AGENDA

Planning and Strategy Committee

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

 

 

 

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

 

6 May 2019

 

 

Order of Business

 

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

 

-           Planning and Strategy Committee

-           Audit and Risk 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.         Petition - Dogwood Way, Milson                                                                        Page 7

6.         Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                   Page 11

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 1 April 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”  

7.         Emissions Management and Reduction Plan                                                   Page 21

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

8.         Housing Steering Group: Terms of Reference                                                  Page 39

Memorandum, dated 9 April 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.

9.         Palmerston North Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment Report - May 2019                                                                                                                    Page 53

Memorandum, dated 15 April 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy and the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie MacDonald.

10.       Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan                                                                  Page 57

Memorandum, dated 17 April 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.

 

11.       Proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 - approval for consultation (following trial allowing dogs on-leash in the CBD)                                         Page 91

Report, dated 16 April 2019 presented by the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie MacDonald.

12.       Cost Benefit Assessment of Council Ownership of On-Property Pressure Sewer Equipment                                                                                                                          Page 135

Memorandum, dated 11 February 2019 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

13.       Rural School Bus Safety                                                                                   Page 147

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

14.       Committee Work Schedule                                                                              Page 205

   

 15.      Exclusion of Public

 

 

To be moved:

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

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

 

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

 

 

 

 

 

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, Natalya Kushnerinko 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

 

PETITION

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Petition - Dogwood Way, Milson

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

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

 

 

Summary

Council received the attached petition dated 11 April 2019.

The petition is requesting Council to undertake efficient and effective measures to mitigate potential harm to users of motor vehicles on Dogwood way, Milson, at the earliest possible time.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Petition

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


 

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 01 April 2019, commencing at 9.01am

Members

Present:

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

Non Members:

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

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (early departure on Council Business) and Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

 

The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.01pm. He entered the meeting at 1.29pm during consideration of clause 14. He was not present when the meeting resumed again at 3.24pm. He entered the meeting again at 4.13pm during consideration of clause 16. He left the meeting again at 5.15pm during consideration of clause 17. He was not present for the continuation of clause 13, for clauses 14, 15 and 17 to 20 inclusive.

Councillor Lew Findlay was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.01pm. He was not present for the continuation of clause 13 and clauses 14 to 21 inclusive. 

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.01pm. She was not present for the continuation of clause 13 and clauses 14 to 21 inclusive.

 

Councillor Adrian Broad was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.01pm. He entered the meeting again at 3.57pm during consideration of clause 16. He was not present for the continuation of clause 13, and clauses 15 and 16 inclusive.

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 3.41pm during consideration of clause 15.  She entered the meeting again at 3.48pm during consideration of clause 17. She left the meeting again at 4.23pm during consideration of clause 17. She was not present for the continuation of clause 13 and for clauses 15 to 21 inclusive.

 

 

  

 

 

11-19

Apologies

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Committee receive the apologies.

 

 

Clause 11-19 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, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.03am

The meeting resumed at 11.54am

 

12-19

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   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.

 

Clause 12-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, 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.

Abstained:

Councillors Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke and Aleisha Rutherford.

 

13-19

Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - approval for consultation

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

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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 of the Planning and Strategy Committee and the Deputy Mayor for the approval of any minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal prior to publication.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.02pm

The meeting resumed at 1.01pm

 

When the meeting resumed The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Adrian Broad, Lew Findlay and Aleisha Rutherford were not present.

 

14-19

Submissions - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019

 

The following people appeared before the Committee and made oral statements in support of their submission and replied to questions from Elected Members.

 

Kees van Epenhuijsen (Sub 10)

Mr van Epenhuijsen spoke to his submission and made no additional comments.

 

Philip McConkey (Sub 17)

Mr McConkey spoke to his submission and made the following additional comments:

 

-     People should be encouraged to dismantle rather than destroy materials no longer needed.

 

-     Cost savings and changing mindsets was needed.

 

Siobhan Lynch-Karaitiana – Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated (Sub 19)

Ms Lynch-Karaitiana spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

 

-     It was important to consider the needs of the most vulnerable members of the community.

 

-     It needed to be made as easy as possible for people to do the right thing with waste.

