Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

4 March 2019

Order of Business

NOTE: The Planning and Strategy Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Committee of Council. The Committees will conduct business in the following order:

- Planning and Strategy Committee

- Committee of Council

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. Deputation - Manawatū River Source to Sea Page 7

6. Presentation - Ben Foster Page 9

7. Confirmation of Minutes Page 11

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 3 December 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

8. Six month review of trial allowing dogs on-leash into the Central Business District (CBD) Page 21

Memorandum, dated 15 January 2019 presented by the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie MacDonald and the Head of Environmental Protection Services, Graeme Gillespie.

9. LGNZ metro sector remit proposals Page 31

Memorandum, dated 4 February 2019 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

10. Intersection Improvements Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg Page 37

Report, dated 4 February 2019 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

11. Housing Steering Group: Scope of the Terms of Reference Page 49

Memorandum, dated 20 February 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.

12. Committee Work Schedule Page 55

13. 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), Chief Infrastructure Officer (Tom Williams), General Manager – Strategy and Planning (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager - Community (Debbie Duncan), Chief Customer and Operating Officer (Chris Dyhrberg), General Manager - Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), Executive Officer (Sandra King) 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 Executive Leadership 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.

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

Minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 03 December 2018, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

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

Non Members:

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

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (early departure on Council Business) and Councillors Adrian Broad (early departure), Lew Findlay (early departure) and Leonie Hapeta (late arrival on Council Business).

Councillor Leonie Hapeta was present when the meeting resumed at 11.02am. She left the meeting at 4.23pm during consideration of clause 84. She was not present for clauses 74 to 75 inclusive and clauses 84 to 85 inclusive.

Councillor Adrian Broad was not present when the meeting resumed at 11.02am. When the meeting resumed again at 2.00pm he was present. He was not present for clauses 76 to 81 inclusive.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 12.13pm during consideration of clause 79. He was not present for clauses 79 to 85 inclusive.

Councillor Jim Jefferies was not present when the meeting resumed at 2.00pm. He entered the meeting at 3.55pm during consideration of clause 82. He was not present for the beginning of clause 82.

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 2.28pm during consideration of clause 82. She was not present for clauses 82 to 85 inclusive.

Councillor Bruno Petrenas was not present when the meeting resumed at 3.32pm. He entered the meeting at 3.57pm during consideration of clause 82. He was not present for part of clause 82.

Councillor Tangi Utikere was not present when the meeting resumed at 3.32pm. He was not present for clauses 82 to 85 inclusive.

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 4.00pm at the conclusion of clause 82. She was not present for clauses 83 to 85 inclusive.

Councillor Lew Findlay left the meeting at 4.03pm at the conclusion of clause 82. He was not present for clauses 83 to 85 inclusive.

74-18

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 74-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

75-18

Public Comment

Public comment was received from Mr Murray Guy regarding support for the new Pressure Sewer Policy. Mr Guy wanted to see Kingsdale Park included as an area that was covered by the Policy.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the public comment be received for information.

Clause 75-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 9.13am

The meeting resumed at 11.02am

When the meeting resumed Councillor Leonie Hapeta was present.

When the meeting resumed Councillor Adrian Broad was not present.

76-18

Notification of Additional Item

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the late item `Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg Intersection’ be received.

Clause 76-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

77-18

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 5 November 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 77-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Tangi Utikere.

78-18	Wastewater Pressure Sewer Policy Memorandum, dated 6 November 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum. Elected Members were concerned there were two sets of rules regarding Council responsibility for pressure sewer systems and requested a report back of a cost and benefit analysis for Kingsdale Park and other systems.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Bruno Petrenas. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the Palmerston North City Council Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, as attached to the memorandum dated 6 November 2018 and titled `Wastewater Pressure Sewer Policy’ be adopted with the suggested amendments.
	Clause 78.1 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Susan Baty, seconded Lorna Johnson. 2. That the Chief Executive be instructed to undertake a cost and benefit analysis of Council taking responsibility for the Kingsdale Park Subdivision pressure sewer system and any other pressure sewer system.
	Clause 78.2 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

79-18	Consideration of Policy for the Use of Public Space Memorandum, dated 16 November 2018 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald. The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 12.13pm Elected Members were of the view that public consultation should be undertaken before the Policy was approved.
	Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Lorna Johnson. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the `Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space’ as attached to the memorandum dated 16 November 2018 and titled `Consideration of Policy for the Use of Public Space’ be approved for consultation. 2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space prior to consultation.
	Clauses 79.1 and 79.2 above were carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Lorna Johnson. 3. That the Chief Executive be instructed to undertake public consultation on the Policy for the Use of Public Space.
	Clause 79.3 above was carried 12 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Rachel Bowen and Jim Jefferies.

80-18

Urban Fire Control Bylaw 2016 Revocation

Memorandum, dated 26 October 2018 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council revoke the Urban Fire Control Bylaw 2016 in accordance with Section 152B of the Local Government Act 2002.

Clause 80-18 above was carried 12 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Against:

Councillor Susan Baty.

