PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL
Extraordinary
Sport and Recreation Committee MEETING
15 October 2018
MEETING NOTICE
Pursuant to Clause 21 of Schedule 7 of
the Local Government Act 2002, I hereby requisition an extraordinary meeting of
the Council to be held at 9.00am on Monday, 15 October 2018 in the Council
Chamber, first floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston
North, to consider the business stated below.
CHAIRPERSON
Order of Business
NOTE: The
Sport and Recreation Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee. The
Committees will conduct business in the following order:
- Finance and Performance Committee
- Sport and Recreation Committee
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. Crewe
Crescent Community Garden Relocation - Awapuni Park Option Page 7
Report, dated 1 October 2018 presented
by the Special Projects Manager, Phil Walker.
6. Exclusion
of Public
|
|
To be moved:
“That the
public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this
meeting listed in the table below.
The general
subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:
|
General
subject of each matter to be considered
|
Reason for
passing this resolution in relation to each matter
|
Ground(s)
under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This resolution is made in reliance on Section
48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7
of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the
relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the
above table.
Also that the
persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been
excluded for the reasons stated.
Chief Executive
(Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), Acting Chief
Infrastructure Officer (Ray Swadel), 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), Acting Operations Manager (Ray McIndoe) 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 (David Murphy) 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
Report
TO: Sport
and Recreation Committee
MEETING DATE: 15
October 2018
TITLE: Crewe
Crescent Community Garden Relocation - Awapuni Park Option
DATE: 1
October 2018
PRESENTED BY: Phil
Walker, Special Projects Manager, Infrastructure
APPROVED BY: Ray
Swadel, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer
|
RECOMMENDATION(S)
TO Council
1. That Council,
in the report titled Crewe Crescent Community Garden relocation –
Awapuni Park Option, notes significant local opposition to the proposed
relocation of the Crewe Crescent Community Garden to Awapuni Park, and does
not adopt the site for relocation of the garden.
2. That
Council, in the report titled Crewe Crescent Community Garden relocation
– Awapuni Park Option, acknowledges the value and level of
community contribution that the Crewe Crescent Community Garden has provided
for the City over the last six years of successful operation and continues to
work with the Pascal Street Community Trust to find a suitable site for
relocation of the garden.
|
Summary of options analysis for
|
Problem
or Opportunity
|
Pascal
Street Community Trust (PSCT) currently works in a social and educational
voluntary capacity to improve the lives of those living in a number of
neighbourhoods across the city including the Crewe Crescent neighbourhood.
The
Trust had 5,000 sq m of community garden in Hokowhitu. The owner of the
land has advised that the Community Garden needs to vacate the site.
In
March 2018 Council agreed to consult the community on the proposal to licence
PSCT to occupy part of either Alexander or Awapuni Parks.
The
consultation was conducted in April 2018 and hearings for those that wished
to be heard conducted on 14 May 2018. Council ultimately rejected Alexander
Park as an option due to lobbying in opposition by some local stakeholders.
Issues sited by submitters at Awapuni Park were predominantly focused on the
size of the garden and the requirement in the proposal to cut down some
large, established trees.
The
PSCT then approached Council with a revised proposal for a smaller garden
without requiring the removal of trees.
This
report considers the outcomes of the community engagement on the revised
proposal at Awapuni Park and recommends that Council not proceed with a
community garden at this site.
|
|
OPTION 1:
|
Council
does not adopt Awapuni Park as the site to relocate the Crewe Crescent
Community Garden to, and continues to work with the garden and the PSCT to
find a suitable site for relocation.
|
|
Community Views
|
Community views were
split on the revised proposal at Awapuni Park, with most submitters being
against the proposal. Many stakeholders that were in favour of the proposal
did not see this site as their first choice. This option therefore
tends to conform best to local community views.
|
|
Benefits
|
Council proves itself
responsive to the local community and their views on this topic.
|
|
Risks
|
The Crewe Crescent
Community Garden requires a new site, and Council risks the PSCT winding up
what has been a very successful project if a site cannot be found in a timely
manner.
|
|
Financial
|
Officer time required
to establish a new proposal and site for consultation. Approximately 20 hours
Officer time, flyers drops and public notices. $3000 approximately.
|
|
OPTION 2:
|
Council
adopts the revised proposal for Awapuni Park as the site for relocating the
Crewe Crescent Community Garden, and enters into a lease agreement with the
PSCT.
|
|
Community Views
|
Community views were
split on this topic, with most submitters being against the proposal. Many
stakeholders that were in favour of the proposal did not see this site as
their first choice. This option therefore tends be either a second-best
option with stakeholders or an unfavourable one with locals and submitters.
