Agenda of Sport and Recreation Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Sport and Recreation Committee MEETING

8 April 2019

Order of Business

NOTE: The Sport and Recreation Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Economic Development Committee meeting. The Committees will conduct business in the following order:

- Economic Development Committee

- Sport and Recreation Committee

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

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

4. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

5. Deputation - Menzshed Manawatu Page 7

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 25

“That the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 11 March 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

7. Menzshed Manawatu request to expand the Rangitāne Park pavilion and secure a long-term lease Page 31

Memorandum, dated 24 March 2019 presented by the Parks and Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod.

8. Sportsfields Fees and Charges Page 37

Memorandum, dated 25 March 2019 presented by the Parks and Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod.

9. Hokowhitu Lagoon as a Sportsfield Page 44

Report, dated 18 March 2019 presented by the Parks and Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod.

10. Update on Equestrian Access within the Ashhurst Village Page 54

Memorandum, dated 22 March 2019 from the Parks and Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod.

11. Committee Work Schedule Page 62

12. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
13.	Minutes of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting - Part II Confidential - 11 March 2019	For the reasons setout in the Sport and Recreation Committee minutes of 11 March 2019, held in public present.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), 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 Sport and Recreation Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 11 March 2019, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Leonie Hapeta (in the Chair) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann and Bruno Petrenas.

Non Members:

Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Karen Naylor and Tangi Utikere.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (late arrival on Council Business) and Councillor Adrian Broad (late arrival on Council Business).

Councillor Adrian Broad entered the meeting at 9.09am during consideration of clause 2. He was not present for clause 1.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 9.35am during consideration of clause 4. He left the meeting during the adjournment at 10.37am and entered the meeting again at 11.00am at the conclusion of clause 6. He was not present for clauses 1 to 3 inclusive and clause 6.

1-19

Apologies

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

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

For:

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

2-19	Public Comment
	Public Comment was received from Darren Mason, Chief Executive Officer and John McGifford, Projects Manager of Central Football regarding the selection process for an artificial football turf. Councillor Adrian Broad entered the meeting at 9.09am
	Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Public Comment be received.
	Clause 2-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, 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 Tangi Utikere. Abstained: Councillor Adrian Broad.

3-19

Deputation - Glasshouse Events

Kelly Melody from Glasshouse Events made a Deputation proposing to build a semi-permanent wedding and events venue at Ashhurst Domain.

The café site at the Ashhurst Domain has had various businesses located there but was not currently used and very run down. The proposal was to put a commercial kitchen at the site and to build a semi-permanent marquee that would accommodate up to 200 people and could be used as a multi-functional site, including hosting weddings and market type events.

Approximately one year ago Ms Melody approached Council to ascertain what was required to make sure the site would be compliant and to gain a consent for this type of operation. There were a number of issues that would need to be considered and therefore Ms Melody needed to know if the Council would be supportive of the proposal before any additional work was done.

The Ashhurst Domain provided a great backdrop for the type of events under consideration and Ms Melody wished to add to the natural space and make its benefits more widely known. There had been a lot of informal discussion with the community which had been positive but Ms Melody was aware that there was a formal process to be followed to allow the proposal to go ahead.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive the deputation for information.

Clause 3-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

4-19

Ashhurst Domain - Function Venue Proposal

Memorandum, dated 18 February 2019 presented by the Parks and Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod.

During discussion Elected Members noted that there were a number of factors that would need to be considered for the proposal including the impact of noise, increased carparking and consultation with affected parties. Progressing to the assessment stage would be a rigorous process and would ensure all issues were considered.

The Mayor Grant Smith entered the meeting at 9.35am

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council agree to progress to the assessment stage under the Reserves and Resource Management Acts for Ashhurst Domain function venue proposal.

Clause 4-19 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, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

5-19

Palmerston North City Council Co-Management Committee Establishment

Report, dated 22 February 2019 presented by the Parks and Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod and the Principal Maori Advisor, Todd Taiepa.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council adopt the Kawenata in Relation to Te Motu o Poutoa, as attached to the report titled Palmerston North City Council Co-Management Committee Establishment and dated 22 February 2019, as the foundational partnership document that underpins the relationship and describes the arrangements for establishing a co-management Committee.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson be given delegated authority to make minor amendments to the Kawenata.

Clause 5-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 10.37am

The meeting resumed at 10.59am

When the meeting resumed The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present.

6-19

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Lew Findlay QSM, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee meeting of 17 December 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

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

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 11.00am

7-19

Reporting on contracted outcomes through 'Sport Manawatū six month report (1 July to 31 December 2018) to Palmerston North City Council'

Memorandum, dated 18 February 2019 presented by the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Duncan McCann.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum dated 18 February 2019 and titled “Reporting on contracted outcomes through ‘Sport Manawatū’s six-month report (1 July to 31 December 2018) to Palmerston North City Council’ including (attachment 1) and commentary (attachment 2).

Clause 7-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

8-19

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sport and Recreation Committee receive its Work Schedule dated March 2019 and that the item “Ashhurst Pool Update” be removed from the Schedule.

Clause 8-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

9-19

Recommendation to Exclude Public

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

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
12.	Minutes of the extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee meeting - Part II Confidential - 17 December 2018	For the reasons set out in the extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee minutes of 17 December 2018, held in public present.
13.	Artificial Football Turf - site recommendation	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)

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.

Parks and Reserves Manager (Kathy Dever-Tod), Strategy and Policy Manager (Julie Macdonald), Senior Parks and Property Planner (Aaron Phillips) and Policy Analyst (Ann-Marie Mori) 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.