Abstained:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

81-18

Signs Review

Memorandum, dated 12 November 2018 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

The Committee requested a report back in May 2019 detailing progress towards implementing the recommendations of the review of city signs report.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Committee receive the report titled Review of City Signs as attached to the memorandum dated 12 November 2018 and titled `Signs Review’ and note the recommendations contained within it.

2. That the Chief Executive be instructed to provide the Committee with an update on progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Review of City Signs report attached to the memorandum dated 12 November 2018 and titled `Signs Review’ at the May 2019 Planning and Strategy Committee meeting.

Clause 81-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 12.58pm

The meeting resumed at 2.00pm

When the meeting resumed Councillor Jim Jefferies was not present.

When the meeting resumed Councillor Adrian Broad was present.

82-18	Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (WMMP) - Approval for Consultation Report, dated 13 November 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum. Elected Members were of the view that the proposed target of waste diverted from landfill should be increased. It was also recommended to remove both the proposal to reduce the cost of bags and the ban of 240L bins from the consultation. Elected Members requested that the associated Communications Strategy be reported to Council at the end of the month. Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 2.28pm The meeting adjourned at 3.05pm The meeting resumed at 3.32pm When the meeting resumed Councillors Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere were not present.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Leonie Hapeta. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the proposal to reduce the cost of collection bags and the proposal to ban 240L bins be removed from the consultation on the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (WMMP).
	Clause 82-18 above was carried 7 votes to 4, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor. Against: Councillors Duncan McCann, Brent Barrett, Adrian Broad and Vaughan Dennison. Councillor Jim Jefferies entered the meeting at 3.55pm Councillor Bruno Petrenas entered the meeting at 3.57pm
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Karen Naylor. 2. That the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2019 Statement of Proposal, as shown in attachments 1 and 2 combined of the report dated 13 November 2018 and titled `Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (WMMP) – Approval for Consultation’ be deferred to the Council meeting on 19 December 2018. 3. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of minor amendments to the consultation document prior to publication. 4. That the associated Communications Strategy be presented to the Council meeting on 19 December 2018.
	Clauses 82.2-82.4 inclusive above were carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Brent Barrett. 5. That the proposed target of an increase in the proportion of waste diverted from landfill be increased from 6% to 10% by 2024.
	Clause 82.5 above was carried 9 votes to 3, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillors Susan Baty, Lew Findlay QSM and Lorna Johnson. Abstained: Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 4.00pm

Councillor Lew Findlay left the meeting at 4.03pm

83-18	Carbon Emission Inventories Memorandum, dated 19 November 2018 presented by the Acting General Manager - Strategy and Planning, David Murphy. Elected Members requested a report back to Council on the finalised Emissions Management and Reduction Plan.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Vaughan Dennison. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the CEMARS internal carbon audit, and the Palmerston North City carbon emission inventory, as attached to the memorandum titled `Carbon Emission Inventories’ dated 19 November 2018 is received. 2. That the Council’s consequent achievement of CEMARS carbon management certification is noted. 3. That the proposed direction for the development of the ‘Low Carbon Road Map’ consultation is noted.
	Clauses 83.1-83.3 inclusive above were carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Vaughan Dennison. 4. That the Strategic Report on the NZ Energy Certificate System as attached to the memorandum titled `Carbon Emission Inventories’ dated 19 November 2018 is received, and Council note that no further action will be taken regarding the NZ Energy Certificate System.
	Clause 83.4 above was carried 7 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Adrian Broad and Karen Naylor.
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Duncan McCann. 5. That the Chief Executive be instructed to finalise the Emissions Management and Reduction Plan and report back to Council.
	Clause 83.5 above was carried 8 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillor Leonie Hapeta. Abstained: Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

84-18

Late Item - Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg Intersection

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 4.23pm

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back to the Planning and Strategy Committee on all practical options and costings for safety improvements at the Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg intersection following public consultation, prior to a final decision being made on how to proceed.

Clause 84-18 above was carried 9 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

Note: Councillor Lorna Johnson declared an interest in item 84-18 above.

85-18

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 85-18 above was carried 9 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

The meeting finished at 4.34pm

Confirmed 4 February 2019

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 March 2019

TITLE: Six month review of trial allowing dogs on-leash into the Central Business District (CBD)

DATE: 15 January 2019

Presented By: Julie MacDonald, Strategy and Policy Manager, Strategy and Planning

Graeme Gillespie, Head of Environmental Protection Services, Customer

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, General Manager - Strategy & Planning

Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer and Operating Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COMMITTEE

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receives the memorandum titled “six-month review of trial allowing dogs on-leash into the Central Business District (CBD)” dated 15 January 2019.

2. That a report be brought to the 6 May 2019 Planning and Strategy Committee with a recommendation on the dog control status of the CBD.

1. ISSUE

The purpose of this memo is to provide an update report after six months of dogs being allowed into the CBD on a trial basis.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The trial to allow dogs into the CBD/City Centre began on 23 August 2018 when the Dog Control Bylaw 2018 was adopted by Council. The purposes of the 12-month trial are:

· To contribute to City Centre vibrancy and socialisation benefits by allowing people and their companion dogs to enjoy public places.