|
|
Benefits
|
Allows the PSCT to have
some certainty around where the garden will go and allows them to get on with
setting things up.
|
|
Risks
|
This option risks
Council being seen as not listening to the local community.
|
|
Financial
|
Establishment of
leasing agreement and MoU. $1,700.
|
|
OPTION 3:
|
Council
does not adopt Awapuni Park as the site to relocate the Crewe Crescent
Community Garden to, and does not continue to work with the PSCT to find a
suitable site for relocation.
|
|
Community Views
|
The bulk of
stakeholders are eager to have a community garden somewhere in the City. The
PSCT are also a trusted and well established organisation operating with the
community sector. This option is not consistent with a general desire to see
the existing successful community garden re-established and to continue
operating.
|
|
Benefits
|
This option does not
require any further input or work from Council.
|
|
Risks
|
Council is seen as not
being part of the transformation towards a driven and enabling Council, particularly
where it has been approached as an organisation that is only asking for a
space on which to operate. They are self-funding and self-operating.
|
|
Financial
|
There are no further
financial implications with this option.
|
|
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 Healthy Community
Plan
The action is: Healthy Community
Plan
• The
community sees Council as a role model in healthy lifestyle choices
Active Community Plan
• Neighbourhood
park development is carried out in partnership with the local community.
|
|
Contribution
to strategic direction
|
This option contributes both
to Council acting in a responsive manner and engaging with the community, and
also ensuring that Council acts to enable successful and beneficial community
projects.
|
|
|
|
Rationale for the recommendations
1. Overview
of the problem or opportunity
1.1 Council
has been working with the PSCT over the last four months to find suitable
reserve land on which to relocate a community garden.
1.2 A
report on previous work and consultation went to Council in June 2018 and this
led to a revised proposal to relocate the garden (in a smaller size) to Awapuni
Park, and to engage the local community for their feedback on this proposal.
1.3 Community
engagement is now complete, and the result has not been in favour of the
revised proposal. The report therefore recommends that Council continue to work
with PSCT to find a suitable location for the community garden at another site.
2. Background
and previous council decisions
2.1 The
PSCT has been working in the Crewe Crescent area for over 6 years. They have
worked in this area to facilitate and provide:
· Community
gardens
· Street
parties (Neighbour’s Day)
· Meals
for local families
· Christmas
craft packs
· Wednesday
afterschool programme (games, food/meals and literacy programmes)
2.2 The
community garden needs to move as the land will no longer be available. PSCT
approached Council proposing to relocate the garden on public reserve land.
Council Officers worked with the PSCT to identify a number of possible options
for site relocation of the community gardens.
2.3 On
26 March 2018 Council adopted the recommendation put to the 12 March 2018 Sport
and Recreation Committee (to licence PSCT up to 5,000 m2 at either
Alexander Park or Awapuni Park) to go out to the community for consultation
namely;
“That Council
adopts the proposal to licence a section of Awapuni Park or Alexander Park (as
described in Appendix One of the report titled Proposal to Licence Pascal
Street Community Trust to occupy a section of Awapuni Park or Alexander Park
for Community Gardens) to go out for public notice in the manner required under
Section 54 (1) - (2A) of the Reserves Act 1977.”
2.4 A
proposal was put to the Awapuni Community to have the Crewe Crescent Gardens
located to either Alexander Park or Awapuni Park. A detailed community
engagement was completed, and a decision was made, on balance, to recommend
Alexander Park over Awapuni Park.
2.5 The
decision to recommend Alexander Park was due to the size of the garden proposed
at Awapuni Park and the requirement to cut trees down at the park to
accommodate the 5000 m2 proposal. Otherwise, given the existing
facilities at Awapuni Park, this site would have posed a more attractive option
to PSCT to house the garden.
2.6 A
report went to the 6 June 2018 Sport and Recreation Committee recommending
Council to enter into a lease agreement with PSCT for a 5000m2
garden at Alexander Park. As a result of some difficulties in relation
to this proposal, the recommendation was not adopted at full Council on
25 June 2018. Instead it was resolved:
That the Sport and
Recreation Committee Recommendation of 29-18 (Proposal to license Pascal Street
Community Trust to occupy part of Awapuni or Alexander Parks for a Community
Garden) from its June 6 2018 meeting be referred to a future Council Meeting
for further consideration.
The outcome of this
was Alexander Park was not adopted as the site for relocation of the Community
garden.
2.7 The
PSCT then developed a revised proposal for Awapuni Park and approached Council.