 

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 1.29pm

 

Fiona Gordon and Felicia Aull – Palmerston North City Environmental Trust (Sub 50)

Ms Gordon and Ms Aull spoke to the submission and made no additional comments.

 

 

Bruce Miller and Dennis Hucker (Sub 37)

Mr Miller and Mr Hucker spoke to the submission and powerpoint presentation and made no additional comments.

 

Robert and Adrienne Scott – Human Aid Focus NZ (Sub 38)

Mr and Mrs Scott spoke to their submission and powerpoint presentation and made the following additional comments:

-     Reclaimed Timber Traders worked with refugees and held workshops for children.

 

-     The organisation had many volunteers and two staff over a four year period.

 

Malcolm Frith (Sub 40)

Mr Frith spoke to his submission and made the following additional comments:

-     Large industries such as building were destroying valuable resources.

 

-     There were huge waste streams going landfill due to the throwaway society.

 

-     A large resource recovery centre should be developed in the City.

 

Kate Costley (Sub 42)

Ms Costley spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

-     Behavioural change with positive reinforcement was required.

 

-     Council needed to set a culture of enabling change in this area.

 

Sally Pearce and Kian Foh Lee – Manawatu River Source to Sea (Sub 44)

Ms Pearce and Mr Foh Lee spoke to the submission and powerpoint and made no additional comments.

 

Peter Wood – MidCentral District Health Board (Sub 53)

Mr Wood spoke to the submission and made the following additional comments:

-     Doing the same thing will continue to get the same result.

 

-     E-Waste was not identified in the plan even though Council was doing a lot of work in that area.

 

Jonathan Hannon – Zero Waste Academy (Sub 49)

Mr Hannon spoke to the submission and powerpoint presentation and made no additional comments.

 

 

Gareth Stanley – EnviroWaste Services Limited (Sub 31)

Mr Stanley spoke to the submission and made the following additional comment:

-     The biggest barrier to waste diversion was education to ratepayers.

 

-     The best way to increase recycling was to make it cost effective.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3.09pm

The meeting resumed at 3.24pm

 

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

 

Leith Morrimire (Sub 47)

Mrs Morrimire spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

-     The Draft Plan falls short of where it could be.

 

-     Bold solutions were needed to address climate change, not half measures.

 

-     Most household waste should not end up in landfill.

 

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Planning and Strategy Committee hear submissions from presenters who indicated their wish to be heard in support of their submission.

2.   That the Committee note the Procedure for Hearing of Submissions, as described in the procedure sheet.

 

 

Clause 14-19 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

  

15-19

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

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

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 3.41pm

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

 

 

Clause 15-19 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

 

13-19

Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - approval for consultation - continued

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

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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 of the Planning and Strategy Committee and the Deputy Mayor for the approval of any minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal prior to publication.

 

Clause 13-19 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

 

16-19

Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan

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

In discussion Elected Members requested further information around timing and costings, with specific detail around options for the library.

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke entered the meeting at 3.48pm

Councillor Adrian Broad entered the meeting at 3.57pm

 

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 4.13pm

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 4.23pm

 

 

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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; subject to a further report back to the Planning and Strategy Committee including the library options and a high level timeline and estimated costings.

 

Clause 16.1 above was carried 7 votes to 5, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Jim Jefferies and Duncan McCann.

Against:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

 

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Brent Barrett.

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

 

Clauses 16.2-16.4 inclusive above were carried 10 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Against:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison and Karen Naylor.

 

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 5.15pm

 

 

17-19

Emissions Management and Reduction Plan

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the memorandum titled `Emissions Management and Reduction Plan’ dated 15 March 2019 be referred to the 6 May 2019 Planning and Strategy Committee meeting. 

 

Clause 17-19 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

 

18-19

Rural School Bus Safety

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the report titled `Rural School Bus Safety’ dated 14 March 2019 be referred to the 6 May 2019 Planning and Strategy Committee meeting.

 

Clause 18-19 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

 

19-19

Conference Opportunity - Institute of Directors: "Board Dynamics"

Memorandum, dated 25 March 2019 presented by the Deputy Mayor, Tangi Utikere.

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Brent Barrett.

 

Note:

On a motion `that the Committee approve the attendance of up to two Elected 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, and 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’ the motion was lost 3 votes to 7, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Vaughan Dennison and Karen Naylor.

