Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

1 April 2019

Order of Business

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

- Community Development Committee

- Planning and Strategy 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. Submissions - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 Page 7

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 11

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 4 March 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

7. Summary of Submissions to the 2019 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Page 19

Memorandum, dated 14 March 2019 presented by the Waste Management Manager, Stewart Hay.

8. Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - approval for consultation Page 31

Report, dated 14 March 2019 presented by the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie MacDonald.

9. Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Page 93

Memorandum, dated 11 March 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.

10. Emissions Management and Reduction Plan Page 149

Memorandum, dated 15 March 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.

11. Rural School Bus Safety Page 167

Report, dated 14 March 2019 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

12. Conference Opportunity - Institute of Directors: "Board Dynamics" Page 225

13. Committee Work Schedule Page 232

14. 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), Sandra King (Executive Officer) 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 04 March 2019, commencing at 9.02am

Members

Present:

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

Non Members:

Councillors Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM and Leonie Hapeta.

Apologies:

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke

Councillor Lew Findlay left the meeting at 9.30am during the conclusion of clause 2. He entered the meeting again at 9.31am after the conclusion of clause 2. He was not present for clause 2.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 12.10pm during the conclusion of clause 7. She was present when the meeting resumed at 1.29pm. She was not present for clause 7.

1-19

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 1-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

2-19

Public Comment

The following people appeared before the Committee and made public comment:

- Paul Godbaz regarding the CBD dog trial. Mr Godbaz supported allowing dogs into the CBD and he had not encountered any issues during the trial.

- Barbara Thomas regarding the Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg intersection. Ms Thomas was concerned about the Council proposal and believed a roundabout was needed.

- Gary Helm regarding the Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg intersection. Mr Helm urged Council to have a roundabout at the intersection.

Councillor Lew Findlay left the meeting at 9.30am

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the public comment be received for information.

Clause 2-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Councillor Lew Findlay entered the meeting at 9.31am

3-19

Deputation - Manawatū River Source to Sea

Heike Schiele and Alastair Cole made a Deputation regarding the project “Manawatu River Source to Sea.”

Environment Network Manawatu (ENM) were focused on communication, coordination and networking, and the Source to Sea project was the next step in taking collective action. ENM were seeking inclusion of the Manawatu River Source to Sea in Council’s strategic planning and policy work to engage with the community and collaborate on leveraging new funding for the city and region. The objectives of the project aligned with the City’s vision and goals and there were lots of opportunities including Palmy’s Plastic Pollution challenge and Te Apiti UNESCO Geopark.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive the deputation for information.

Clause 3-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

4-19

Presentation - Ben Foster

Ben Foster made a presentation to the Committee regarding a new flag for Palmerston North. The Palmerston North flag was unrecognisable from a distance and a proposed new flag was presented to Elected Members that included the green ranges overlooking the city, the City’s two streams and Manawatu River, and the Manawatu plains. A well designed flag improved the civic identity of the City and was a universal symbol of community.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive the presentation for information.

Clause 4-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

5-19

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. 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.

Clause 5-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

6-19

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

Memorandum, dated 15 January 2019 presented by the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie MacDonald.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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.

Clause 6-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

7-19	Intersection Improvements Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg Report, dated 4 February 2019 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum. Elected Members were of the view that option 3 of the report should be implemented rather than option 2 and requested further information regarding priority intersections across the city. It was recommended money from other programmes be used to fund the undergrounding of power cables at the intersection.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Tangi Utikere. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That Council approve implementation of the option 3 safety improvements at the Monrad, Pencarrow and Ronberg intersection, detailed in clause 6.3 of the report titled `Intersection Improvements Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg’ dated 4 February 2019.
	Clause 7.1 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Tangi Utikere. 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.
	Clause 7.2 above was carried 12 votes to 2, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett and Bruno Petrenas.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Tangi Utikere. 3. That $200,000 from programme 829 and 713 be used to fund undergrounding of power cables at Monrad/Pencarrow/Ronberg intersection.
	Clause 7.3 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Karen Naylor. Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 12.10pm
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Rachel Bowen. 4. That the Committee requests a further report to the Planning and Strategy Committee outlining priority intersections across the city and what safety treatments are planned.
	Clause 7.4 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Note: Councillor Lorna Johnson declared an interest in item 7 above.

The meeting adjourned at 12.12pm

The meeting resumed at 1.29pm

When the meeting resumed Councillor Leonie Hapeta was present.

8-19	LGNZ metro sector remit proposals Memorandum, dated 4 February 2019 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the Council proposes 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”.
	Clause 8.1 above was carried 11 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Lew Findlay QSM and Lorna Johnson.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor. 2. That the Council proposes the following remit at the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2019: “LGNZ to advocate to the Government to phase out single use polystyrene”.
	Clause 8.2 above was carried 13 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Lew Findlay QSM.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor. 3. That the Council proposes 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”.
	Clause 8.3 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

9-19

Housing Steering Group: Scope of the Terms of Reference

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

Elected Members were of the view that further information was needed before the report could be considered.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Susan Baty.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the item be left to lie on the table until the next Planning and Strategy Committee meeting.

Clause 9-19 above was carried 11 votes to 3, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Against:

Councillors Rachel Bowen, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.

10-19

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated March 2019.

Clause 10-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 1.47pm

Confirmed 1 April 2019

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 1 April 2019

TITLE: Summary of Submissions to the 2019 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

DATE: 14 March 2019

Presented By: Stewart Hay, Waste Management Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the summary of submissions on the 2019 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan be received.

1. ISSUE

1.1 This memorandum presents a summary of the submissions that were received by the Palmerston North City Council in response to its consultation on the 2019 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

1.2 The Statement of Proposal (which included the 2019 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan) was released to the public for comment on 14 January 2019. Written submissions closed on 1 March 2019. 53 submissions were received, with 17 submitters indicating they wish to speak to their submissions.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 19 December 2018, Council approved for public consultation the 2019 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

2.2 Copies of the Plan were distributed to the Central Library, branch libraries, Youth Space, Awapuni Resource Recovery Park, Ashhurst Transfer Station and Ferguson Street Recycling Centre. It was also placed on the website along with a summary document, submission form and the supporting waste assessment.