· To allow Council time to consider options for the future in terms of a permanent dog control status for the CBD/City Centre.

2.2 An analysis over the last four years (based on 12-month period beginning 23 August) shows complaints/calls through the Contact Centre made in relation to dogs in the CBD averaged 25 annually. The majority of these were about roaming dogs or dogs that have been secured by callers.

2.3 Measures of success were developed to evaluate the success of the trial. These measures are:

· Fewer than 25 complaints received through the Contact Centre from CBD businesses and the general public about dog waste, off-leash dogs, unattended dogs, dog attacks (dog/dog; dog/person), long leads (causing tripping etc) and dogs at events.

· General adherence to the bylaw during the trial period.

· Dogs are being brought into the CBD/The Square and owners/dogs are demonstrating responsible behaviour.

· General positive feedback received about the trial.

3. six month update

3.1 Several feedback mechanisms have been used to gather feedback on the trial, including encouraging feedback through Council’s website, the review of dog-related complaints and calls received, regular staff meetings, and observations. A three-month check was carried out through a Facebook poll in November 2018, and a survey was carried out in the CBD in December 2018.

3.1.1 Council Website Feedback Form – As at 14 February 2019, 24 people have made comment via the Council’s website form. This form is accessible throughout the 12‑month trial period. Most comments are positive, with one person commenting that they can walk their dog at night time in the well-lit, safe Square. Another submitter commented that all the dogs seen have been sensible and well controlled and “adds joy to my shopping/lunch/errand running activities!”. Positive interaction with dogs and owners has also been mentioned: “…have had lots of people stop for pats” and a non-dog owner noted it “gives me a chance to pat one”.

Conversely some people consider that the CBD should be kept free from dogs. This is due to concerns about socialising and/or eating in areas where dogs may have urinated or defecated, dog hair flying around, or smelly dogs. No specific incidents have been mentioned in relation to these concerns. One person noted that they do not think dogs in the CBD is a good idea as they are frightened of dogs, and as a result they consider it is off-putting to go into town.

3.1.2 Contact Centre calls and complaints - Since 23 August 2018, and in addition to the feedback collected through Council’s website, there have been 12 phone contacts and one email related to dogs in the CBD. These have related to dogs being off-leash (2), barking (1), unattended (1), on an extendable leash (1), a general comment about removal of dog waste (1), and roaming (7). No complaints have been made since the trial began in relation to specific incidents relating to dog waste, or dogs at events.

3.1.3 Observations - Staff have observed low uptake of dog poo bags and little dog waste needing to be attended to by CBD staff. Vandalism and misuse of the dog poo bags has been insignificant.

3.1.4 PNCC Facebook Poll - The poll opened on 23 November 2018 and attracted over 400 responses, with 77% of respondents saying they felt the trial was ‘going great’, and 23% indicating they were not happy with it. Dogs not being leashed (negative) and the absence of dog poo (positive) were commented on.

PNCC Facebook Poll Results

3.1.5 CBD survey – A face-to-face survey was carried out in December 2018. One hundred and one participants working in or visiting the CBD were surveyed (70% surveyed were business owners/operators and 22% were users or visitors to the CBD). More analysis and commentary on the survey findings are included as Attachment 1. Key findings were:

· 51% of respondents considered the trial is going ‘good’; 24% of respondents either weren’t aware of the trial or didn’t know, or care about it.

· 94% of respondents said that they had not seen any concerning dog, or dog owner, behaviour in the CBD in the last three months (August - November 2018).

· 27% of respondents said that they have seen positive interactions between dogs and people in the last three months.

· General themes raised through comments were:

Ø A fundamental opposition to the need to bring dogs into the CBD;

Ø Support for having dogs in the CBD provided dogs and their owners abide by the rules (on-leash, pick up waste etc.);

Ø Support for only guide or assistance dogs to be allowed in the CBD;

Ø Suggested improvements for the trial such as more signage and requiring all dogs to be muzzled;

Ø Some concerns about dog faeces not being cleaned up;

Ø Clarification on allowing dogs into shops;

Ø Haven’t seen any dogs in the CBD;

Ø Some dogs seen off-leash in the CBD.

4. summary

4.1 Overall, the trial is going well when evaluated against the measures of success criteria, as shown in the table below:

Measure	Comments
Fewer than 25 complaints received through the Contact Centre from CBD businesses and the general public about dog waste, off-leash dogs, unattended dogs, dog attacks (dog/dog; dog/person), long leads (causing tripping etc) and dogs at events.	There have been twelve phone calls through the Call Centre and one email contact regarding dogs in the CBD since the trial began. Most of these contacts relate to roaming dogs.
General adherence to the bylaw during the trial period	No bylaw infringements fines have been issued over this time period.
Dogs are being brought into the CBD/The Square and owners/dogs are demonstrating responsible behaviour.	Observations and feedback collected show most dogs and their owners are visiting the CBD responsibly.
General positive feedback received about the trial.	Most comments received through the various communication channels over the last six months have been positive about the trial.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Based on favourable public feedback the trial will proceed. To avoid the situation where the dog control area for the CBD returns to a prohibited public place on 23 August 2019, a further report on the trial is planned for the 6 May Planning and Strategy Committee. At that time a recommendation on the dog control status of the CBD will be made (through the policy process). This timeframe will allow formal public consultation to take place should Council decide to propose a change to the dog control status of the CBD.