Clause 9-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 12.00pm

Confirmed 8 April 2019

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 8 April 2019

TITLE: Menzshed Manawatu request to expand the Rangitāne Park pavilion and secure a long-term lease

DATE: 24 March 2019

Presented By: Kathy Dever-Tod, Parks and Reserves Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council approve, in principle, the proposed extensions to the Rangitāne Park pavilion.

2. That Council notes that officers will work with Menzshed Manawatu to prepare a draft lease document, for consideration by the Council.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The size and configuration of the Rangitāne Park pavilion are limiting the activities of the Menzshed Manawatu.

1.2 The Menzshed have requested that Council to allow them to extend and reconfigure the existing pavilion and issue the Trust with a longer-term lease, in recognition of the investment they will make in this Council owned building.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Menzshed Manawatu have leased the pavilion on Rangitāne Park since 2011. The building was an old army barracks, relocated to the site for use as junior soccer changing rooms during the winter months. For a short period of time, after the lease commenced, soccer continued to access the toilets on Saturday mornings, however this use has now ceased.

2.2 The lease covers the existing building area and the path and garden beds immediately in front (towards the park open space) of the building. The annual rent is $450 plus GST and outgoings, in line with Council’s leasing policy.

2.3 The Trust exercised the 5-year right of renewal of the lease in 2016, and the lease expires 30^th September 2021 with no further rights of renewal.

3. SUITABILITY OF THE CURRENT PREMISES

3.1 The Council allowed the Menzshed to modify the building slightly when they first occupied it. Openings were cut between the changing rooms, bench seats were removed, and carpet was lifted. The lighting was enhanced and security grilles were placed over the windows.

3.2 A ramp and handrail were also installed to improve access to the building.

3.3 Menzshed Manawatu invited officers to visit the shed on 6^th March 2019. It was very clear from this visit that is a well-run operation. The interior of the building is clean and tidy, and all the equipment is in good order with the necessary signage and instructions to ensure the health and safety of users. Wood, hand tools, paint and other products are neatly stored away. The social gathering area is inviting and well used.

3.4 Despite the orderliness of the property, it was apparent that the building is bursting at the seams. There are several projects currently underway for other community groups. These projects range from direct support for a group, such as building shelves (Women’s Refuge), fixing toys (Toy Library), bird nesting boxes (Wildbase) through to products to support community fund raising, such as wooden trays for resale.

3.5 A large component of Menzshed activity is the reuse of materials. Large areas of the building are taken up with storage of donated timber, partially used tins of paint, and an array of hand tools, fastenings and fittings. The storage needs are greatly restricting the space available for the men and their activities.

4. THE PROPOSAL

4.1 Menzshed Manawatu have proposed extensions to the front and the side of the existing building. In total, these would extend the area of the building by 98m².

4.2 The side extension enables the creation of a new large timber store, with access from an enclosed loading bay, making the receipt and storage of large lengths of timber much easier than carrying them through the building and into an old changing room. The loading bay is fully enclosed and doubles as an area for painting.

4.3 The two smaller extensions enable the creation of additional workshop space. The existing meeting, bathroom, tool and paint store rooms are unchanged by this proposal.

4.4 The additions to the front of the building would require the removal of some, but not all the garden bed alongside the path. The side addition would require the removal of several shrubs, however the substantial screening to the North and Northeast of the building would not be impacted upon. The extension of the building is therefore considered to have only a minor impact on the amenity of the wider reserve.

4.5 Clause 17.1 of the current lease provides for the Menzshed to make additions and alterations to the building, providing the Council has first given written permission. The Council has the right to require the building to be reinstated to its original condition at the end of the lease.

4.6 The two small additions out the front of the building can be accommodated within the area of reserve land currently leased to the Menzshed, however the side addition extends beyond this. Therefore, regardless of clause 17.1, the lease would need to be amended, to extend the lease area.

4.7 Given the level of investment involved in the proposal to extend the building, the Menzshed have requested that Council issue a new lease. This is to give a tenure of length suitable to assure both Menzshed Manawatu and their potential funders that the investment is worthwhile, and a lease area large enough to incorporate the proposed building extensions.

5. LEASING PROCESS

5.1 Figure 1 shows the proposed lease area (approximately). The new lease area crosses three land titles of land within Rangitāne Park:

· WN26D/489 – held for public work (improving and maintaining drainage)

· WN15C/477 – not currently held under the Reserves Act 1977, however officers are undertaking preparatory work that will consider declaring this parcel to be a reserve and classifying it).

· Lot 94 DP 44172 – has no title but noted as recreation reserve in a recent independent property report.

5.2 Under Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserve Act 1977 Council (the administering body) may lease buildings on reserves to voluntary organisations for recreation purposes.

Figure 1: Land parcels in relation to propsoed building extention and lease area

5.3 Menzshed provides recreation activities, community development and supports various other projects and people in the community.

“The Menzshed is a place to get together with others to:

· Practice your skills. Learn new ones and share your knowhow with others

· Pursue hobbies, pastimes and interests or get involved in a piece of work

· Enjoy some company while working on projects that give back to the community

· Belong to a team”

http://menzshedmanawatu.org.nz/about-us/

5.4 The Council utilises standard lease agreements to manage its risk and legal obligations. Leases vary in term, but generally, most existing leases are for a period of five years with one right of renewal for a period of a further five years. It will be appropriate to consider whether a period of 10 years is sufficient for the new lease proposed.

5.5 Before approving a lease, Council must publicly notify its intention to grant the lease as per Section 119(1)(b) and give regard to any objections received and ensure any person wishing to be heard has that opportunity as per Section 120.

5.6 It is recommended that Council approves the proposed extension of the building in principle, and enters lease discussions with Menzshed Manawatu. If favourable lease conditions can be agreed to by both parties, Council will publicly notify its proposal to grant a lease for the Rangitāne Park pavilion and associated land, under the provisions of the Reserves Act.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 Notify the Menzshed Manawatu of Council’s agreement in principle to their proposed plans to extend the Rangitane Park pavilion.