Against:

Councillors Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann and Bruno Petrenas.

Abstained:

Councillor Tangi Utikere.

 

20-19

Committee Work Schedule

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

 

Clause 20-19 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

The meeting finished at 5.22pm

 

Confirmed 6 May 2019

 

 

Chairperson



 

 

 


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 & 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 2018 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

1.

2018-19 Emissions Management and Reduction Plan

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Housing Steering Group: Terms of Reference

DATE:                            9 April 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 memorandum dated 20 February 2019 and titled “Housing Steering Group: Scope of the Terms of Reference” be uplifted from the table.

2.   That the information contained in the memorandum dated 20 February 2019 and titled “Housing Steering Group: Scope of the Terms of Reference” as attached to the memorandum dated 9 April 2019 and titled “Housing Steering Group: Terms of Reference” be received.

3.   That a Housing Steering Group is formed.

4.   That the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference attached to the memorandum dated 9 April 2019 and titled “Housing Steering Group: Terms of Reference” be adopted.

 

 

1.         ISSUE

A memorandum dated 20 February 2019 reported to the March 2019 Planning and Strategy Committee sought further Council direction on the Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference. The memorandum was left to lie on the table.

2.         BACKGROUND

The background to the Council instruction to form a Housing Steering Group was detailed in the memorandum dated 20 February 2019.

Further clarification on the purpose of the Housing Steering Group has been sought from the Mayor and Cr. Susan Baty, the mover and seconder of the resolution to form a Housing Steering Group.

The focus of the recommended Terms of Reference is on increasing the supply of housing in the private market, in particular good quality rental accommodation and affordable or first homes.

The recommended Terms of Reference do not seek to address homelessness, emergency or transitional housing, state / social housing or subsidised rental housing.

Increasing the supply of housing is a key focus within the City Development Strategy.

The recommended Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference is attached to this memorandum as Appendix A.

The earlier memorandum dated 20 February 2019 is attached to this memorandum as Appendix B.

3.         NEXT STEPS

Invite the recommended members to nominate a representative and schedule the first meeting.

4.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual

No

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City

The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Economic Development Strategy

The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Housing and Future Development Plan

The action is: Monitor supply and demand of urban development

Contribution to strategic direction

The Housing and Future Development Plan directs that Council be much more responsive in how it provides land for housing and supports a greater choice of housing choice.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Appendix A: Housing Steering Group Terms of Reference

 

2.

Appendix B: Memorandum dated 20 February 2019

 

    


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Palmerston North Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment Report - May 2019

DATE:                            15 April 2019

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

Julie MacDonald, Strategy and Policy Manager, Strategy and Planning

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COUNCIL

1.   That the Palmerston North Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment Report – May 2019 is received to inform future decision making, in particular changes to the Palmerston North City District Plan and the 2021 Long Term Plan Process.

2.   That the recommendations at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.13 of the Palmerston North Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment Report – May 2019 attached to the memorandum dated 15 April 2019 titled “Palmerston North Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment Report – May 2019” be adopted.

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

1.1       The Council is required to produce a Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (the Capacity Assessment) under policy PB1 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (NPS – UDC).

1.2       The Capacity Assessment is a technical research report that will inform future strategy and policy decisions made by the Council. For example, the preparation of a Future Development Strategy under the NPS - UDC, future changes to the Palmerston North City District Plan, and the 2021 Long Term Plan process.

2.         BACKGROUND

2.1.      The Capacity Assessment has been prepared to meet the Council’s requirements under the NPS - UDC.  It requires that local authorities with urban area resident populations of over 30,000 people shall, on at least a three-yearly basis, carry out a housing and business development capacity assessment that:

a.         Estimates the demand for dwellings, including the demand for different types of dwellings, locations and price points, and the supply of development capacity to meet that demand, in the short, medium and long-terms; and

b.         Estimates the demand for the different types and locations of business land and floor area for businesses, and the supply of development capacity to meet that demand, in the short, medium and long-terms; and

c.         Assesses interactions between housing and business activities, and their impacts on each other.