2.3 Copies of the consultation document were also provided directly to identified key stakeholders including:

· Rangitāne o Manawatū

· Private Waste Contractors

· Ruahine Kindergarten Association

· Registered Master Builders

2.4 Copies of the summary document were provided directly to:

· Education Sector (schools and early childcare centres)

· Construction Sector

2.5 Other methods to promote the consultation process for the plan included:

· Social media posting

· Radio advertising

· Staff attended some of the movie in parks nights held recently

· Provided an educational poster in both English and Te Reo to Rangitāne o Manawatū and the education sector

This poster was also downloadable on Council’s website. Print advertising was placed in the Guardian.

3. Overview and Summary of submissions

3.1 53 written submissions were received. The attached report (Attachment 1) provides a brief summary of the key issues and themes on which submitters have commented. However, the full submissions should be reviewed for context and supporting information.

3.2 Summary of the informal interactions through social media, the movie park nights and visits to the consultation page are outlined below.

3.3 Social Media posts received a good amount of interaction. There were multiple comments asking for a green waste collection service and suggestions council could do it more affordably than a private collector. The same comments were made about waste, with calls for council to run the rubbish collection. There were also requests for more recycling bins in the CBD.

3.4 Just over 500 people visited the consultation page on the council website. The average time spent on the page was four and half minutes, which is quite long. This means they were coming to the website to find information, read the waste assessment or download the submission form.

3.5 Staff attended three of the movie park nights, resulting in a total of 14 direct interactions.

3.6 Ministry for the Environment staff were advised that the plan was out for consultation – no submission or comment has been received from the MFE.

3.7 Deliberations on submissions are scheduled to be held during the June Planning and Strategy Committee meeting. At that meeting, an officer report will be presented outlining recommendations in respect of the submissions received, along with any recommended changes to draft plan. It is anticipated that the Committee will make recommendations to the Council in respect of the plan, for adoption by the Council on 24 June 2019.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual. Clause 168		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 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Waste Plan The action is: Review the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Contribution to strategic direction	Contributes to the development of future options to assist with the planning and direction for the Waste Activity

Attachments

Summary of Submissions ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 1 April 2019

TITLE: Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - approval for consultation

DATE: 14 March 2019

PRESENTED BY: Julie MacDonald, Strategy and Policy Manager, Strategy and Planning

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

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Committee determines that the form of the draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Administration Manual (contained in attachment 1) is, subject to the outcome of public consultation, considered to be the most appropriate form of bylaw.

2. That the Committee confirms that it has considered the draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Administration Manual and determines that it does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. That the Statement of Proposal (including the draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Administration Manual) and Summary of Information, as shown in attachments 1 and 2 be approved for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure in accordance with S86 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of any minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal prior to publication.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Proposed changes to the Wastewater Bylaw have been identified to support the development of a policy on Pressure Sewer Systems. These changes are being proposed as part of an early review of the Wastewater Bylaw.
OPTION 1:	Approve the Statement of Proposal, including the draft Wastewater Bylaw and Administration Manual, for public consultation.
Community Views	Key stakeholders were invited to make comment on the current bylaw as part of the review process. Those views have been considered and some additional changes to the draft Bylaw have been proposed as a result.
Benefits	Reviewing the Bylaw to accommodate pressure sewer systems gives the Council more flexibility to develop the public wastewater system to respond to different environments. Reviewing the Bylaw at this point also fulfils Council’s obligation to review the Bylaw within five years of its initial adoption. Council will not be required to do a further review of the Bylaw until 2029.
Risks	If there are delays during the public consultation process, a final decision could be delayed until after the Council elections in October. Convention is for the elected members who hear submissions to be those who make the final decision. If the consultation process cannot be completed before October 2019, then the Council may need to re-consult in 2020.
Financial	The cost of consultation as planned can be met within current budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation.
Community Views	Communication with key stakeholders has been based on the review of the Bylaw proceeding in 2019. If a decision is made to defer the process, then staff would contact key stakeholders to advise them that the review has been delayed.
Benefits	There are no particular benefits identified.
Risks	If the Bylaw review is delayed or deferred, then Council may lack the tools to mandate the use of pressure sewer systems in those areas where such systems should be mandatory.
Financial	No financial costs have been identified.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Three Waters Plan The action is: Adopt a pressure sewer policy for the City, supported by revisions to the Wastewater Bylaw (by end of 2018/2019)
Contribution to strategic direction		The development of a pressure sewer policy was identified as part of the Three Waters Plan, along with consequent changes to the Wastewater Bylaw to support the implementation of that policy. Conducting consultation on the draft Bylaw and Administration Manual will contribute to the completion of this action in the identified timeframe.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 In October 2018 the Planning and Strategy Committee approved the draft Pressure Sewer Systems Policy for consultation. The Council adopted the Policy in December 2018.

1.2 Reviewing the Wastewater Bylaw at this time gives Council the opportunity to incorporate changes arising from the development of the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, to ensure that the policy implementation is supported by appropriate regulation.

1.3 By reviewing the Wastewater Bylaw in 2019, the Council has satisfied its obligation to review the Bylaw within five years of its initial adoption. It will not be required to review the Bylaw again until 2029, unless it chooses to do so earlier.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The Three Waters Plan, adopted in 2018 as part of the Council’s Strategic Direction, identified the development of a Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, with consequent changes to the Wastewater Bylaw to support the implementation of that policy.

2.2 The Council adopted the Wastewater Bylaw in May 2017. This was a new bylaw, and therefore it is required to be reviewed within five years of adoption, and thereafter every 10 years.