6.2 Officers will work with the Menzshed to prepare a lease proposal and that meets the Reserves Act 1977 requirements for consideration by the Council – June 2019.

6.3 Subject to Council approval, advertise the proposal to grant the lease – July 2019.

6.4 Consider submissions and arrange hearings for submitters that wish to be heard (if any) - August 2019.

6.5 Report to Council on the proposed lease, including a summary of submissions, and seek to approve or decline the lease – September 2019.

7. Compliance and administration

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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy Develop, provide and advocate for services and facilities that create a connected, welcoming and inclusive community. Build community capacity to take ownership and encourage community leadership of solutions, including better co-ordination between community organisations and groups
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Community Support Plan The action is: Build capacity and capability in community organisations
Contribution to strategic direction	Supporting Menzshed Manawatu to expand the Rangitāne Park Pavilion enables them to better fulfil their purpose of providing an environment where men (and women) can meet, and socialise, while doing something purposeful. The modified building will assist them to continue to support many other community groups through the gifting of items they create. The provision of a long-term lease will enable the Menzshed to secure external funding for the project, resulting in a greatly enhanced Council owned facility

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 8 April 2019

TITLE: Sportsfields Fees and Charges

DATE: 25 March 2019

PRESENTED BY: Kathy Dever-Tod, Parks and Reserves Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council continue with its current funding model of charging sportsfield users a percentage of the costs of sportsfield provision

2. That Council continues the policy of not charging for sportsfields used exclusively by junior players

3. That Council continues to levy sportsfield user fees at the current level of approximately 5% cost recovery.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council requested a review of the current charging policy for sports fields.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In April 2018, the Finance and Performance Committee considered a report from the Strategy Manager Finance, on fees and charges for sportsfields and trade waste. The report recommended an increase in sportsfield user charges of 3%, based on the existing policy of percentage cost recovery for senior sport, and zero fees for junior (school aged) sport. The report included a proposal to report back to Council later in the calendar year to assist Council to reconsider its attitude to sportsfield charging.

3. Strategic Context

3.1 The provision of recreation facilities, including sportsfields, supports Council’s Creative and Liveable City Strategy. The strategy is supported by four plans, including the Active Community Plan.

3.2 The Council adopted the Active Community Plan in June 2018. The purpose of the plan is to create a city that has great places for all people, particularly families, and have the most active community in New Zealand.

3.3 The plan identifies that the City wishes to become a model active community, with a strong active sport and recreation sector, where the City leads the way in terms of innovative approaches to reversing declining participation rates and improving club sustainability.

3.4 The plan notes that currently Palmerston North has a wide range of generally well-performing sport and recreation clubs and groups, however there are concerns about dwindling membership and participation rates, club capability and financial sustainability.

3.5 Measures of success in the plan include –

· Increase in use of parks, sportsfields and playgrounds

· Increase in satisfaction of Council’s sports and recreation facilities

· Increase in participation rates for all adults in sport and recreation

3.6 Increasing sportsfield user charges has the potential to reduce sports participation rates, if cost is the key barrier. SportNZ research shows that there are several factors related to the decline in the participation in sport over time, including gender, ethnicity, household income, volunteering, participation in other self-directed activities – e.g. walking, attending a gym, as well as cost.

3.7 Whilst sportsfield charges are not the only cost a sports club faces, they are a significant cost for most clubs, and therefore high user charges may impact on the sustainability of sport clubs.

3.8 The funding model for sportsfields therefore needs to be considered within the context of the Active Community Plan, not just the Revenue and Financing Policy.

4. CURRENT CHARGING POLICY

4.1 The Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy (10 Year Plan 2018-28 – page 221), outlines that users of sportsfields are expected to contribute a low (i.e. 0-19%) proportion of the costs, through user charges. The policy also acknowledges that it is either not practical to identify and charge users (e.g. for city-wide or local reserve) or that in some instances charges would be prohibitively high if they were set at the level which would be necessary to cover the entire costs.

4.2 The policy specifies that user fees are not charged on sportsgrounds used exclusively for sport for school aged children. The purpose of this policy is to keep costs down to school age children and their families to encourage participation.

4.3 User charges are applied to senior sporting activities, on the following sports surfaces:

· grass playing fields and training grounds

· grass and artificial cricket wickets

· softball diamonds

· tennis and netball courts

4.4 Council makes a monetary contribution to the operation of the Manawatu athletics track, and Hockey Manawatu pay for the operating costs of the Hockey Turfs, therefore Council does not collect user charges for senior hockey and athletics.

4.5 Sporting codes determine how many playing and training grounds they need each season. A large proportion of the sportsfields booked by sports codes are used exclusively for school-aged children.

4.6 Grounds are allocated to the code, and the code is invoiced by Council, rather than individual clubs. Most sports associations request annual quotes for the sportsfield user fees and apply to external funders to cover the costs. The balance of the cost is passed onto clubs/teams through association fees.

4.7 Roughly 5% of the actual costs of the provision of the sportsfields is recovered through user charges. The balance of the operating cost is funded through rates.

4.8 The current user fees schedule has been in place since at least 2004. During this time there have been annual increases in user fees in the order of 0.5-3.0% per year, with increases of between 1.5 and 2.0% per annum since 2012.

4.9 There have also been minor tweaks to reflect specific issues as they arise. For example, cricket and netball fees were static until an agreed date to reflect the significant financial contributions that those two codes had made to facilities in the past.

4.10 The cricket fee structure was adjusted to include charges for outfields as well as for grass and synthetic blocks. The total cost to cricket at the time did not change significantly, just how it was calculated.

