to fully take effect prior to mass classification.

6. Recreation and Ecological Linkages: Mass classifications of smaller reserves and strips). Officers have recommended putting this work out further as a lower priority as other plans. This will allow any shifts in the terrain regarding property development opportunities and the Manawatu River Park to fully take effect prior to mass classification.

7. The Square and Aquatic Facilities have also been put out further.

4.7 Option 2: Adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities, with some alterations as per Council directive.

4.8 The analysis for Option 1 holds for this option, though this is subject to any further directives from Council.

4.9 Option 3: Do not adopt the recommended changes to the RMP and RDP timeframes and priorities.

4.10 This option will require Officers to establish and reasons for rejecting the recommendations. Results for any further analysis of this option are dependent upon the nature and scale of the reasons for rejecting the recommendations in this report, and any corresponding directives from Council.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Council is currently on track and meeting all timeframes for delivering the RMP’s and RDP’s as adopted in earlier reports.

5.2 During this process there have been some learnings and also some changes in context. It is therefore recommended that some changes be made to the existing timeframes and priorities to reflect these.

6. Next actions

6.1 Continuation of individual RMP’s and RDP’s for larger or more significant reserves as per plan

6.2 Begin discussions with Iwi on the classifications, potential sites of interest, any potential name changes, etc. primarily for the mass classifications.

6.3 Scope out the Manawatu River Park work.

6.4 Report on co-management options at Te Motu o Poutoa to the Sport and Recreation Committee (August 2018), following on from Councillor work-shops and Rangitāne work-shops.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Community views are assessed on the development of these plans as appropriate during the development of individual plans and as per the legal requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

Compliance and administration

Reserves Act 1977

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

Attachments

Nil

Leonie Hapeta (Chairperson)
Duncan McCann (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Jim Jefferies
Adrian Broad	Lorna Johnson
Vaughan Dennison	Bruno Petrenas
Lew Findlay QSM	Aleisha Rutherford

27-18	Public Comment
	Public comment was received from Jono Naylor regarding Council licencing Pascal Street Community Trust to occupy land for a community garden.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Tangi Utikere. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Public Comment be received for information.
	Clause 27-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.