2.3 A bylaw review begins with a determination by the Council under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002. This is a determination that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems. The Planning and Strategy Committee determined at the 5 November 2018 meeting that a bylaw was the most appropriate way of addressing the issues related to the wastewater system, that a standalone bylaw was the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that a wastewater bylaw was unlikely to give rise to implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. These determinations are reviewed in section 4 of this report.

3. Description of options

3.1 The first option is to approve the Statement of Proposal (including the draft Wastewater Bylaw and Administration Manual) for public consultation. This would involve sending the consultation documents to the identified stakeholders, publicly advertising the proposal to the general public, and inviting submissions.

3.2 The second option is to not approve the Statement of Proposal. Unless the Council provided other instructions, work on the review of the Wastewater Bylaw would stop. This would significantly limit the effectiveness of the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy that Council recently adopted.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 The recommended option is to approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation. The scope of the proposed changes have a clear driver through the development of the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, which gives the Council greater flexibility to accommodate different types of wastewater systems in different environmental conditions. The early review of the Bylaw provides an opportunity to incorporate these proposed changes alongside a wider review of the Bylaw’s operation since adoption. By completing the review in 2019, the Council will not be required to review the Bylaw again until 2029. This will help to stagger the due dates of other bylaw reviews, allowing the workload to be better managed within current resources.

4.2 In addition to the changes related to pressure sewer systems, a small number of changes have been made in response to feedback from key stakeholders. One in particular relates to policy changes made to the Subdivision section of the District Plan through Plan Change 15, whereby reticulated network services could be extended to properties in the rural-residential overlay where it is in the economic interest of the City and won’t compromise the efficient functioning of the city infrastructure networks. As a result, the draft Bylaw includes a revised clause 5.4 which permits applications for service connections where the property is in the rural residential overlay, and is subject to a subdivision consent on the basis that the property will receive access to the public wastewater system.

4.3 Officers do not recommend option two. If the Statement of Proposal is not approved for public consultation, then this effectively stops work on the review of the Wastewater Bylaw. The current Bylaw does not make provision for mandating the use of pressure sewer systems in identified places within the City, which will significantly limit the effectiveness of the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy which the Council adopted in December 2018.

4.4 The Committee determined in December 2018 that a bylaw was the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, that a standalone bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that a wastewater bylaw is unlikely to give rise to implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. With the preparation of a draft Wastewater Bylaw, officers can confirm that these determinations remain valid. Particularly, the draft Wastewater Bylaw as presented is not likely to give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. The report includes recommendations that confirm these determinations made in November 2018.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The recommended course of action is to approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation. This will enable the community and key stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed changes.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Statement of Proposal is approved for public consultation then officers will prepare the consultation documents and distribute them to identified key stakeholders and to access points at the Customer Service Centre, the central and branch libraries, and on the website.

6.2 The period for written submissions would be from 13 April until 20 May 2019. This is longer than the required one month, allowing for the occurrence of public holidays during the consultation period.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The following stakeholders have been identified as having a particular interest in the majority of the changes being proposed, given the largely technical nature of those changes:

· Approved service contractors

· Architects

· Engineering consultants

· Property developers

· Surveyors

These identified key stakeholders will be contacted directly and provided with a copy of the consultation document and invited to make a written submission. They will also be offered to opportunity to receive a presentation by Council officers on the proposed changes, and to discuss the impact of those changes.

7.2 Officers will also engage with Rangitāne through the bi-monthly engagement meetings. A presentation on the proposed changes will be given, with an opportunity to discuss the impact of those changes. Officers will record any feedback received from this presentation, and will also encourage Rangitāne to make a written submission if they choose to do so.

7.3 The consultation document will be made publicly available on the Council website and through the Customer Service Centre and central and branch libraries. A public notice will be placed in the Manawatū Standard and Guardian newspapers to advertise the consultation process, and written submissions sought.

7.4 Hearings for oral submissions are planned to be held at the June meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee. A report outlining officer advice in respect of submissions received, together with a draft Bylaw and Administration Manual for adoption, is planned for the August meeting of the Committee. If adopted by the Council in August, the Bylaw would come into effect on 30 September 2019.

Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

1.	Statement of Proposal - Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Administration Manual ⇩
2.	Summary of Information - Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Administration Manual ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 1 April 2019

TITLE: Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan

DATE: 11 March 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 Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan is endorsed to inform future Council decision making, in particular the 2021 Long Term Plan process.

2. That it be noted that an addendum or further testing of the Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan may be required in the event that:

a) The Council determines that alternative locations for the Palmerston North Central Library building should be assessed as part of the options analysis for addressing the seismic performance of the building.

b) A spatial needs analysis of the Te Manawa 2025 project identifies the need for a larger building than that assumed within the Masterplan.

3. That it be noted that future decision making processes, including the 2021 Long Term Plan, will enable further public consultation and direct engagement with key stakeholders on the Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan.

4. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan.

1. ISSUE

A Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan (CCPM) has been prepared to provide direction to private development interests, the Te Manawa 2025 project, earthquake prone building issues and Council’s aspiration to be an arts powerhouse.

Endorsing the CCPM allows it to be used to inform future Council decision making, in particular the 2021 Long Term Plan, and direct engagement with interested stakeholders.

A copy of the CCPM is attached as Appendix A.

2. BACKGROUND

The executive summary of the CCPM describes the project as a new plan for Palmerston North’s Cultural Precinct is proposed that aligns with broader Council strategy and delivers an aspirational, vibrant and attractive civic and cultural destination for the city.

Te Manawa 2025

The Te Manawa 2025 proposition was presented to Council in March 2018 and subsequently resulted in a $15M (2018 Long Term Plan, excluding inflation) contribution being included in the 2018 Long Term Plan. Further work is now occurring on a business case and spatial needs analysis to determine the size of building that is required.

As noted in the recommendations, an addendum or further testing of the CCPM may be required in the event that a spatial needs analysis of the Te Manawa 2025 project identifies the need for a larger building than that assumed within the Masterplan.

Private Development Interests

There have been private development interests in Council owned land in the CCPM area. It is important there is a guiding Masterplan to inform future negotiations. The CCPM will also be useful for informing resource consent processes.