5. Asset Management

5.1 A key principle of asset management is to deliver agreed levels of service in the most cost-effective manner through the management of assets for present and future customers. In the context of sportsfields, this means that Council needs to consider both non-asset and asset solutions to meet demand.

5.2 Demand management is active intervention in the market to modify demand, including maximising asset utilisation by ‘supply-side’ demand management, for example allocating under-utilised sportsfields for other uses, limiting investment in new facilities and management of customer demand, to reduce demand for assets for example through pricing, collaboration, cooperation and incentives.

5.3 Sportsfield user charges a key demand management technique for Council. They are an incentive for codes to only book fields they need. They encourage increased utilisation of grounds and the sharing of facilities between codes, clubs and teams.

5.4 Effective use of grounds enables more people to be more active without the need to invest in and maintain new assets

5.5 Any sportsfield charging model should encourage the effective and efficient use of Council assets, through demand management.

6. FUTURE Funding Model

6.1 There are five basic funding models for sportsfield charges, these are:

A. Sports codes pay a proportion of the actual cost to maintain sports fields (e.g. mowing, spraying), with the balance funded by general rates i.e. a pro rata proportion of user pays

B. A targeted cost recovery where only some users contribute (e.g. PNCC current policy of not charging for the use of junior sports fields) - Status Quo

C. A ‘per field or court’ approach where a set fee is determined per season e.g. $1,200 per rugby field.

D. A cost per square metre approach that reflects the maintenance costs of each court or field e.g. 15 cents per square metre of rugby field

E. User fees are struck on a ‘per player per game’ basis e.g. 80 cents per player per game

6.2 The forecast impact of each model on utilisation of fields and current council administration costs are summarised in Table 1.

Option	Utilisation of fields	Cost to calculate annual fees	Cost to collect fees
A	↓	↔	↔
B	↔	↔	↔
C	↓	↓	↔
D	↓	↑	↔
E	↓	↓	↑

Table 1: Forecast impact of funding model on field utilisation and Council administration

6.3 Assuming the justification for the level of fees has been determined for all models, Model B is the only option which does not potentially reduce the utilisation of sportsfields, as it is the only model where not all users are charged. If the principle of zero fees for junior players is applied to all models, then model C is the preferred model as it has the potential to reduce Councils administration costs. It should be noted however, that there would be a cost associated with moving from model B to C, as options for the basis of the fixed fees would need to be consulted upon.

7. COMPARISON TO OTHER COUNCILS

7.1 Yardstick: Council participates in an annual NZ Recreation Association managed “Yardstick” benchmarking exercise where a selection of aspects of Council operations and policies are recorded and compared with other participating councils.

7.2 Yardstick last compared sportsfield user charges in 2010. At that time 29 of the 38 Councils surveyed (76%), levied user fees for their sportsfields, and most were using a % cost recovery model.

7.3 Four of the nine Councils not charging fees in 2010 are now part of Auckland Council. Auckland Council is reviewing that policy to not charge fees to address perceived equity issues between the amount of resource Council puts into different sports codes. For example, how a rugby club and a tennis club differ in the effective subsidy they get from Council. The other Councils not charging fees in 2010 were: Tauranga, Marlborough, Waipa, Hauraki and Waitomo.

7.4 The 2010 Yardstick benchmarking project also collected information on the % of recovery of the Councils and the cost of provision of sportsfields. The results for PNCC are presented alongside the national average in Table 2.

Measure	National Average	PNCC Provision
Funding Policy (% cost recovery)	13%	0-19% Actual 5%
Operating cost/ ha	$10,500	$8,240
Operating cost /1000 residents	$10,300	$9,436

Table 1: 2010 Yardstick Results - Provision of Sportsfields

7.5 The operating costs for PNCC sports fields in 2010 were lower than the national average. This is most likely due to not needing to irrigate fields. Variation in climatic conditions between Council areas is one of the key reasons national benchmarking for sports fields is no longer routinely undertaken in New Zealand.

7.6 A recent review of a sample of other Lower North Island Councils showed that they all charge for sports fields. The basis of charging for Whanganui appears to be market related.

7.7 All the others charge % cost recovery:

· Manawatu – 5%,

· Porirua 5-10%,

· Wellington 10% for natural and 40% for synthetic fields

8. SUMMARY

8.1 The current model charging to recover a percentage of costs recovery is commonly used around New Zealand. This model is relatively simple to administer when compared to alternate models. The policy of not charging junior players, supports Council’s Active Community Plan objectives. On this basis it is recommended that the Council retains its current funding model

8.2 Removing sportsfield charges is likely to result in an immediate increase in demand for sportsfields and training grounds. This would result from the removal of the demand management incentives to increase utilisation, and share and collaborate with others. This increase may or may not be associated with an equivalent increase in participation rates. It is not recommended that Council change its policy of charging for senior sports.

8.3 The level of cost recovery by PNCC is comparable to other Councils recently reviewed. The level of cost recovery is considerably lower than Council’s current policy settings. Increasing the percentage recovery to the upper level of the policy setting, would undoubtedly impact on affordability for users, and potentially decrease participation rates. It is not recommended that the percentage recovery increase from its current level of 5%.

9. NEXT STEPS

9.1 Once the funding model has been confirmed, officer will review current charges to ensure they align with Council policy, and report back to Council on any anomalies found, and options to address these.

10. 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?
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?
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 priority area is: Have the most active community in New Zealand – active community and active transport.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan The action is: Everyone can access opportunities to be active; and that Walkways, shared paths, and green corridors link to the wider transportation network; and that Streetscapes and park environments are safe, attractive and encourage activity.
Contribution to strategic direction	Reviewing the funding model and the level of charges levied, enables Council to ensure that the funding policy for Sportsfields is supportive of the overall strategic direction of Council

Attachments

NIL

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 8 April 2019

TITLE: Hokowhitu Lagoon as a Sportsfield

DATE: 18 March 2019

PRESENTED BY: Kathy Dever-Tod, Parks and Reserves Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council adopts Option 1: “Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon” and “Retain the status quo”, as described in the report dated 18 March 2019 and titled Hokowhitu Lagoon as a Sports Field.