5.2 On-going feedback from the community on the trial is still encouraged via Council’s website form or by contact with Council staff. Staff will continue to meet over the coming months to monitor dog, and dog owner behaviour, in the CBD to evaluate the trial.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		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 recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Safe Community Plan The action is: Achieve compliance with relevant legislation, bylaws, and policies through provision of information, education and enforcement (animal control, building compliance, bylaws, health compliance, liquor licensing, noise control, planning compliance).
Contribution to strategic direction	One of the main reasons for the trial is to allow Council time to consider future options for the permanent dog control status for the CBD/City Centre in the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018 and the Palmerston North Dog Control Bylaw 2018.

Attachments

Feedback received on 12-month trial allowing dogs into the CBD ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 March 2019

TITLE: LGNZ metro sector remit proposals

DATE: 4 February 2019

PRESENTED BY: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager, Strategy and Planning

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, General Manager – Strategy and Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council decides whether to propose the following remit at the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2019: “LGNZ to advocate to the Government for it to provide financial support for the local government online voting trial”.

2. That the Council decides whether to propose the following remit at the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2019: “LGNZ to advocate to the Government to phase out single use polystyrene”.

3. That the Council decides whether to propose the following remit at the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2019: “LGNZ to advocate to the Government to introduce a mandatory product stewardship programme for e-waste”.

1. Introduction

Local Government New Zealand’s Remit Policy offers the opportunity for councils to propose remits that are supported by at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five councils.

The Policy states that:

1) Remits must be relevant to local government as a whole rather than exclusively relevant to a single zone or sector group (or an individual council).

2) Remits should be of a major policy nature (constitutional and substantive policy) rather than matters that can be dealt with by administrative action.

Councillors have the opportunity, therefore, to identify issues which they would like to progress through this process. Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to demonstrate the relevance and importance of the issue.

Councillors were invited to forward proposals and background information for any potential remits to the Strategy and Policy Manager by 8 February 2019. One remit proposal was received from Councillor Barrett and one from Cr Bowen. A third remit is proposed as an outcome of a resolution of Council. This report provides background information on these proposals to inform a Council decision about the next actions.

Proposal One

Following the discussion of the Council’s withdrawal from the online voting trial for the 2019 local elections (December 2018), Councillor Bowen proposed a remit for “LGNZ to advocate to the Government for it to provide financial support for the local government online voting trial”.

Background

The following background was provided to Councillors in a report to the December Council meeting:

The Council had previously agreed to be part of the Online Voting Trial for the 2019 local elections and had allocated $20,000 in its budget. Over the last six months the Council has collaborated with Auckland Council and seven other Councils with a view to jointly trialling online voting for the 2019 local elections, via an Online Voting Trial Working Party. Through that Working Party a procurement process was undertaken and a provider selected to deliver the trial.

Costs for the implementation of the trial for the participating Councils have very recently been determined at $4.2m, of which the Council’s share would have been approximately $400,000.

The Chief Executives of the participating Councils recently recommended that the trial should not proceed for the 2019 local elections because of the associated costs. The Working Party has placed a halt on the trial for the 2019 local elections, but proposes to continue work on the online voting option so that it may be available for the 2022 local elections.

The report to Council identified the cost of the trial as a barrier to it proceeding. This proposal, therefore, is for LGNZ to lobby the Government to provide financial support for the trial to enable it to go ahead.

This remit is consistent with Council’s stated support for online voting as a means to increase participation in the democratic process (Active Community Plan under the Connected and Safe Community Strategy). This proposal also meets both the LGNZ policy requirements.

Proposal Two

The second proposal, put forward by Councillor Barrett, is for “LGNZ to advocate to the Government to phase out single-use polystyrene.”

Background

Expanded polystyrene is bulky and does not break down. While some technologies exist to reduce the bulk of polystyrene prior to landfill, or to recycle it (for example, to make insultation material), these interventions offer only a partial solution to the prevalence of polystyrene. Single-use polystyrene (for example, in food containers) has further contamination issues, meaning that landfill remains the only means of disposal.

Council’s own Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw prohibits the use of polystyrene or Styrofoam containers or cups at events held on Council land or with Council funding. This has encouraged the use of more sustainable substitutes. However, while the Council can control, to some small extent, the use of polystyrene and its disposal (for example, by refusing to collect it), in practice its influence is limited. This is because most of the supply of polystyrene originates outside of the city, and Council has limited ability to ensure it doesn’t end up in the waste stream (for example, it can be inside rubbish bags).

Under section 23(1)(b) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Government is empowered to ban/regulate certain problematic/wasteful products. This provision is currently being used to phase out single-use plastic shopping bags. As with single-use plastic bags, the national regulation of single-use polystyrene products would be more effective in beginning to address their use in the first place, rather than being addressed (as at present) as a city-level waste issue.