Palmerston North Central Library

While the Palmerston North Central Library is within the CCPM area, the intention was that this was more about how the Library connects with the wider Civic and Cultural Precinct. The seismic performance issues of the Library building emerged late in the development of the CCPM.

As noted in the recommendations, an addendum or further testing of the CCPM may be required in the event that the Council determines that alternative locations for the Palmerston North Central Library building should be assessed as part of the options analysis for addressing the seismic performance of the building.

Earthquake Prone Buildings

There are a series of Council owned earthquake prone buildings within the CCPM area that will require investment in the future, including the Civic Administration Building, Council Chambers and Te-Manawa building.

Arts Powerhouse

Priority 3 of the Creative and Liveable Strategy is to develop the City into an arts powerhouse with a national reputation for creativity and the arts. The CCPM is a catalyst project in that regard.

Housing Development

The City Development Strategy signals the intention of Council to invest to address housing supply issues. The initial focus is the Council owned land in the Whakarongo Residential Area. The CCPM provides further long term opportunities to partner with external parties to deliver residential development opportunities in the city centre.

Methodology

The CCPM has been prepared by an experienced multi-disciplinary team comprising Council officers and consultants. The methodology follows best-practice for the development of a masterplan and includes extensive information and analysis on understanding the place before developing the response.

Consultation

The majority of the land affected by the CCPM is Council owned. While there has been no broad public consultation, direct engagement has occurred with key stakeholders including Rangitane, Te Manawa, the Globe and internal Council stakeholders at the Library and Venues.

As noted in the recommendations, future decision making processes, including the 2021 Long Term Plan, will enable further public consultation and direct engagement with key stakeholders on the Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan.

In time, Council will engage with private landowners and private development interests to discuss potential opportunities presented within the CCPM. The CCPM provides clear expectations to the market regarding Council’s expectations in the precinct.

Costs

Detailed costs for delivering the CCPM have not been prepared. The CCPM will need to be delivered over a long time period through a variety of funding sources. The CCPM projects will also need to be carefully weighed up by Council against other competing priorities as part of future Long Term Plans. Detailed costs will need to be prepared to inform future decision making.

Options

The alternative option to that recommended is to respond to the various initiatives detailed in the CCPM on a case-by-case basis. This option is unlikely to secure the broader aspirational outcomes the Council is seeking for the civic and cultural precinct.

3. NEXT STEPS

The CCPM describes the following phases:

Early Phase

- The Council endorses the Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan.

- Council connect with affected and interested private interests.

- Complete Spatial Needs Assessment of Te-Manawa.

- Assess whether the results of the Spatial Needs Assessment of Te-Manawa requires further testing of the Civic and Cultural Precinct Plan Masterplan.

- Determine priorities to inform 2021 Long Term Plan process.

- Incorporate priorities into Asset Management Plans.

- Confirm priorities within 2021 Long Term Plan process.

Medium Phase

- Conference and Function Centre.

- Te Manawa.

- Rangitāne Cultural Centre.

- Streetscapes as required.

Longer Phase

- Mixed Use and Residential.

- Hotel.

- Streetscapes as required.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy and City Development Strategy.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Arts Plan, Urban Design Plan, Housing and Future Development Plan and City Centre Plan. The actions are: · Provide a resilient and cutting edge space(s) for Te Manawa that is fit for the purpose of housing and displaying arts, heritage, Toi Māori and treasures, and science public assets. · Develop part of the city as an arts precinct or centre for the arts. · Provide Urban Design support to Council officers on Council-led projects. · Increased mixed-use development incorporating new forms of housing. · The city centre contributes positively to the perception of Palmerston North
Contribution to strategic direction	Priority 3 of the Creative and Liveable Strategy is to develop the City into an arts powerhouse with a national reputation for creativity and the arts. The CCPM is a catalyst project in that regard. Priority 1 of the City Development Strategy is to create and enable opportunities for employment and growth.

Attachments

Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 1 April 2019

TITLE: Emissions Management and Reduction Plan

DATE: 15 March 2019

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMITTEE

1. That the Palmerston North City Council’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (2018/2019) is received.

2. That the preliminary results of the 2016/17 and 2017/18 Emissions Inventory as detailed in the “Emissions Management and Reduction Plan” report dated 15 March 2019 are noted.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 03 December 2019 recommended:

“That the Chief Executive be instructed to finalise the Emissions Management and Reduction Plan and report back to Council.”

The Emissions Management and Reduction Plan (2018/19) is attached. This plan draws from the actions in the Eco City Strategy and associated plans.

1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories for the 2016-17, 17-18 financial years have been provisionally completed. These will not be externally audited until later this month. However, initial analysis suggests Council’s total emissions have fallen by 14% since the 2015/16 baseline.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 03 December 2018, officers presented to Planning and Strategy Committee the audited 2015/16 Emissions Inventory Report. The inventory provides a baseline against which to compare future activity, and measure Council’s progress in achieving its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The inventory was a critical step in Council’s participation in the ‘Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme’ (CEMARS). The Committee recommended that a related document: the operationally focused ‘Emissions Management and Reduction Plan’ (EMRP), be reported to Council in 2019.

2.2 The 2018/19 EMRP (attached) was compiled in 2017 for the purposes of CEMARS accreditation. The actions in this version are drawn entirely from actions in the Council’s strategic plans, or in some cases actions subsidiary to these, e.g. trialling the reduction of mowing frequency in Ahimate Reserve, as part of the goal of retaining its “sense of wilderness”. As such, it can be viewed more as a record of actions agreed elsewhere.

2.3 An updated EMRP, expected to last until the end of the current long term plan cycle (i.e. till 30 June 2021) is currently being drafted. This updated EMRP is expected to build upon its previous iteration by also including actions resulting from the ‘sustainable practices’ theme across Council’s strategies. That is, to have a broader focus incorporating emissions reduction effects across all of Council’s activities. The updated EMRP is expected to be available early in the second half of this calendar year.