2. That Council directs the Chief Executive to ensure that the contribution made by user groups to the upkeep of the Hokowhitu Lagoon is made more explicit throughout all user fees and charges documentation.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Hokowhitu Lagoon in recent years has become a significant site for water-based sporting activity. In response to this Council has directed the Chief Executive Officer to establish if the Hokowhitu Lagoon should be treated as a sports field, and whether Canoe Polo should pay for use of the Lagoon in a consistent manner with clubs that book and use sports fields.
OPTION 1:	Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field. Retain the status quo at Hokowhitu Lagoon, with water-based sports working with Council to manage rubbish and water weed.
Community Views	The Canoe Polo Club and other water-based sporting clubs that use the area would prefer the status quo rather than changing to a financial contribution model.
Benefits	Teams currently help Council with ongoing upkeep of the area, and this is currently working well. Changes to this operation may make upkeep more difficult for Council.
Risks	Teams may not be able to manage the upkeep of the area, as informally agreed.
Financial	This option requires no financial contribution from the teams, nor does this option require a financial contribution from Council.
OPTION 2:	Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field. Apply the Policy for Funding Operating Expenses to Hokowhitu Lagoon for water based sports users, and Council take over all operational work on the lagoon.
Community Views	The Canoe Polo Club and other water-based sporting clubs that use the area would prefer the status quo rather than changing to a financial contribution model.
Benefits	The transactional contribution model is more financially transparent.
Risks	The current system works well, and Council may end up having to do work on a water body that the organisation is not well set-up to do.
Financial	Clubs would be required to pay as per the Sports Field User Charges Policy, at approximately 5% of operational costs.
OPTION 3:	Classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. Apply the Policy for Funding Operating Expenses to Hokowhitu Lagoon for water based sports users, and Council take over all operational work on the lagoon.
Community Views	Community views have not been tested on this option.
Benefits	This option would legally secure the area as a sports field under the Reserves Act 1977.
Risks	The land area is not a sports field and a water body cannot be classified as a sports field. This is a complex area: it is a site of cultural significance to Rangitāne, the area is already zoned recreation in the Palmerston North District Plan and the water body is a body of ecological significance under the Horizons Regional Council One Plan. This site may also become a site that is recognised as one for co-management in the future. This site is also likely to be included in the work being carried out to identify the next City Reserve – as part of the Linear River Park. It is therefore not feasible to classify this reserve under the Act as a sports field.
Financial	Reserves Act classification process at $5,000 (including public notice, consultation and gazetting).
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommended option (Option 1) contributes to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommended option (Option 1) contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan The actions are: Water recreation activities are enjoyed in safe areas of the Manawatū River and at the Hokowhitu Lagoon. Carry out recreation and reserves planning functions under the Reserves Act 1977 and LGA including the preparation of Reserve Management and Development Plans and Master Plans. Work with mana whenua to identify, protect, preserve, and manage wāhi tapu and other places of significance within the public open space network.
Contribution to strategic direction		The recommendations allow Council to work with the water-based sports clubs utilising the Hokowhitu Lagoon to ensure that their recreation needs are met appropriately and practically, within the wider strategic planning framework and alongside Rangitāne.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Hokowhitu Lagoon is a complex area with many competing interests involved. Water-based sports in particular have been increasing at the site, and Council has directed Officers to investigate whether the lagoon and surrounds should be treated as a sports field.

1.2 There are two ways in which Council might approach this: by classifying the lagoon and surrounds under the Reserves Act 1977 as recreation; and/or by including the sports teams that utilise the lagoon in the Fees and Charges Policy for Funding Operating Expenses and requiring them to pay Council for use of the area in a manner that is consistent with other groups that utilise sports fields.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The Hokowhitu Lagoon was formed from a cut-off meander of the Manawatū River. It was once a favoured food-gathering place for Rangitāne, and a particularly famous site for catching eels. It was once surrounded by native bush.

2.2 The reserve and lagoon were purchased from Maori owners and the area was subdivided into residential allotments. Jacob Nannested purchased a block of land including most of the lagoon and built the stately home now known as Caccia Birch House.

2.3 During the 1930’s the Palmerston North City Corporation eventually purchased the land and lagoon on 18/7/1940. Additional land was acquired from surrounding land owners to provide access.

2.4 The lagoon remained a wilderness until the 1960’s when the City initiated a development programme which included the erection of the footbridge over the lagoon. The Chalet was erected in 1963.

2.5 The District Plan zoning for the lagoon and surrounds is Flood Protection, Water Recreation and recreation. Horizons Regional Council One Plan describes the area as a significant ecological water body.

2.6 The lagoon has a large body of water as well as a large grass area that runs between the lagoon and the road. It is a fairly narrow strip of grass and therefore cannot be used for many open space activities. It is attractive for runners, walkers, picnickers and duck feeders. The area also attracts water-based sporting activity, such as canoe polo, waka ama and kayaking.

2.7 In 1976 a system to pump water from the Manawatū River into the lagoon was installed. This operated until the 1990’s. The lagoon has always had some low levels of seepage and water loss. After the 2014 Ekatahuna earthquake the seepage rate increased considerably, and Council has been investigating ways to maintain water levels since that quake.

2.8 Management issues remain pest control, weed growth and management, bank stabilisation, silting of the lagoon and water quality issues. In recent years the water quality issue has become more pronounced, with both the increase in water based sporting activity, the discovery of sewage seeping into the lagoon and the strong desire for Rangitāne o Manawatū to act as kaitiaki of the lagoon as a site of cultural significance.