2.2       Palmerston North is currently classified as a medium-growth urban area by the NPS - UDC because its resident population is projected to grow by 9.5% between 2013 to 2023 according to the most recent Statistics New Zealand medium urban area population projections.  The 2017 population and household projections prepared by Sense Partners suggest the city will grow by 12.2% between 2013 to 2023, which would classify it as a high growth urban area.

3.         OVERVIEW

3.1       The Capacity Assessment identifies a significant increase in annual housing supply in Palmerston North as well as growth in housing demand, and discusses some of the factors contributing to the increase in housing demand in the city.  Major capital investment projects in the city and wider region means that housing demand is likely to remain strong over the next 10 to 15 years.

3.2       Housing affordability in Palmerston North remains favourable compared with most New Zealand high and medium growth urban areas, but affordability is declining, with strong growth in house prices over the past four years.  Analysis for the report shows that increased land values have contributed 70% of the increase in the average capital value of houses in the city between 1994 and 2018.

3.3       Progress the Council is making to increase the supply of infrastructure serviced land for housing development, and changes to the Residential Zone section of the District Plan, should assist the Council to reduce land ownership concentration in the city and rural-urban land value differentials.  However, action is needed to address the increase in demand for rental housing in the city, which is seen in the rapid growth in the waiting list for social housing.

3.4       The Capacity Assessment also outlines ongoing growth in demand for commercial and industrial land in the city and the actions the Council has undertaken to monitor the level of demand for land.  There has also been action to increase the supply of infrastructure serviced land for growth in commercial and industrial developments in the city.  The first comprehensive review of vacancy rates in the commercial and industrial zones has been a timely input to the assessment, identifying nil or low vacancy rates in some zones, but ongoing high vacancy levels in lower grade buildings, particularly in the Inner Business Zone.

3.5       The Capacity Assessment supports the directions and actions included in the City Development Strategy and Housing and Future Development Plan. The Capacity Assessment recommends prioritising the delivering of these directions and actions.

3.6       The Capacity Assessment provides part of the evidence base required to deliver the changes necessary to the District Plan to give effect to the City Development Strategy and Housing and Future Development Plan. It will also provide a useful evidence base for the 2021 Long Term Plan process, including the 2021 Infrastructure Strategy, Asset Management Plans and Development Contributions Policy.

4.         NEXT STEPS

4.1       Recommendations for actions by the Council are identified in the Recommendation section of the Capacity Assessment on pages 14 and 15.

 

4.2       As noted in the recommendations of this memorandum, the Capacity Assessment and associated recommendations will be used to inform future decision making, in particular changes to the District Plan and 2021 Long Term Plan process.

 

4.3       The Capacity Assessment will also be a useful reference document to inform the work of the Housing Steering Group. It is suggested that the Housing Steering Group receive a briefing on the contents of the Capacity Assessment at its first meeting.

5.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual

No

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City

The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the City Development Strategy

The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Housing and Future Development Plan

The action is: Implement the NPS on Urban Development Capacity, including Housing and Business Needs Assessments, monitoring affordability indicators and a new detailed Future Development Strategy.

Contribution to strategic direction

The Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity has been useful for informing the work which needs to be done by Council to implement the City Development Strategy and the Housing and future Development Plan.  It will also inform future changes to the District Plan and the zoning changes needed to accommodate growth in the city.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Palmerston North Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment - May 2019 (attached separately)  

 

    


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan

DATE:                            17 April 2019

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

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan is approved for consultation.

2.   That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan.

 

 

1.         ISSUE

1.1       On 28 May 2018, as part of its deliberations on the 10 Year Plan, Council resolved:

 

i. That the Chief Executive be directed to develop an Urban Cycle Network Development Masterplan (hereafter referred to as ‘the masterplan’).

 

ii. That programme 1095 'PN - Bunnythorpe Cycle Pedestrian Pathway' in the amount of $2.833m be revised to an ‘Urban Cycle Network Development’ programme, to be delivered as $1.433m in Year 2 (2019/20) and $1.4m in Year 3 (2020/21) of the 2018-2028 LTP; and that the Bunnythorpe Cycle Pedestrian Pathway be deferred to Year 4 (2021/22) and considered in the next Long Term Plan.