The revised proposal addressed the main issues that many submitters had with a
community garden at this park: the size of the proposed garden and the
requirement to cut down a number of established trees to accommodate a garden
of 5000m2. In the revised version the PSCT proposed a garden of
approximately half the originally proposed size (down to 2500m2) and
no trees were required to be removed.
2.8 The
revised version of the original proposal was taken to the Awapuni Community for
further engagement throughout the month of September 2018. This report
describes the result of that engagement, and a full engagement report is
attached as Appendix I of this document.
2.9 Officers
engaged with the Awapuni Community on the revised proposal via the following
methods:
· Receipt of
telephone and email comments
· 3500 household
Awapuni-wide flyer drop
· Open community
meeting – held at the Awapuni Community Centre
· Direct stakeholder
engagement
· Door-knocking with
directly affected neighbours
2.10 Stakeholders
remained positive that a community garden is an excellent idea, and that
Awapuni would be a great location for one. However, Alexander Park or the
Ruamahunga Wilderness areas were listed as more appropriate locations.
2.11 A
49-person petition against the garden proposal for Awapuni Park was lodged in
opposition, with the primary concern being that the park aesthetics would be
destroyed and the loss of open space seen as an issue.
2.12 The
community meeting was split, with 50% in favour of the garden and 50% in
opposition. Those in favour tended to focus on the positive aspects of the
garden for the wider community. Those in opposition tended to focus on the loss
of amenity to their local park, or simply did not like the change.
2.13 Email
and phone contact was also split – 50/50, with similar reasons for
support and opposition.
2.14 The
local community are split on the proposal, and it is clear that there is
significant local opposition to proposal even in its revised format.
3. Description
of options
3.1 Option
1: Council does not adopt Awapuni Park as the site to relocate the Crewe
Crescent Community Garden to, and continues to work with the PSCT to find a
suitable site for relocation.
3.2 Originally 14
sites were identified as potential sites for the proposed Community Garden.
This option requires Officers to go back to the original sites and work with
the PSCT to assess another option for the proposal.
3.3 Option
2: Council adopts the revised proposal for Awapuni Park as the site for
relocating the Crewe Crescent Community Garden, and enters into a lease
agreement with the PSCT.
3.4 This
option is the most effective for the PSCT which currently desires to
re-establish their community garden quickly given the tight timeframes around
their Crewe Crescent plot.
3.5 This
option however does not fully reflect local community views, and does not
factor this local opposition into the Council decision.
3.6 Option
3: Council does not adopt Awapuni Park as the site to relocate the Crewe Crescent
Community Garden to, and does not continue to work with the PSCT to find a
suitable site for relocation.
3.7 This
option does not recognise the success of the PSCT garden and the desire to see
this garden continue to succeed and grow in a new community, and misses an
opportunity for Council to assist the community to have a continued successful
community garden.
4. Analysis
of options
4.1 Option
1: Council does not adopt Awapuni Park as the site to relocate the Crewe
Crescent Community Garden to, and continues to work with the garden and the
PSCT to find a suitable site for relocation.
4.2 Originally
14 sites were identified as potential sites for the proposed Community Garden.
This option requires Officers to go back to the original sites and work with
the PSCT to assess another option for the proposal.
4.3 Positive
points in relation to this option are:
· Council is being
responsive to the results of the community engagement and ensuring that local
people have a say in the development and activity occurring in their local
reserves.
· There are other
sites, such as the Ruamahanga Wilderness, that appeared attractive during the
last analysis.
4.4 Negative
points in relation to this option are:
· More time and
effort are required to identify a new site and engage the local community.
· This option is
difficult for the PSCT given their desire to relocate their Community Garden in
a timely manner.
4.5 This
option will require a third round of local community engagement, and there is
no guarantee that the new site will fare any better in terms of local buy-in
and stakeholder support.
4.6 Option
2: Council adopts the revised proposal for Awapuni Park as the site for
relocating the Crewe Crescent Community Garden, and enters into a lease
agreement with the PSCT.
4.7 During
the first round of community engagement there were a number of reasons that the
Awapuni Community spoke out against the proposal to shift the garden to the
Awapuni Park. The main reasons were:
· Aesthetics of the
garden will impact negatively on the park
· Will lose
significant amount of open space at the park
· Vandalism at the
gardens
· Increased private
property security issues (from people attracted to steal things from the
garden, and potentially neighbours)
· Removal of the
trees
· Parking congestion
· Lack of shading if
the trees are removed
4.8 The
dominant issues that came through from the community engagement were the loss
of the trees, the loss of open space (size of the garden) and in
particular the changed look of the park (aesthetics) to accommodate a large
garden.