2.4 The internal emissions inventory is conducted annually, and developing a comprehensive account of the organisation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The preliminary results of 2016/17 & 2017/18 financial year inventories are:

· Total emissions have fallen from 33,700 tonnes CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) in the 2015/16 baseline to 28,900 tCO2e in 2017/18, a 14% reduction.

· Non-landfill emissions have fallen from 7100 tCO2e to 5600 tCO2e over the same period, a 21% reduction.

· The largest reduction at the Awapuni Landfill, dropping some 3000tCO2e/yr, as the landfill continues to mature naturally. Note that there is no evidence to suggest that waste related emissions have fallen during the period, only that Council no longer accounts for the emissions of municipal waste generated since Awapuni Landfill’s closure in 2007.

· Following the landfill, the largest emission reductions were:

o A reduction of ~1,100 tCO2e/yr at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, due to process improvements at the co-gen plant, which now utilises gas generated at the adjacent closed landfill

o A reduction of ~200 tCO2e/yr so far due to the ongoing LED streetlight upgrade programme

o A reduction of ~50 tCO2e/yr at the Lido Aquatic Centre, following the implementation of the recommendations of a 2017 energy audit of the facility

2.5 A chart of the depicting the preliminary inventory results, limited to non-landfill related emissions (but including emissions resulting from waste generated at Council facilities), is included below.

Figure 1 PNCC Non-Landfill Emissions Inventory – 2015/16 - 2017/18 (preliminary results)

3. NEXT STEPS

a) Continue to update the PNCC emissions inventory yearly.

b) Continue development of the Emissions Management and Reduction Plan for the period 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2021, drawing more heavily from the ‘sustainable practices’ strategic theme.

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 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Sustainable Practices Plan The action is: · Develop a road map to achieving a low carbon city
Contribution to strategic direction	Attached emission management and reduction plan collates Council’s initial actions contributing towards the Eco City goal of a 25% emissions reduction by 2028.

Attachments

2018-19 Emissions Management and Reduction Plan ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 1 April 2019

TITLE: Rural School Bus Safety

DATE: 14 March 2019

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

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council receive the report titled “School Transport Infrastructure Review” dated 18 January 2019.

2. That Council confirm Option 2 comprising improvement and enhancement of current practice and focussing on implementing low cost interventions within current budget limits, as the appropriate approach for ensuring safety issues on school bus routes are addressed.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Council asked for an assessment of the relationship between the safety of the Ministry of Education’s school bus service and Council’s footpath network. School buses generally provide a service to rural areas, often using the state highway corridor or travelling to locations beyond the city boundaries. Current practice is to respond to requests for safety improvement on a case by case basis usually by investing in localised widening of the road. A report has been prepared by external consultants which provide a series of recommendations to improve interventions and responsiveness. A decision is required from Council on whether to adopt the recommendations or invest in a higher level of intervention. Three options for action by Council have been identified.
OPTION 1:	Council receive the report and commit to no change to current practice.
Community Views	The community has not been consulted on the options to improve school bus safety at this stage.
Benefits	This option represents a business as usual approach. Requests for improvements to rural bus stop locations are infrequent but are addressed as they arise. Any non-infrastructure related improvements are referred to other stakeholder agencies i.e. Horizons Regional Council or Ministry of Education. Given the “rare” nature of any injuries directly attributable to school bus travel, any increase in the level of service is difficult to justify.
Risks	Even though these events are rare, injuries to children using buses can receive negative publicity and efforts to reduce injuries are the critical thrust of a safe systems approach. The deliberate decision not to adopt any of the recommendations of the report could be perceived negatively as Council dis-interest in school bus safety.
Financial	As none of the recommendation of the assessment report are proposed for adoption, there will be no funding implications for Council in adopting this option.
OPTION 2:	Council receive the report and approve implementation of all the recommendations from the report to enhance and improve current practice through implementation of cost effective solutions to reduce risks for school bus users.
Community Views	While the community has not been consulted on the options to improve bus safety at this stage, key stakeholders were consulted in the preparation of the assessment report.
Benefits	This option enables adoption of all of the recommendations in the report while being responsible about the level of investment. This option balances expectations of improving safety with prioritisation of investment in areas of safety risk. This option is likely to be supported by NZTA and mean that any interventions are likely to receive NZTA subsidy. The option demonstrates Council is pro-active while being responsible about funding priorities. This option will contribute to raising awareness of school bus safety in the short term and support prioritised investment in the rural roading network over the longer term.
Risks	School bus travel is low risk and interventions have limited scope to achieve meaningful change in crash frequency or outcome. Any programme of work would be making an already rare event even less likely. A key risk is that the option increases the risk of an increase in requests from rural communities for safety interventions for other vulnerable users groups, putting further pressure on limited available budgets for safety intervention.
Financial	A brief assessment of the potential costs for implementing all the recommendations indicates that approximately $100,000 is likely to be required in the first two years to fund bus signage, additional staff time for engagement and provision of a dedicated budget of $50,000 for engineering interventions. The level of on-going funding will depend on the level of requests received from school bus users and the specific locations where works are requested.
OPTION 3:	Council receive the report and commit to implementing additional measures beyond those proposed by the assessment report, including a separate programme to construct footpaths and more extensive road widening in the rural area for the use of school bus users.
Community Views	While the community has not been consulted on the options to improve bus safety at this stage, key stakeholders were consulted in the preparation of the assessment report.
Benefits	The option proposes significant investment in engineering interventions beyond those proposed by the assessment report which signals greater priority by Council. The additional investment will deliver a higher level of service and has the potential to improved perceived if not real safety. The benefits would be provided to all pedestrians in the rural road network and not just for bus users.
Risks	The key risk is that the additional investment will result in no additional safety gains for the vulnerable group over option 2 but come at a significantly higher cost. risks are primarily financial as there is no current programme budget for such capital works and no agreement that such works would be eligible for NZTA subsidy. There is also a risk that the programme will lead to the creation of isolated treatment solutions that will have limited life, be essentially disconnected to one another and increase on-going maintenance costs for Council.
Financial	While no detailed financial analysis of the cost of this option has been undertaken, it is expected that effective footpath solutions which meet the needs of several bus users will require footpaths extending over hundreds of meters. Based on the cost of constructing footpaths in the urban environment and allowing for substitution of concrete for earthworks, costs of $200 to $300k per annum are conceivable in addition to the $100k for the recommendations outlined in the report. The other significant risk is that without the demonstrable benefits in terms of improved safety outcomes, NZTA may not subsidise a programme of work of this scope, leaving Council to provide 100% of the funding. As with Option 2 this option also increases the risk of more requests from rural communities for investment in footpaths and more elaborate safety investments.
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan The action is: Work with schools and the Ministry of Education to improve access to schools for children.
Contribution to strategic direction		School bus travel is a relatively safe activity, with the primary risk occurring at bus stopping locations where road crossing movements occur, often involving unsupervised children. Efforts to improve safety for school bus users contributes to the purpose of the Public and Active Transport Plan, which is to have a safe, efficient and effective active and public transport system.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council has requested Officers provide an assessment on the safety of the school bus service and its relationship with Council’s footpath network. School bus services operating in the urban area have access to the City’s network of bus stop and footpath infrastructure whereas beyond the urban fringe and in the rural areas there is limited infrastructure to support school bus users.