2.9 Councillors have directed Officers to identify the point sources of contamination into the lagoon, to engage in further stabilisation of the banks and to investigate the treatment of the lagoon as a sports field given higher users numbers of water-based sporting activity.

2.10 Strategic direction from Council has pointed Officers towards a number of actions that will impact this site. They are:

· The development of the Manawatū River as a City Reserve (which will likely include the Hokowhitu Domain site)

· Development of significant land parcels for residential development at the old Massey University site (including the development and gifting of new reserve areas to Council)

· The establishment of a co-management Committee of Council to begin partnering to plan and better preserve Rangitāne Wahi Tupuna, of which Hokowhitu Lagoon is a site of interest.

· The development of reserve management plans for all parks and reserves over the next ten years

2.11 Canoe Polo and other water-based sports have been using the Lagoon for their sports out of the Chalet – which is used to store their canoes. Given that the main operational cost for Canoe Polo in relation to the lagoon as a water body is weed control, and that the Canoe Polo people are in the best position to manage this while on the water, Council has maintained an informal agreement with the Canoe Polo Club whereby the club removes the weed and is not charged sports user charges.

2.12 Given that Canoe Polo are using the Hokowhitu Lagoon, and that they are a sport, Councillors enquired as to whether they should be paying a fee, in the same manner that a sports code booking a field would have to pay for that use.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1: Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field.

3.2 Retain the status quo at Hokowhitu Lagoon, with water-based sports working with Council to manage rubbish and water weed.

3.3 Option 2: Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field.

3.4 Apply the Policy for Funding Operating Expenses to Hokowhitu Lagoon for water based sports users, and Council take over all operational work on the lagoon.

3.5 Option 3: Classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field under the Reserves Act 1977.

3.6 Apply the Policy for Funding Operating Expenses to Hokowhitu Lagoon for water based sports users, and Council take over all operational work on the lagoon.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1: Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field.

4.2 Retain the status quo at Hokowhitu Lagoon, with water-based sports working with Council to manage rubbish and water weed.

4.3 Council Officers have had legal advice on this option, and under the Reserves Act 1977 the classification of a water body as a sports field is not possible. The area is already held as a recreation area (zoned Water Recreation under the PN District Plan), and it is not believed that any further classification would be beneficial in any way.

4.4 The surrounding area is clearly not a sports ground, and should not be classified as such. However, the area is also already held as recreation reserve, and therefore any further attempt to classify is not necessary.

4.5 Classification of the area as a sports field does not make much practical sense, appears to have legal difficulties and would very much hinder any future planning activities in this area – of which there is likely to be much work on the horizon.

4.6 Currently the water-based sports groups work with Council to:

• Manage weed on the lagoon

• Ensure the area is relatively clean of rubbish and litter

4.7 This work ultimately means that the Council is not having to operate in specialised water-based areas in any significant detail. This is not generally something that Council sport field teams are particularly knowledgeable about, or have equipment to manage. It is therefore easier for Council to supply weed management resources to the water-based sports clubs for them to manage weed control – which is primarily in their interest to do so.

4.8 It is believed that this tacit agreement is in the best interests of both the Council and the water-based sports teams. The agreement has worked well for a number of years and continues to do so.

4.9 Given this area is a site of cultural significance to Rangitāne, it is likely at some stage to become one of the key sites that is of particular interest to the new co-management Committee of Council.

4.10 The site is treated as a natural extension of the Manawatū River Framework by that document, and as such the area is likely to become an extension of the new City Reserve as part of the Linear Manawatū River Park. This City Reserve will have its own Reserve Management Plans and development plans (currently this development plan is the Manwatū River Framework, which includes work at the Hokowhitu Lagoon).

4.11 The Massey site now sold to Wallace Developments for residential development has areas set aside for cultural recognition, river access and includes a small patch of trees significant to Rangitāne. Once these areas are gifted to Council as part of the sub-division process a plan will also need to be adopted for how the reserve, trees and river access are developed and managed. This would best be developed within the overall context for development and management of the lagoon as part of the new Linear River Park.

4.12 Council Officers are currently working to establish what level of sewage leakage and storm water run-off is currently finding its way into the lagoon, from where and how much. This information will take some time and will be required so as to feed into any truly effective future development and management plans for this area.

4.13 Given the historical workability of the agreement between Council and the water- based sports teams to manage aspects of the lagoon, the likely development of the entire area in the future, the complexity of management at the site, the need for further data on contamination, and the contextual features of both co-management possibilities and Linear River Park development, Officers believe that the status quo is best maintained at the Hokowhitu Lagoon. That is until proper reserve development and management planning can occur on this site, and within a wider strategic context.

4.14 At a recent workshop on 25 March 2019 Councillors made mention that it is currently very difficult for them and the public to understand the level of contribution made by the water-based sports teams at Hokowhitu Lagoon.

4.15 Officers will investigate how current policy might be amended to ensure that unusual situations and the agreements that emerge from them are described in those documents. It was believed that if the contribution is better understood, then controversy surrounding charging for use might be better avoided in the future.

4.16 Option 2: Do not classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field.

4.17 Apply the Policy for Funding Operating Expenses to Hokowhitu Lagoon for water based sports users, and Council take over all operational work on the lagoon.

4.18 The analysis for Option 1 holds for Option 2 also.

4.19 Generally, Council charges approximately 5% of the costs required to maintain a sports field to the teams that book the fields. This is based on a partial cost-recovery basis, and is established because for the bulk of the time the sports field is in the public domain and is used by the general public for picnicking, playing and all manner of recreation activities. Therefore, the bulk of sports field use is public good, and a full cost recovery from teams is not required. Moreover, full cost recovery would render most sports that use sports fields unaffordable, given the high levels of service achieved on the City’s sports fields.