 

1.2       Officers are developing a programme business case in parallel to the masterplan to leverage Council investment with potentially either a 51% or 75.5% funding assistance rate from NZTA. Should this business case be accepted, the total programme budget shall be $5.782m or $11.563m respectively.

1.3       The draft masterplan sets out Council’s long-term vision for the City’s cycling infrastructure, and details other actions to support this investment.

1.4       In order to properly inform Council’s investment beginning Year 2 (2019/20), the masterplan should be completed prior to the end of Year 1 (2018/19).

2.         BACKGROUND

2.1       The Active and Public Transport Plan sets a clear direction regarding needed improvements to promoting cycling through an increased infrastructural level of service, supported by promotional and skills based activities such as the ‘Bikes in Schools’ programme. A masterplan is needed to ensure these activities are effectively coordinated and prioritised.

 

2.2       The draft masterplan was developed following a series of in-depth workshops with key stakeholders including NZTA, Horizons Regional Council, Sport Manawatū, and members of the community. Further workshops were subsequently held with Councillors and the People on Bikes Forum.

 

2.3       The draft masterplan outlines an ultimate vision for a connected cycle network. It also acknowledges that delivery of this network will need to be phased over time. The draft masterplan prioritises corridors for delivery based on a network prioritisation model which considers factors such as projected demand, equity, cost, feasibility, and connectivity.

 

2.4       An indicative phasing plan is shown on page 15 of the draft masterplan. This has been developed taking into consideration the very tight timeframes available for investigation, design, consultation, and delivery of individual projects. Those corridors that ranked most highly in terms of prioritisation have been assessed with regard to their ease of implementation. Some corridors have already had significant design work completed and could begin consultation and detailed design immediately. Other corridors are known to have significant challenges for delivery, and will require greater investigation and community consultation. It is proposed that investigation and consultation on these corridors could begin in Years 2-3 (2019/20-2020/21), to be constructed in Years 4-6+ (2021/22-2023/24), in anticipation that the urban cycleways programme continues to receive funding in future 10 Year Plans.

 

2.5       Where Council invests in upgrading a particular corridor, it is important that it provides supporting infrastructure to provide a complete service to users. As detailed in the draft masterplan, this will include provision of cycle parking and wayfinding signage.

 

2.6       If approved, the draft masterplan shall be out for consultation for four weeks through the remainder of May, to be reported back to Council on 24 June 2019. An interactive story map has been developed to assist, which can be viewed here: http://bit.do/ePHHx

 

2.7       The draft masterplan attached to this memorandum is an unformatted draft. A high quality version using the same content will be produced for the purposes of consultation.

 

3.         NEXT STEPS

A)         Consult the community and key stakeholders on the Draft

B)         Review submissions and adjust the masterplan accordingly

C)         Present the adjusted plan for approval to the 24 June Council meeting

D)        Deliver on the actions in the masterplan starting 1 July 2019.

 

4.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? 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 2: A Creative and Exciting City

The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy

The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan

The actions are:

·    Identify and implement pedestrian and cycle focused improvement to intersections and road crossings

·    Develop a pack of programmes to complete the Primary On-road Cycling and Shared Pathway Network, including higher cycle lane visibility, improved paint quality, and rearranged parking and kerb line layouts

·    Upgrade, on a prioritised bases, cycle route interconnections and intersections

·    Develop and implement a programme to promote the city’s walkways, cycling programmes, and activities aimed at generating a behaviour change for a mode shift

·    Develop (a pedestrian) and cyclist amenity plan and implement projects identified in this plan

Contribution to strategic direction

The masterplan provides programme level guidance to the delivery of the actions in the Active and Public Transport plan.

 

Attachments

1.

Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Report

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 - approval for consultation (following trial allowing dogs on-leash in the CBD)

DATE:                            16 April 2019

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

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the Statement of Proposal (proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018), contained as attachment 1 to the report, be approved for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure in accordance with S10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and S83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.   That the Chairperson and Deputy Mayor of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Statement of Proposal prior to publication.

 


 

Summary of options analysis for proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018

Problem or Opportunity

Proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 to reflect the outcome of a trial allowing dogs on-leash in the Central Business District (CBD).

OPTION 1:

Approve the Statement of Proposal, including the proposed amendments to the Dog Control Policy 2018, for public consultation.