4.9 The
PSCT revised their proposal once the Alexander Park option became untenable to
Council so that the garden would be reduced in size by 50% (down to 2500m2)
and would therefore not require any trees to be removed.
4.10 It
was thought that this would result in a more positive community engagement,
particularly given the bulk of objectors mentioned the size of the garden and
the loss of trees as important reasons for objecting.
4.11 The
community engagement results did not essentially change much in terms of the
number and intensity of objections, though the reasons for objecting tended to
shift to the loss of open space and aesthetics as the main reasons for
objecting. See Appendix I of this report for the full Community
Garden Proposal Engagement Report 2018 – Awapuni Park (Revised Proposal).
4.12 On
the one hand, there appears to be a genuine desire for the Awapuni Community to
have a community garden in Awapuni; but on the other hand some of the community
appear to have an underlying sense of objection. This could be summed up in the
following manner:
· Suspicious of
external agents (non-locals) coming into their local area and taking over large
portions of their local parks.
· Against changes to
a local park that they have grown up with and lived next to in a relatively untouched
state for many years.
· Fearful of people
that they do not know working in a space that they feel ownership of, and that
is in some cases seen as an extension of their living space.
4.13 While
the space is in fact public park space, and as such Council has a right and
desire to encourage activity that supports this; Council also desires to ensure
that local reserves serve local communities and reflect those
communities’ aspirations for their local areas.
4.14 Option
3: Council does not adopt Awapuni Park as the site to relocate the Crewe
Crescent Community Garden to, and does not continue to work with the PSCT to
find a suitable site for relocation.
4.15 The
analysis for Option 2 holds for this option also.
4.16 In
addition this option would see the Council pull away from supporting the PSCT
to find a suitable public space for their community garden. In all likelihood
the option would result in either PSCT pursuing an alternative option on
private land or dissolving the community garden initiative.
4.17 The
PSCT has a sound history of volunteer work, of working with Council in a
positive manner and of providing successful and impactful projects for the
City. The PSCT Community Garden is no exception and has delivered a highly
successful community garden model for the City over its 6 years of operation.
4.18 A
number of people have allotments, including members of people the Bhutanese
community who entered the country as refugees. This garden has been a
successful model for getting people active in a healthful manner, socialising
new people to the community and providing home-grown sustenance to the
gardeners and their families.
4.19 Given
the positive outcomes associated with this project, and the sound history of
success, it would therefore be a loss to the City if the PSCT Community Garden
was to dissolve due to an inability to find a suitable site for relocation.
Officers therefore do not believe that this is an outcome consistent with a
driven and enabling Council, and that the loss of the garden would be
felt.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The
main concerns that emerged through the initial community engagement around the
proposal to move the PSCT Community Garden to Awapuni Park were addressed in
the revised version of new proposal.
5.2 These
concerns were that the garden was too large and would take away too much open
space, and that the trees should not be cut down to accommodate the garden. The
revised proposal suggested a smaller garden size and no trees to be destroyed.
5.3 The
resulting community engagement however returned a similar result, with a number
of local residents remaining in opposition. In particular people stated their
concern with the loss of space and the look of a garden in the park not
conforming to their desire for this space.
5.4 Therefore,
considering the practicality of needing to find a space for PSCT with some
haste and also considering the difficulty that Council has encountered in
Awapuni, it is recommended that Officers work with Option 1 with the PSCT to
ascertain another site.
6. Next
actions
6.1 Begin
site identification with the PSCT for a new site.
6.2 Report
to Council on the findings and seek the adoption of the new site for community
engagement.
6.3 Establish
a community engagement process and get it up and running quickly for the new
site.
6.4 Report
back to Council as soon as practicable with the engagement results and
recommendations.
7. Outline
of community engagement process
7.1 The
detailed community engagement process for the revised Awapuni Park Community
Garden proposal is described in Appendix I of this report.
Compliance and administration
N/A
|
Does the Committee have
delegated authority to decide?
If Yes quote relevant clause(s)
from Delegations Manual <Enter
clause>
|
No
|
|
Are the decisions significant?
|
No
|
|
If they are significant do they
affect land or a body of water?
|
No
|
|
Can this decision only be made
through a 10 Year Plan?
|
No
|
|
Does this decision require
consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?
|
No
|
|
Is there funding in the current
Annual Plan for these actions?
|
Yes
|
|
Are the recommendations
inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
Community Garden Proposal Engagement Report 2018 - Awapuni
Park (Revised Proposal) ⇩ 
|
|