This proposal is consistent with the objective in the Waste Plan (under the Eco-City Strategy) to divert a greater proportion of waste from landfill. The remit proposal also meets both of the LGNZ remit policy criteria.

Proposal Three

In November 2018 the Finance and Performance Committee resolved that “That the Chief Executive be instructed to lobby Central Government to introduce a mandatory product stewardship for e-waste diversion.” It is suggested that this resolution is put forward as a remit proposal: “LGNZ to advocate to the Government to introduce a mandatory product stewardship programme for e-waste.”

Background

‘E-waste’ refers to electrical and electronic equipment which enters the waste stream. Most broadly defined, e-waste includes everything that uses electric current, such as computers, phones, and all types of electrical appliances. E-waste can contain toxic substances, posing risk to the environment and human health (Ministry for the Environment. 2014. Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment).

Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Minister for the Environment can declare a product to be a priority product. When this happens, a product stewardship scheme becomes mandatory and the priority product must be managed through accredited product stewardship schemes.

The Government has identified electrical and electronic equipment as one of four priority product groups for interventions supporting product stewardship. To date, however, no products have been designated as priority products by any Minister for the Environment, and thus far only voluntary product stewardship schemes exist in New Zealand.

In January 2018 Hon Eugenie Sage, the Associate Minister for the Environment, confirmed the Government’s intention to consider product stewardship schemes as part of a review of the implementation of the Waste Minimisation Act. There has been no further announcement of progress on this matter.

2. 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 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy
Contribution to strategic direction	The LGNZ remit process provides the opportunity to advocate Council’s position in accordance with its broad strategic direction. Comment about the strategic fit of each remit proposal is provided in the body of the report.

Attachments

NIL

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 March 2019

TITLE: Intersection Improvements Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg

DATE: 4 February 2019

PRESENTED BY: Robert van Bentum, Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council approve implementation of the option 2 safety improvements at the Monrad, Pencarrow and Ronberg intersection, detailed in clause 4.7 of the report titled `Intersection Improvements Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg’ dated 4 February 2019.

2. That Council approve investigation of options for installation of active warning signage to address speeding on Monrad Street, for implementation during the 2019/20 financial year as part of the Council’s Programme 279 Minor Road Projects.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Several crashes at the crossroad intersection of Monrad Street with Pencarrow Street and Ronberg Street have prompted a safety review. A range of solutions were identified ranging from construction of roundabout through to splitter islands and textured road marking. The construction of a roundabout was discounted by Officers due to significant technical constraints and it being cost prohibitive. Two options involved different levels of textured surface treatments and splitter islands were scoped and have been consulted on with local residents. Consultation feedback has indicated strong support for option 2, which comprises more elaborate intersection treatment. This option is also supported by Officers and implementation of this option is now recommended. The safety review and consultation identified a wider issue of excessive speeds on Monrad Street and a further recommendation has been made for investigation and potential installation of active warning signs.
OPTION 1:	Implementation of the option 2 design for intersection improvements, with active warning signage to be investigated and implemented to address speed issues on Monrad Street.
Community Views	The community consultation indicated strong support for option 2. Many submitters also raised concerns about wider speeding issues in their submissions.
Benefits	The selected treatment option will improve enhanced intersection safety for cyclists and pedestrians while also making the intersection more obvious to approaching drivers. Issues of wider excessive speed can be addressed through active warning signs.
Risks	While the risk of crashes will be reduced it is not eliminated however it is expected that the reduction in speed will reduce the severity of injuries resulting from any future crashes.
Financial	Funding for the intersection improvements is available and has been provisionally allocated from within Programme 279. Should the investigation of active warning signs recommend their implementation, funding will be sought to enable physical works to be undertaken in the 2019/20 FY.
OPTION 2:	Implementation of the option 2 intersection improvements, with additional engineered treatments on Monrad Street to force drivers to reduce approach speeds.
Community Views	While consultation has confirmed support for the option 2 intersection improvements, the option of engineered treatments to curb excessive speeds on Monrad Street have not been consulted on.
Benefits	Physical measures will ensure the desired lower operating speeds are achieved on Monrad Street.
Risks	As Monrad Street is a collector road, physical speed calming measures would impact on travel speeds and ease of movement on what is a key collector road. The implementation of speed calming would be a significant departure from Council’s current policy and has the potential to lead to expectations from the community that similar treatments will be provided on other collector roads.
Financial	Engineered treatments costs will be significantly higher than the installation of active warning signage.
OPTION 3:	Installation of a roundabout at the subject intersection
Community Views	The option of a roundabout was not consulted on.
Benefits	Roundabouts can reliably reduce the number and severity of crashes.
Risks	There is residual risk that a roundabout would exacerbate flood risks in the event of a significant flood. Implementation of a roundabout on a key collector road has the potential to lead to expectations from the community that similar treatments will be provided on other collector roads, with significant traffic efficiency and budgetary implications.
Financial	Th estimated cost of a roundabout is about $600,000, which represents 75% of the annual budget for Programme 279. Implementation of this option would require deferral of a significant number of other priority improvement projects.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the City Development Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Strategic Transport Plan The actions are: Improve intersection safety, structural integrity, and traffic flow on primary freight, over-dimension, overweight and emergency service routes with context sensitive design; Apply a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach to network safety, planning and delivery that considers context sensitive design.
Contribution to strategic direction		Improved safety for motor vehicle users and those using other modes, through reduced vehicle speed and improved driver awareness.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The crossroad intersection of Monrad Street with Pencarrow Street and Ronberg Street has experienced in increase in crash numbers, some of which have resulted in injury. Monrad Street is classified as a collector road within the Council’s road hierarchy and caters for both the local residential access as well as providing a through route for the area. Pencarrow and Ronberg Street are local streets and as such cater predominantly for the local access needs of residents. Currently there are give way controls installed on the cross streets, with through movement priority given to Monrad Street.