Community Views

Community views have been collected on the trial since it commenced on 23 August 2018.  The feedback was reported to Council after a six-month review in March 2019 and, based on this analysis, it is recommended to amend the policy to make the CBD an ‘on-leash’ area of dog control.

Benefits

Allows the community to have further formal input into an appropriate level of dog control in the CBD.

Risks

There are no particular risks identified.

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

There has been a high level of interest and engagement in the recent review of the Dog Control Policy and the trial in the CBD.

Benefits

There are no particular benefits identified.

Risks

If the policy is not amended through a process of consultation then people may assume that the trial ends on 23 August 2019.

Financial

No costs have been identified.

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 Safe Community Plan

The action is: Achieve compliance with relevant legislation, bylaws, and policies through provision of information, education and enforcement (animal control, building compliance, bylaws, health compliance, liquor licensing, noise control, planning compliance).

Contribution to strategic direction

One of the main reasons for the trial was to allow Council time to consider future options for the permanent dog control status for the CBD/City Centre.  The trial is considered a success when evaluated against specified measures and no significant health and safety issues have been experienced.  Allowing dogs on-leash into the CBD contributes to Council’s strategic direction to be a safe and connected community as well as contributing to aspirations to be a more liveable City.

 

Rationale for the recommendations

1.         Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval to consult on the dog control status for the Central Business District (CBD) through an amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 under section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996.  This action requires consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

1.2       Should the Council adopt an amendment to the policy, under Section 10(6) of the Dog Control Act 1996, the Council must then give effect to it by adopting a bylaw consistent with it.  This must happen no later than 60 days after the policy is adopted.  No further consultation on an amended bylaw is required.

2.         Background and previous council decisions

2.1       Dogs have been allowed into the CBD under on-leash control since August 2018 following the adoption of the trial through the Dog Control Bylaw 2018.

2.2       A six-month update on the trial in March 2019 presented feedback that was mostly favourable.  It was recommended that the trial proceed and that a report was brought to the May meeting with a recommendation on the dog control status of the CBD. 

2.3       To minimise the potential for uncertainty about the dog control status for the CBD, this report recommends a policy amendment to change the dog control status to ‘on-leash’ control in the CBD.  This allows for formal public consultation to take place, and any amendments to be made as close as possible to the trial period ending in August 2019.

3.         Description of options

3.1       The first option is to approve the Statement of Proposal (including the proposed amendments to the Dog Control Policy 2018 – refer attachment 1) 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, the policy would continue to contain information on the trial which may cause confusion to the community.

4.         Analysis of options

4.1       The recommended option is to approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation.  The amendment to the policy is to remove references to the trial and to categorise the CBD as an ‘on-leash’ area of dog control.

4.2       As reported in March 2019, several mechanisms have been used to gather feedback on the trial, including an online form on Council’s website, reviewing dog-related complaints and calls received by the Contact Centre, regular staff meetings, and CBD observations by animal control officers since the trial started in August 2018.

4.3       A summary of positive and negative comments received through the online form is contained as attachment 2.  Comments were also made on Council’s Facebook page that largely repeated feedback through the online form.

4.4       Other points raised through comments, important to consider from an operational perspective are:

-        Need to ensure that dog poo bags are provided.

-        Ensuring that there are clear messages about short leash length and which shops/businesses were ‘pet friendly’ i.e. had a policy of allowing dogs inside.

-        The trial is an opportunity to educate dog owners about their ownership responsibilities.

4.5       Caller information coming through the Contact Centre has also been reviewed for the last four years and compared against the current year (Figure 2).

4.6       In total, there have been 22 calls through the Call Centre over the last eight months of the trial and these are reflected in the 2018/19 numbers in Figure 2.  Most calls (77%) related to roaming dogs in the CBD with very few concerns raised about other dog control issues.  No calls have been received regarding dog attacks or dog waste in the CBD for the current year.  These particular issues were common themes of concern for many who participated in the policy and bylaw review process last year.

4.7       From an operational perspective, CBD/The Square-based staff have noted that they have not been aware of an increase of dog poo but have observed a few dogs not on leash.  Animal control staff have not witnessed any issues on their regular patrols around the CBD over the course of the trial period.  No bylaw infringements have been issued in the CBD over the last few months.