4.20 In the case of the Hokowhitu Lagoon, a specialised surface is not required. The water-based teams are able to utilise the general park area to set up their tents, and operate from land to ready themselves for the water in the same manner that any event or member of the public might use the surface. A specialised pitch, drainage area or set of line markings are not required.

4.21 The canoe polo team has specialised equipment. These features are the property of the water-based sports teams and are not maintained, provided for or fixed by the Council. At times the weed in the lagoon requires maintenance, as once it becomes too thick the paddles cannot move through the water effectively. The Canoe Polo Club manages this maintenance, and moreover is in the best position to achieve good results.

4.22 Council would be required to gain safe access to the water body and to remove the weed on this option, then on-charge the costs to the Canoe Polo Club.

4.23 This option is therefore not considered financially beneficial to Council, and it is not considered practically beneficial to Council at this stage.

4.24 Given the growing level of users in the space, at some point in the future it is likely that the area will need some form of upgraded booking system for events and activities. However, this could also be managed through a reserve management planning process, and this approach would be appropriate.

4.25 Option 3: Classify the Hokowhitu Lagoon as a sports field under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.26 The analysis for Option 1 holds for Option 3 also.

4.27 Council Officers have had legal advice on this option, and under the Reserves Act 1977 the classification of a water body as a sports field is not possible. The area is already held as a recreation area (zoned Water Recreation under the PN District Plan), and it is not believed that any further classification would be beneficial in any way.

4.28 The surrounding area is clearly not a sports ground, and should not be classified as such. However, the area is also already held as recreation reserve, and therefore any further attempt to classify is not necessary.

4.29 This option does not make much practical sense, appears to have legal difficulties and would very much hinder any future planning activities in this area – of which there is likely to be much work on the horizon. It is therefore not considered a viable option.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The Hokowhitu Lagoon is a complicated site; with multiple layers to management of the area, high numbers of contrasting users and the site is contextually a key site within the wider planning framework.

5.2 There are no issues in relation to sports users at this site that are absolutely pressing and require solutions in place presently.

5.3 The contribution that these clubs make to operational costs is not currently transparent, and could benefit from further investigation on how Council makes this contribution more explicit.

5.4 It is therefore considered practical to allow for wider planning work to take place prior to making detailed decisions regarding the management of this site; and to treat the issue of charging as one of transparency rather than fairness or consistency.

6. Next actions

6.1 Refer any concerns or issues at the Hokowhitu Lagoon area to the wider planning processes for the Manawatū River Framework and the Linnear River Park planning.

6.2 Investigate how Council might ensure that the contribution made by the water-based sports clubs at Hokowhitu Lagoon might be included in current policy in an appropriate manner.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Key stakeholders participated in a workshop at Caccia Birch House on 19 March 2019. This workshop and the results from it will be utilised in the wider planning context and to inform the design work for the bank stabilisation work that is currently under way.

7.2 There were no significant issues that emerged from the group with regards the area being used for sport and recreation purposes, and this usage type was considered a natural and fitting use by the workshop participants.

Compliance and administration

n/a

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

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Sport and Recreation Committee

MEETING DATE: 8 April 2019

TITLE: Update on Equestrian Access within the Ashhurst Village

DATE: 22 March 2019

Presented By: Kathy Dever-Tod, Parks and Reserves Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council notes the actions undertaken to improve access for horse riders in Ashhurst

2. That Council incorporates the needs of horse riders into a wider planning process to identify active transport routes from the realignment of State Highway 3, through the Ashhurst village and towards the Saddle Road.

1. ISSUE

1.1 State Highway 3 traffic is expected to be diverted through the Ashhurst village for a period of up to 7 years. A consequence of this is a sustained loss of lifestyle for recreational horse riders, who have traditionally used a combination of quiet urban streets and park accessways to safely move between their horse grazing paddocks, the village, the Ashhurst Domain and the river.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In December 2018 the Sport and Recreation Committee of Council received a deputation from Sam McIvor and Arthur Yeo regarding safety and access issues for recreational horse riders within Ashhurst village. Their submission highlighted that the closure of the Manawatu Gorge and the re-direction of state highway traffic through Ashhurst, had comprised the safety of riders.

2.2 The submission raised areas of concern and outlined a few potential access options along existing public roads, reserve accessways and private land.

2.3 The committee requested that the officers engage with the submitters and NZTA, and report back to the Committee on options for mitigation to address the safety concerns for horse riders in Ashhurst.

3. SHORT -TERM SOLUTIONS

3.1 The Leisure Assets Officer and an elected member met with the two submitters on December 18^th, to walk around each of the sites. Discussions with the submitters and a local fencing contractor continued after the visit and, as a result, the following actions have been undertaken:

1. The layby pinch point identified near the SH3 bridge across the Manawatu River has been fixed.

2. The submitters have been issued with keys to the three gates within the Ashhurst Domain between the Pony Club and the river. They will each hold a key and issue the key to appropriate users on a $20 bond, together with a leaflet of instructions for responsible use. This solution was the brainchild of the submitters, and has avoided the need to adapt gates and fences in the manner requested in their submission.

3. A cheap fix was identified for the chicane barrier at Lincoln Park to make it horse friendly. Two of the boards in the middle section have been dropped to give horses access yet keep motorbikes out. This has avoided the need to widen or remove the barrier. Arthur Yeo has fitted the new signs he made, to warn users of the presence of horses.

4. The riding community have taken the initiative to cut back barberry and overhanging macrocarpon branches along the Wyndham Park to Lincoln Park alleyway, to make it easier for horse to pass unhindered.

4. LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS

4.1 River Access – North End. The submitters asked Council to reform the track between the end of Wyndham Street and River Road, to establish access to the river at the north end of the village, without the need to ride down the Saddle Road. This area is shown in Figure 1.

4.2 It was established during the site visit that restoration of this track was likely to be impractical. The cliff edge is unstable and considerable physical works would be required to create a stable track of a suitable gradient. This work cannot be funded within current budget provisions.

4.3 Even if this option was practical and affordable, it may not represent the best use of Council funds, as it does not achieve the objective of the horses being able to access the river. The Council track ends at River Road, and access to the river still requires users to negotiate access across private land, which is not certain.

Figure 1: North End of the Ashhurst Village

4.4 River Access – South End. An option proposed by the submitters was for Council to negotiate access across private land from the corner of Mulgrave Street and Durham Crescent, using an existing unsealed road to the river. This land is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: River access – Mulgrave Street and Durham Crescent

4.5 Access from the end of Mulgrave Street would enable horse riders to travel from Wyndham Park, along the terrace corridor and down to the river.

4.6 The Council has unformed road reserve from the end of Mulgrave Street extending down to the river, as shown in Figure 3. This land is currently grazed as part of the adjoining farms. The unsealed roadway mentioned in the submission, crosses through this land.

4.7 Council has entered negotiations with the land owner in the past to purchase land to facilitate public access to the river. These negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful. Consideration could be given to re-entering negotiations to see if agreement could now be reached.

4.8 A review of the planning maps presents an alternative option. There are two parcels of crown land at the end of Mulgrave Street, as shown in Figure 3. The unsealed section of Mulgrave Street crosses over the first of the parcels. If Council could negotiate an easement across this land from the Crown, then it would be possible use the top section of the unsealed road, and negotiate public access from where the road crosses into the other neighbouring property and across their land and down towards the river.

4.9 The second parcel of land is managed by LINZ and is a substantial parcel which spans from Mulgrave Street, down to the rail corridor. If an easement was granted across this land, Council may then be able to negotiate with Kiwirail for access down alongside the railway to the rail bridge and the Manawatu River.

Figure 3: Council and Crown Owned Land

4.10 To date discussions have not been held with either the private land owners or the Crown Agencies. Further investigation is required before the feasibility of each these options could be determined.

4.11 Access across the railway. The submitters identified the rail overbridge on Cambridge Avenue as dangerous for horse riders. They submitted that it was not possible to use the road carriageway due to the heavy vehicles travelling close to the horse and rider. They asked whether it would be possible to widen the overbridge on one side to more safely accommodate all users, or to create a new overbridge over the railway line from the Works Pit to the ring road around the Canine Centre. This area in shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Pembroke Street and Railway line

4.12 Provision has already been made within the Long-Term Plan for investigations into a new railway overbridge for pedestrians and cyclists from the end of Pembroke Street (Programme 1093). The funding for this programme is $26K in Year 10. Officers advise that no work has been undertaken on this programme to date.

4.13 A new shared overbridge could meet the needs of horse riders, depending on its design. The bridge would place the riders in the Domain, near the Canine Club grounds, from where they could access the river.

4.14 Given the immediate concerns regarding safety on the State Highway diversion, Council could consider bringing this programme forward to commence in investigations into the feasibility of the bridge in 2019/2020. This would provide the information needed for Council to consider funding provision for the bridge construction within the 2021/2031 Long Term Planning process.

5. LINKAGE WITH OTHER PLANS AND INITIATIVES

5.1 Council is currently involved in a planning process for the realignment of State Highway. Part of the planning involves consideration of the state highway linkage with the existing Manawatu Gorge carpark, and provision for walkers and cyclists, amongst other matters. Depending on the planning decision, the highway realignment may change to the way cyclists and walkers access the village of Ashhurst.

5.2 There are several initiatives within the Active and Public Transport activity of Council aimed at increasing active transport. Council has identified that while the car will continue to be an important mode of transport, walking, cycling, and public transport are where the biggest changes are needed. Initiatives include the development of new pathways and the prioritising space for pedestrians and cyclists at pinch points, intersections and crossings within the existing transport corridor.

5.3 The River Framework provides for the development of the riverside, including improving access. Development of the shared pathway from the Ashhurst Domain to Riverside Drive is a key initiative. Completion of this length of the shared pathway will enable cyclists, runners, walkers and horse riders to move safely from the Ashhurst Domain though to Ahimate Reserve and Linton in the western areas of the City, and vis versa. This pathway, has the potential to increase the volume of active transport journeys made between the Ashhurst village and the City.

5.4 The Council has made provision for City Wide reserve master planning, including revision of the Ashhurst Domain reserve management plan. Ashhurst Domain master planning will need to incorporate forecast changes to the volume and type of active journeys through the Domain because of the matters discussed in 5.1-5.3.

5.5 An overall plan for active transport journey routes in Ashhurst is needed. This consolidated planning view need to consider the State Highway realignment and the River Framework, as well as the options identified in this report.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 Council officers incorporate the needs of horse riders into planning for active transport routes in Ashhurst.

6.2 Following the finalisation of the route and associated consent conditions for the State Highway 3 realignment, officers commence a planning process to identify options for active transport routes from the highway and through the village.

7. Compliance and administration

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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community We have an accessible city; where it’s easy for people to move about safely and access the services they need.
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy The priority area is: Have the most active community in New Zealand – active community and active transport.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan The action is: That Everyone can access opportunities to be active; and that Walkways, shared paths, and green corridors link to the wider transportation network; and that Streetscapes and park environments are safe, attractive and encourage activity.
Contribution to strategic direction	The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City, and Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community It enhances opportunities for horse riding and other active transport within the village environment, and connecting different parts of the village with safe, off-road pathways

Attachments

Nil

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