1.2 Intersections with similar crash patterns have historically been treated with roundabouts, while traffic signals are more typically seen on major arterial roads. At this intersection a roundabout can only be constructed at a significant cost premium due to complications with stormwater secondary flow paths along the road and the need to relocate overhead power supply poles and cables. An alternative approach that looks to improve signage and pavement markings to raise driver awareness of the intersection has been proposed and consulted on and is now recommended for implementation.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The crossroad intersection of Monrad Street with Pencarrow and Ronberg Streets has experienced 13 reported crashes between 2009 and 2018. While most of the crashes have been relatively minor, five of the crashes resulted minor injuries to 7 vehicle occupants. Most crashes involved a driver failing to give way, although 2 of the crashes indicate an inappropriate speed was a contributing factor. There were three reported crashes in 2015 and four in 2017 representing more than 50% of the total crashes recorded since 2009. No crashes were reported in 2018.

2.2 The intersection is governed by priority control signage that gives right of way to Monrad Street traffic. Give way controls face drivers on Pencarrow Street and Ronberg Street. Failure to give way or inadequate checking for traffic are common features of crashes at urban intersections in Palmerston North. Higher level intersection treatments such as roundabouts and traffic signals are a typical response, but these only reduce the number and severity of crashes.

2.3 At the meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee of 3^rd December 2018 the following resolution was passed. This report has been prepared in response to that resolution.

2.3.1 “That the Chief Executive be instructed to report back to the Planning and Strategy Committee on all practical options and costings for safety improvements at the Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg intersection following public consultation, prior to a final decision being made on how to proceed”.

3. Description of options

3.1 Officers have identified three options for treatment of the intersection:

3.2 Construct improvements comprising splitter islands, road marking and textural treatments described as Option 2 in the consultation process supported by investigation and potential implementation of active warning signage on Monrad Street;

3.3 Construct improvements comprising splitter islands, road marking and textural treatments described as Option 2 in the consultation process supported by physical calming treatments on Monrad Street to address speed issues;

3.4 Construct a high cost roundabout solution in line with similar treatments elsewhere on the network and accept a potential increase in localised flood risk associated with the solution.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 To identify options to address an increased incidence of crashes at the Monrad / Pencarrow / Ronberg intersection an safety investigation has been completed. The investigation has identified that the traditional solution of a roundabout is complicated by two issues namely:

· the need to relocate or underground existing overhead power lines and poles which add significantly to the cost of the treatment and

· the presence of a key stormwater overland flood path which would be impacted by any raised structures and lead to an increased risk of stormwater entry to habitable dwellings in the vicinity in a 1 in 100 year event

4.2 Mitigation of these issues will add substantial additional cost to the proposed intersection upgrade.

4.3 Two alternative treatment options comprising combinations of splitter islands and textured road marking both on Monrad Street and at the roundabout were also proposed. These two options were consulted on with the community during December 2018 and January 2019.

4.4 The consultation involved a direct mailout to a small number of residents living in close proximity to the intersection, and wider consultation through an invitation to provide submissions through Council’s website and via facebook. Media coverage of the proposal ensured that feedback was received from local residents and a wider group of interested submitters.

4.5 A total of 9 email submissions were received and 3 additional submissions via the web site. Additionally, 4 people submitted online following the Manawatu Standard article. Of these 16 submissions, 8 identified option 2 as their preferred solution with no-one specifically identifying Option 1 as a preference.

4.6 Of the other issues raised, submitters specifically mentioned the needs of cyclists (5 submitters), pedestrians (5) and general driver behaviour, sightlines etc (5). More significantly there were 10 submitters who raised speed as an issue, particularly with regards to Monrad Street, and 10 submitters raised concerns about undesirable driver behaviour such as burnouts, donuts etc. at or near the intersection. While these latter issues are more enforcement matters, there was clearly an expectation that something should be done to mitigate the issues.

4.7 A concept plan outlining Option 2 is included below. It is this option that Officers recommend be constructed following detailed design and an external safety audit. This design will make the intersection more obvious to approaching drivers and encourage more appropriate speed by narrowing the road lanes. Additional islands and signage will further highlight the existing priority controls while pedestrian paths will be highlighted by textured road surfaces. Low profile pavement treatments will better demarcate areas for cyclists, though larger vehicles may have to encroach into these areas from time to time for certain movements.