1.2 Work was commissioned by Officers and a report completed by Beca Consultants titled “School Transport Infrastructure Review 2018” is attached. The review has scoped the extent of the potential issues based on the current network and extent of school bus routes into and out of Palmerston North. The report includes recommendations on measures with the potential to improve safety and/or reduce risks to bus users. The report recommends a more proactive approach to school bus safety but recognises that school bus travel is still a relatively safe mode of travel with few incidents resulting in injury.

1.3 Based on the report Officers have identified three potential options in respect of the approach to addressing school bus safety issues and these are described and detailed in this report.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The Committee of Council meeting of 24 May 2017 Council adopted the following resolution:

· That the Chief Executive be instructed to provide a report into the relationship between the Ministry of Education school bus transport and our footpath network, with recommendations for urgent issues arising, with a budget of $10,000.

2.2 The review commissioned by Council Officer and completed by Beca Consultants has been documented in a report which is attached. The report made a range of recommendations to improve the level of service including:

· A budget and necessary resources should be identified and set;

· A nominated officer should be responsible for improvements in school bus safety;

· Improved signage on school buses should be considered;

· A web page should be established providing advice on school bus safety;

· Council staff look to improve the relationship with the Ministry of Education and school bus providers to provide input and guidance regarding infrastructure and safety;

· Bus stopping locations should be reviewed and improved on a prioritised basis.

2.3 Council’s Active and Public Transport Plan, adopted in 2018, contains no actions specifically focussed on school bus safety. There is, however, recognition of an ongoing action to work with schools and the Ministry of Education to improve access to schools for children. The Beca report does this by providing recommendations of potential actions to provide an improved level of service to current practice.

2.4 The review also makes clear that Council’s ability to influence school bus safety outcomes are limited by the following considerations:

· Route maps confirm that the majority (>80%) of the routes beyond the urban boundary are on state highways or in neighbouring local authority areas so beyond Council’s influence;

· Some recommendations such as signage on buses are outside direct Council influence although Council can advocate or support such initiatives;

· Injuries arising from bus travel are rare events with low injury consequence, and there is little evidence that the incidents that have occurred were related to unsafe boarding or alighting from school buses. Significant investment to improve school bus safety is difficult to justify on a prioritisation basis given the range of other areas with higher risk profiles and more effective risk mitigation options.

· Rural areas are not provided with a footpath network as a rule, and rural residents are not rated for such facilities. In most cases a walkable shoulder is provided, although this may be limited in some areas by other constraints. Again low traffic volumes on some parts of the local roading network make it difficult to justify investment in a higher level of safety.

3. Description of options

3.1 Officers have identified three options in respect of responding to school bus safety concerns:

3.2 Option 1. No Change to Current Practice. Council continues its current practice of responding to requests for improvements to infrastructure as and when they arise and implementing these on a prioritised basis. Opportunities to influence behaviour change through improved signage, information and engagement with users, is referred to counterpart agencies with more direct responsibility e.g. Ministry of Education and Horizons Regional Council;

3.3 Option 2. Implement All the Improvements Recommendations in the Report. Council approve implementing all the major recommendations of the assessment report. Officers assess this will require assigning a dedicated budget of at least $100,000 for each of the first two years to pay for staff time for engagement, funding of upgraded bus signage, web-site and information improvements and engineering interventions. This could only be funded by allocating funding from programme 279 Minor Road Safety Improvements and deferring some other existing programmes of work.

3.4 Option 3. Council Approve Investment for Enhanced Footpath Improvements in the Rural Area. This option goes beyond the recommendations of the assessment report and would commit to significant investment in footpath infrastructure for all pedestrian users in the rural environment and not just school bus users. This will require development of an enhanced capital improvement programme with its own budget. Based on current costs for construction of unsealed footpaths Officers estimate a budget of $200,000 to $300,000 in addition to the $100,000 required to implement the recommendations of the report is required. This option represents a significantly improved level of service for pedestrian in the rural zone.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 The report completed by Beca Consultants provides an assessment of the risks related to school bus safety and outlines recommendations for improving Council’s intervention in this area. The report confirms that injuries are rare but that there is an opportunity for Council to improve safety through a ‘safe system’ approach by implementing a range of improvements to Council’s current approach.

4.2 The area of safety under Council’s control is the interaction between school bus services and the footpath network. The footpath network is largely confined to the urban area of the city comprising roads with 50 km/h posted speed limits. The peri-urban area on the fringe of the city has varying levels of service, including recreational pathways, sealed shoulders, short sections of local pathway, and laybys that can be utilised by school buses. Rural areas are not generally provided with footpaths as in most cases there are walkable shoulders. Speed limits for vehicles are generally above 60 km/h and traffic volumes vary widely, from higher volumes on state highways to lower volumes on most Council roads. Residents in rural and rural-residential neighbourhoods are not specifically rated for provision of footpaths as these are largely considered to be urban amenities.