4.8       Measures were developed by staff to evaluate the success of the trial.  In terms of the first measure, the ‘25 complaints’ benchmark was based on an analysis of the level of complaints received over the last four years.  The table below provides comments against each of these measures.

Measure

Comments

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

There have been 22 phone calls over the last eight months through the Call Centre, and one email contact, regarding dogs in the CBD since the trial began.  Most of these contacts relate to roaming dogs.

 

2.   General adherence to the bylaw during the trial period.

No bylaw infringement fines have been issued over this time period.

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

Observations and feedback collected through formal and informal methods show most dogs and their owners are visiting the CBD responsibly.

4.   General positive feedback received about the trial.

Most comments received through the various communication channels over the last eight months have been positive about the trial.

 

4.9       Since the March report to Committee, an additional 34 people have made comments on the trial through the Council’s website form (following a social media reminder made on 5 March).  In total, 74 people have commented through this method.  While mostly positive, 27% of people commenting through this mode were not supportive of having dogs in the City Centre.

4.10     Overall, it is considered that the trial has been a success and as a result, the Council should proceed to amend the Dog Control Policy 2018 to allow dogs on-in the Central Business District (CBD).

4.11     Staff do not recommend option two.  If the Statement of Proposal is not approved for public consultation then the policy would continue to contain information on the trial which may cause confusion to the community.

5.         FUTURE DOG CONTROL poliCy REVIEW

5.1       There are a number of issues that have arisen, or remain unresolved, since the Dog Control Policy and associated bylaw were adopted last year.  These include consideration of:

·    how the policy reflects the Council’s discretionary functions under the Dog Control Act 1996 identified through a recent internal audit of animal control fees and charges.  A summary of these audit findings will be presented to the Audit and Risk Committee in May 2019.

·    the possibility of relaxing of the Policy/Bylaw to allow controlled dog access for special events and occasions in prohibited public places such as sports fields and aquatic centres.

·    the general provision in the policy relating to dogs being prohibited from within 30 metres of play equipment and play areas.  User conflicts between children’s play and dog exercise activities at the Linklater Reserve were raised at the policy deliberations stage and need further investigation.  Council is also preparing a ‘Play Policy’ and this issue will be discussed with the community as part of this process.

 

5.2       Staff consider that due to the nature of these issues, and given that the formal review process was carried out recently, an earlier than planned review of the policy is more appropriate than to address these matters through a series of policy amendments.  It is therefore recommended to conduct a review in two years’ time, rather than the scheduled review in 2023.  This will allow staff to do further research and analysis of the issues outlined above in section 5.1.

6.         Conclusion

6.1       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 amendment to the Dog Control Policy that reflects the outcome of the trial allowing dogs into the CBD.

7.         Next actions

7.1       If the Statement of Proposal is approved for 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 Council’s website.  The period for written submissions will be from 10 May to 10 June 2019.

7.2       Because Council does not meet in July, there may be a short period where the trial has finished, but deliberations and the adoption of the bylaw to give effect to the policy amendment are not yet complete.

8.         Outline of community engagement process

8.1       Key stakeholders will be contacted directly and provided with a copy of the consultation document and invited to make a written submission.

8.2       Officers have been updating Rangitāne o Manawatū through the bi-monthly engagement meetings and will give a further presentation on the proposed amendment to the policy.  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.

8.3       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.

8.4       Hearings for oral submissions are planned to be held at the August meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee.  A report outlining officer advice in respect of submissions received, together with an amended policy for adoption, is planned for the September meeting of the Committee.  If the amended policy is adopted by the Council in September, a bylaw would need to come into effect as soon as practicable after this.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 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 - Proposed amendment to the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018

 

2.

PNCC website online form - summarised comments from August 2018 to April 2019

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Cost Benefit Assessment of Council Ownership of On-Property Pressure Sewer Equipment

DATE:                            11 February 2019

Presented By:            Robert van Bentum, Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY:             Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1.   That Council endorses the current pressure sewer policy adopted by Council at its December 2018 meeting, which provides for Council ownership of on property pressure sewer assets only where there is a significant wider community benefit.