4.8 This type of treatment is not widely used on the Palmerston North City network. While the principles of traffic calming are well documented in Council’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy and Guidelines 2003 (LATM Policy), road narrowing is being achieved in this case through textured road surfaces rather than raised islands. The most similar treatment in the city is that installed on the Cuba Street at the intersection with George Street and Taonui Street.

4.9 The above treatment addresses the issues at the intersection, which is where the crashes are occurring. Residents have, however, raised issues of anti-social driving and excessive speed on Monrad Street as significant concerns. Council LATM policy was established in 2003 and generally limits traffic management on collector roads to intersection locations. Mid-block locations are rarely treated on collector roads as these roads are expected to cater for higher volumes of traffic and larger vehicles. It is also considered that mid-block treatment has the potential to impede emergency vehicle access. Treatments such as speed humps or chicanes lower the level of service for such vehicles and are generally precluded by the LATM policy.

4.10 Council’s LATM Policy gives priority to roads with an 85^th percentile speed greater than 55 km/h, i.e. the speed at which 85 percent of vehicles travel below. The most recent traffic count in Monrad Street recorded the 85^th percentile speed at 55.35 km/h and a mean speed at 46.3 km/h indicating that Monrad Street is only just within the priority category.

4.11 Although the speed data indicates Monrad Street is not high priority, there is evidence that excessive speed was a factor is some of the crashes. It is considered that there is justification for treatment of the intersection from a traffic management and safety perspective. The key uncertainty is to what extent the intersection treatment will address the mid-block speed behaviour among drivers.

4.12 As noted above, Council’s LATM Policy precludes chicanes or speed humps in collector roads. Any such treatments would require a further public consultation process as these are beyond the scope of the intersection treatment. The LATM Policy requires a high level of community acceptance for speed humps or chicanes before implementation. Officers propose that following completion of the intersection improvements, that further speed data be collected to measure the treatment effectiveness at reducing speeds before further consideration is given to additional works.

4.13 If speeds have not been sufficiently reduced and further action is desired, Officers propose investigating the option of installing active warning signage. Council has recently purchased two “speed indicator” signs which measure a vehicle’s speed and displays the message “Slow Down” when a set speed threshold is exceeded.

4.14 A similar system has been operated on Napier Road (State Highway 3) near Memorial Park for some years by the New Zealand Transport Agency. Evidence from other jurisdictions is that such signage does moderate driver speeds as they approach the sign. If appropriately located such signs would be expected to moderate intersection approach speeds. Coupled with the intersection changes this is expected to be effective at improving safety at the intersection while also reducing the incidence of inappropriate speed behaviour. Speed indicators also collect data on driving speeds, allowing data to be shared with enforcement personnel at Police.

4.15 Installation of speed indicators would not breach the provisions of the LATM Policy and would not require consultation as they are not a physical impediment to drivers and do not affect the level of service on the road. Arguably, they will mainly influence compliant drivers. It is, however, expected that they will achieve a lowering of mean and 85^th percentile speeds at the intersection and would thus contribute to improved community safety.

4.16 Council’s resolution from December 3^rd 2018 seeks information on costings for all practical options. The concept design for Option 2 consulted on with the community has an estimated cost of $80,000 inclusive of final design, contract supervision and a safety audit. This compares with the estimated cost of $600,000 for the roundabout solution. Textured pavement markings will wear and more frequent remarking will need to be provided for in operational budgets. These costs are estimated to be at least $40,000 with remarking required every 3-4 years.

4.17 Installation of speed indicators active warning signage is expected to cost approximately $40,000 for two signs, allowing for permanent mountings and easy access to power supply. Maintenance costs are expected to be minimal.

4.18 The total estimated cost for the two components of the works is expected to be approximately $120,000 and would be funded from the Council’s Minor Works Programme 279. The current year’s budget is largely committed to College Street Cycle Lane improvements this year, however there is budget to complete final design and a safety audit and make a start on the construction works, with completion in the 2019-20 year.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Ongoing crash problems at the crossroad intersection of Monrad Street with Pencarrow and Ronberg Streets have prompted a safety review. The conventional treatment of a roundabout is complicated by potential impacts on stormwater overland flow paths resulting in increased flooding risks and the existence of overhead power lines and poles resulting in significant increases in the cost. Two alternative surface treatment options for the road has been consulted on that involve splitter islands, textured surface treatments, additional markings and more signage. The community expressed support for option 2 in submissions received.

5.2 Consultation highlighted additional concerns in respect of excessive speed and anti-social driving behaviour particularly on Monrad Street, which is a collector road and as such has been designed to provide a higher level of service than the local road network. It is proposed to manage speed through the installation of active warning signage at the intersection approaches. Physical impediments such as chicanes and speed humps are considered unnecessary based on the speed data, and inappropriate given the classification as a collector road. There is also concern that provided such treatments will raise expectations for similar treatment on other collector roads around the city.