4.3 School bus journeys to and from Palmerston North are detailed in the route maps provided by the Ministry of Education and included in the report. Many of the journeys start or end in locations outside the city boundary. While most routes incorporate a section of the journey within the urban area, services are typically not picking up or dropping off children in the urban area, rather the buses are transporting children from further afield. It is also notable that many of the journeys utilise the state highway network.

4.4 Council’s ability to influence school bus safety is limited as in many cases school bus operators are responsible to and engaging with other road controlling authorities when issues arise. Requests for improvement of roads under Council’s control are relatively infrequent and usually addressed as they arise as priorities dictate.

4.5 Injuries arising from school bus travel are infrequent. The Beca report identifies 19 crashes over 10 years involving a bus during school commuting times. Four of these involved minor injury, with most crashes on a state highway. Only one minor crash involved a bus on a rural road within Council’s responsibility.

4.6 The more relevant data relates to the incidence of injury involving pedestrian movements around boarding and alighting locations. Since 1980 there have been five identified injury crashes, three of which occurred on the state highway. The factors recorded as contributing to the crashes included pedestrians not adequately checking for traffic when crossing the road. The Beca report does not identify any crashes where walking or waiting on berms or road shoulders was a contributory cause and which might have been mitigated by additional infrastructure such as pull off areas or footpaths.

4.7 Currently there is a legal requirement for drivers to reduce their speed to 20 km/h when passing a stationary school bus. There is however poor compliance with this requirement and no easy way to enforce. The Beca report recommends improvements to school bus signage, which may improve driver compliance behaviour and raise driver awareness of the safety issues.

4.8 Under the current approach, Council takes an advocacy approach, with staff supporting initiatives undertaken by other organisations such as Horizons Regional Council or the bus operators. One recommendation is that Council, take a more proactive approach and work with the Ministry of Education and bus operators, possibly through a by-law requirement, or more likely by looking to fund equipping and fitting buses with the desired signage.

4.9 Council’s primary focus under a safe systems approach is improvement to infrastructure. The key areas where infrastructure can be changed to improve safety involve speed limit management, treatment of road shoulders, provision of safe stopping points and ensuring safe road crossing points. Risks are greatest on high speed, high volume roads which are typically state highways. Risks are lowest on low volume roads across the full range of speeds. These are typically rural roads under Council control and these are the areas that would be targeted as part of a Council led approach to improving infrastructure.

4.10 The Beca report makes some recommendations with regards to bus stopping points. Council already installs some laybys and sealed shoulders to facilitate bus stopping areas. A more proactive approach would include proactive engagement with the Ministry of Education and bus operators. Such engagement would also help to confirm locations where significant numbers of school students walk to bus stop locations. Any change to the current approach will require additional funding and a conservative estimate of $100,000 per annum is the estimated additional contribution required for staff time, engineering and information related interventions. This money could only come from re-prioritising projects in an existing programme of work.

4.11 Specific interventions might include formal bus stops or shelters, or in some areas footpaths or pathways might be identified as having value. Whatever the intervention, they would need to be prioritised together with other safety related projects.

4.12 Investment in the constructions of extensive lengths of footpath required in rural areas to link users to dwellings or driveways would represent a significant change in the level of service. Officers consider this could not be achievable without significant new financial support as part of a new capital works programme. There is significant risk that NZTA may not support significant additional investment given the lack of compelling crash and injury data supporting such interventions.

4.13 Currently improvements, such as provision of a sealed shoulder or improved driveway layout, are either accommodated under the maintenance activity or for more substantial interventions under Programme 279 City-wide Minor Safety Works. The budget for Programme 279, is approximately $800k per annum, and is heavily over-subscribed and is used to fund work to improve cycling infrastructure, footpaths and pedestrian facilities, intersections and numerous other reactive measures to improve the safety level of service at existing locations. Any increase in funding for option 2 or 3 will require changes in the priority of works.

4.14 Council’s Capital work programmes in transport include funding for improvement to infrastructure under what is termed Low Cost Low Risk (LCLR). Under the NZTA’s new rules for the LCLR Programme most of the interventions are financially assisted, up to a funding cap of $1 million. The NZTA funding for the LCLR programme is fixed however for the current LTP period (2018-2020), and there is no opportunity to increase the size of that funding programme until the next Ten Year Plan Review.

4.15 Council could give higher priority to addressing safety issues for vulnerable users under Programme 279. This could be extended to include rural bus users, however the programme priorities needs to reflect real risks supported by data. Intersection improvements are often funded under this programme as most road trauma is the result of vehicle crashes often at urban intersections. Any programme targeted towards vulnerable users such as rural bus users, would not result in any measurable change in road trauma given the absence of measurable injury incidents for bus users.

4.16 Development of a prioritised and effective programme of work to support Option 3 will take time. There is significant risk that any programme will not qualify for NZTA funding assistance as there is still a requirement that planned works represent value for money. Any increase in the level of service in rural areas would also lead to heightened expectations within the community, with inevitable cost consequences. For these reasons an increased level of service, as proposed by Option 3, is not recommended without further investigation and consideration of the overall costs and benefits of such an approach.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Council has asked for a report on safety issues affecting school buses and the interaction with the footpath network. Despite the perceived risks for bus users, the incidence of injuries arising from school bus travel are comparatively rare. Council’s current approach is to prioritise minor engineering interventions and encourage collaborating agencies to take the lead with non-engineering solutions.

5.2 Beca Consultants have completed a review of the issues and their report identifies a range of recommendations for improving the current approach. Officers acknowledge that there is an opportunity to improve current practice however any improvements need to take account of the competing priority for funding of other safety initiatives and limited scope for Council to reduce the already low risk of rural bus related injuries to any measurable extent. The recommended approach, identified as Option 2, is to adopt all the recommendations. However, this approach will require re-prioritisation of funding from the existing Programme 279 and allocation of some additional budget for staff time and signage and information initiatives.

5.3 While it is possible to increase investment in interventions beyond that proposed by the report, such as through investing in extensive footpaths this would represent a significant increase in the level of service to rural residents. Such an approach would require significant additional funding and may not be eligible for subsidy by NZTA. This is largely because the additional capital and operating investment is not supported by extremely low likelihood that such a programme would result in any measurable reduction in the incidence of injuries to rural bus users. For this reasons Officers do not support going beyond the recommendations of the report.

6. Next actions

6.1 If agreed a member of staff in the Council’s infrastructure Unit would be nominated as responsible for improving the relationship with the Ministry of Education and school bus service operators. This person would oversee the process for improving infrastructure and addressing problems areas as they arise.

6.2 Officers would seek an additional operational budget allocation of $50,000 for staff time and non-engineering related infrastructure investment to be included in the Annual Plan budgets for 2019-20 and 2020-21.

6.3 Council’s programme priorities in Programme 279 Minor Road Safety Works will be reviewed to ensure a budget is allocated for minor interventions which meet NZTA’s criteria so that the subsidy funding for the entire programme is not put at risk.

6.4 Opportunities for advocacy on school bus safety will be pursued with external agencies and funding support offered if this is required to achieve the desired outcome.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 No community engagement has been undertaken although key stakeholders have been interviewed and involved through the assessment process by the consultant.

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
An enhanced business as usual approach is consistent with Council’s Active and Public Transport Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to have a safe, efficient and effective public transport system. The plan recognises to need to prioritise work programmes to achieve improvements in service over time.

Attachments

School Transport Infrastructure Review 2018 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 1 April 2019

TITLE: Conference Opportunity - Institute of Directors: "Board Dynamics"

DATE: 25 March 2019

Presented By: Tangi Utikere, Deputy Mayor

APPROVED BY: Heather Shotter, Chief Executive

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Committee consider the appropriateness of sending an elected member or members to attend, with expenses paid, to the Institute of Directors 'Board Dynamics' Course being held in Christchurch on Tuesday 28 and Wednesday 29 May 2019.

2. That, in the event the Committee approves the attendance of an elected member or members at the above training, then registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Committee Administrator, Rachel Corser, by 12 noon Wednesday 3 April 2019.

1. ISSUE

The Elected Member Professional Development Policy allows for the approval of appropriate training and conference opportunities that do not exceed $2,000. As outlined in the Policy, the delegation to approve such requests is exercised by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor acting conjointly.

Councillor Naylor has expressed interest in attending the Institute of Directors 'Board Dynamics' Professional Development opportunity. As the total amount for this exceeds the threshold for approval under the Elected Member Professional Development Policy, it has been forwarded to Committee for consideration.

The elected members’ budget for conference attendance and training opportunities is $73,072. As at 21 March 2019 there remains $33,806 available for the balance of the financial year ending 30 June 2019. This does not include outstanding invoices that have been previously approved, but have yet to be presented for payment.

Fees for the training for full registration (non-member) will be $2,795.00 including GST. There will be additional expenses for Airfares ($250.00) and Accommodation/incidentals ($300.00).

No financial provision is to be made for any spouse or partner of an elected member attending any conference or training opportunity, other than for the Mayor’s spouse or partner attending a conference in association with the Mayor.

2. BACKGROUND

The Institute of Directors 'Board Dynamics' is a two day event taking place in Christchurch on Tuesday 28 May and Wednesday 29 May 2019.

The course is ideally suited for Directors who want a healthy board culture and to be part of an effective board. The content to be covered will be:

● What to do when you inherit a difficult culture

● Learn how board evaluations can help to (re)design a board

● Discover how to make a new director productive - sooner

● Learn about the merits of various chairing styles

● Gain the courage to consciously address culture, and commit to cultural change in your board and organisation

● Move from emotional intelligence to emotional agility so you can complement the more technical requirements of being a director

● Find the balance between healthy and unhealthy conflict

● Find out how changing technologies will influence the dynamics of future board meetings.

The course programme information is attached.

3. NEXT STEPS

The Committee may choose whether any elected members should attend the course, and if so, how many, in which case the Committee could invite registrations of interest from elected members wishing to attend. The Committee may permit the attendance of elected members at conference and training opportunities, with leave of absence and appropriate expenses paid.

If the Committee decides to approve the attendance of one or more elected members, registrations of interest will be sought from elected members. At the closing date of registrations (12 noon on Wednesday 3 April 2019), the Committee Administrator will advise the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the interest received, for them to make a decision on the successful registrant(s).

Once the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have advised the Committee Administrator of the successful registrant(s), all further information regarding the course will then be forwarded to that person or those persons direct.

4. 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 5: A Driven and Enabling Council
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy
Contribution to strategic direction	The conference content contributes to the aspirations under `Goal 5: A driven and enabling Council’ of building leadership, culture, capability and capacity to achieve the Council’s City vision.

Attachments

Conference Information ⇩

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

1.	Wayne Jenkins - Ross Intermediate School & Manawatu Principals Association
2.	Kees van Epenhuijsen
3.	Philip McConkey
4.	Siobhan Lynch-Karaitiana - Tanenuiarangi Manawatū Incorporated
5.	Michelle MacManus – Palmerston North City Environmental Trust
6.	Bruce Miller
7.	Adrienne Scott – Human Aid Focus NZ
8.	Malcolm Frith
9.	Kate Costley
10.	Sally Pearce - Manawatu River Source To Sea
11.	Robert Holdaway – MidCentral District Health Board
12.	Jonathan Hannon – Zero Waste Academy
13.	Laurence Dolan - EnviroWaste Services Limited
14.	Leith and Daniel Morrimire

1.	Submissions (attached separately)
2.	Procedure Sheet ⇩