6. Next actions

6.1 If approved by Council staff will complete detailed design of an intersection treatment in line with the option 2 presented to the community. Investigation of appropriate active warning signage will also be initiated. Installation works would be initiated in the current financial year and completed in the 2019-20 year from Programme 279.

6.2 If instead of active speed signs, there is a preference for engineered speed solutions such as speed humps or chicanes to be installed on Monrad Street, develop of concept designs, followed by further consultation would be required.

6.3 If Council wish to consider the roundabout option which has been discounted by Officers, significant further investigation of flooding risks and mitigation and planning for undergrounding of power lines as well as a safety audit of the design concept would need to be undertaken. Any construction work would not be expected to start for 12-18 months.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Council undertook limited consultation through a mailout to residents immediately adjacent to the intersection. This was considered appropriate given that the neighbouring residents are those most directly impacted by the crashes that have been occurring and will be affected by the proposed changes which may include parking restrictions. The wider community was made aware of the proposed changes through Council’s web site, facebook and a media article in the Manawatu Standard. Only a small number of submissions were made but there was clear support for changes to address the crash incidence and the wider speed issues on Monrad Street. Submissions were received from 16 parties, with 8 of these indicating support for option 2.

Compliance and administration

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
The proposed solutions comply with Council’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy and Guidelines. Physical structures to curb speed on Monrad Street would not comply with the policy, however, and would require specific consultation before a decision was made to install them.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 4 March 2019

TITLE: Housing Steering Group: Scope of the Terms of Reference

DATE: 20 February 2019

Presented By: David Murphy, City Planning Manager, Strategy and Planning

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, General Manager - Strategy & Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Scope of the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference include the total housing continuum from insecure housing / homelessness through to private market (rental and ownership)

That the Scope of the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference is informed by the Connected Community Strategy and City Development Strategy.

1. ISSUE

Clarification is required on the scope of the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference.

2. BACKGROUND

Following the presentation of Manawatu Quarterly Economic Monitor and June 2018 National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity Report at the 10 December 2018 Economic Development Committee, the following resolution was passed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 10 December 2018:

That the Chief Executive be instructed to form a “Housing Steering Group” to advance housing at all levels in the city with a vision of increasing the city’s overall housing stock.

Elected members noted there was an urgency to consider housing concerns in Palmerston North and that a steering group would be the best way to get a full assessment.

The housing continuum is broader than the role defined by Council within the Connected Community Strategy and City Development Strategy. Clarification is therefore required on the scope of the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference.

The Government housing continuum includes:

The Connected Community Strategy provides the following direction:

Council will continue to advocate on the issues that can contribute to good housing outcomes. The need for housing for the most vulnerable people in the community is not an issue that the Council can address on its own. It will work with community partners, such as Te Tihi, to develop comprehensive and caring responses to housing needs. Council’s role will include the direct provision of housing, as well as advocacy and support for the efforts of others.

The City Development Strategy provides the following direction:

Council’s main role is to make sure land and infrastructure are available to accommodate growth and provide market choice while responding to changing demographics. The private sector provides new housing in Palmerston North. Council will work closely with developers to co-create new housing opportunities, such as the proposed Hokowhitu Residential Area at Centennial Drive.

Council also needs to be mindful that the Papaioea Housing Alliance Charter (Housing Alliance) was formed in 2018 and has the following vision:

By 2028, the Housing Alliance has contributed towards a wider range of affordable housing options, improving support and engagement at all levels, helping more whānau to realise their housing aspirations and improving self-empowerment and positivity. Our communities are safer and healthier than ten years ago, higher levels of social consciousness prevail, socio-economic status and community participation has improved, community sustainability and resilience is higher than it has been achieved and our whānau have achieved Whānau Ora

The inaugural members of the Housing Alliance are:

• Te Tihi o Ruahine Whanau Ora Charitable Trust Alliance

• Housing New Zealand Corporation;

• Palmerston North City Council;

• Ministry of Social Development;

• Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated; and

• Emerge Aotearoa.

The Chief Executive represents Palmerston North City Council on the Housing Alliance. Councillor Baty, as Lead Councillor for the Housing Portfolio, and the General Manager, Strategy and Planning also represent Council on housing groups associated with the Alliance. They provide a key connection to the wider activity occurring at a cross-agency level to address housing issues facing the City across the continuum.

A copy of the Papaioea Housing Alliance Charter is attached as Appendix A.

3. NEXT STEPS

Confirm the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference based on Council’s direction.

4. Compliance and administration

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
The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City and Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community.
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the City Development Strategy and Connected Community Strategy.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Housing and Future Development Plan and Social Housing Plan. The actions are: Monitor supply and demand of urban development, advocate to central Government for an increased contribution to social housing in the city and deliver council housing to people with the greatest need.
Contribution to strategic direction	The Housing and Future Development Plan directs that Council be much more responsive in how it provides land for housing and supports a greater choice of housing choice. The Social Housing Plan seeks to meet the housing needs of people with the greatest needs.

Attachments

Appendix A: Papaioea Housing Alliance Charter ⇩

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