2.   That, in the context of the pressure sewer policy, Council accepts that wider community benefit be interpreted as only where there is a significant cost benefit to Council associated with deferred or avoided capital investment in network infrastructure.

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

1.1       Council adopted a policy that provided an overarching framework for the application, construction and maintenance of pressure sewerage systems in Palmerston North City in December 2018 (Pressure Sewer Systems Policy).  The policy was developed following an extensive review undertaken by Officers of approaches and policies applied in other Territorial Authorities.  Staff also carried out consultation and engagement on the draft document with the development community and affected parties.

1.2       The policy documents the specific requirements for the implementation, supply, construction, installation and maintenance of pressure sewer systems as an alternative to traditional gravity sewer systems in the residential, commercial and industrial zoned areas of the city.  The policy applies to the use of pressure sewer systems in the reticulated wastewater service area of the city.  The policy is supported by several other documents including:

·    Design standards

·    A home owners guide

·    An approved supplier and installer selection and appointment procedure

 

1.3       The policy provides guidance and standards to be met for any pressure sewer system installation, with special requirements where whole subdivisions are to be installed with pressure systems.  The policy provides Council with the authority to approve the use of pressure sewer systems where traditional gravity sewer services may also be an option.  The policy makes the distinction between pressure sewer areas where developers have elected, with Council approval’ to install pressure sewers; and areas where Council has determined that pressure sewer systems will be mandatory.

1.4       The policy sets out the criteria for selection and the respective responsibilities of Council and the property owners for the two different categories of pressure sewer service namely:

·    areas where pressure sewer systems are mandated and Council takes over ownership and maintenance responsibility from the property owner, and

·    areas where the developer has elected to install pressure sewer systems and where Council has discretion as to whether the on-property facilities remain in private ownership with maintenance the responsibility of the property owner.

 

1.5       During the consultation and engagement on the draft policy in late 2018, a submission was received from Kingsdale Park Limited, requesting Council exercise the discretion provided for in the policy to take over ownership and maintenance responsibility of the on-property pressure sewer equipment in the Kingsdale Park development. 

1.6       The recommendation from Council Officers in response to the submission from Kingsdale Park Limited was that in the absence of a significant wider cost benefit to the community of Palmerston North City there was no justification for PNCC taking over ownership of the on-property equipment in the Kingsdale Park development.  The Kingsdale Park Development’s use of a pressure sewer system was a developer initiated decision to provide reticulated wastewater services where none would otherwise have been possible.

1.7       To assist with assessing the merits of the Kingsdale Park request and better understand the validity of the two categories of pressure sewer service provided for in the policy, Council requested officers undertake a cost and benefit analysis for Council ownership of the on-property pressure sewer system.  This report details this cost benefit analysis.

 

 

 

2.         BACKGROUND

2.1       Application of the Policy

2.1.1    The policy defines a Pressure Sewer System in Palmerston North City to be the complete system which conveys sewerage via pressure generated by multiple pumping units, each located on an identified private property, to a common discharge point in the receiving network or treatment plant.  A pressure sewer system includes several elements, some of which are in public corridors (mainly the reticulation network) and some on private property (on-property pressure sewer equipment).

2.1.2    The policy is applicable only to the area of the city within the reticulated wastewater service area.  Any lots outside the service area, while they might be capable of being serviced using a pressure sewer system are not currently permitted to connect to the city wastewater network.

2.1.3    Objective 3 of section 7 of the District Plan includes ensuring that subdivision of land and buildings in rural areas avoids connection to the City’s reticulated infrastructure network and consequential impacts on network efficiency and the extension and/or upgrade of the infrastructure network.  The pressure sewer policy does not intend to change this and specifically states that pressure sewer systems may only be installed within the Wastewater Service Area as defined in the Wastewater Bylaw. 

2.1.4    The decision on selection of pressure sewer systems will normally occur when areas are developed and or rezoned for residential or commercial use.  The areas mandated by Council as Pressure Sewer Areas are all growth areas on the outer perimeter of the city at the limit of the existing wastewater reticulation service area.

2.2       Scope of the Policy

2.2.1    The policy outlines that pressure sewer systems can only be installed as an alternative to gravity sewer systems with Council approval.  The policy also outlines that developers may elect and Council may require the use of pressure sewer systems.  Where Council mandates the use of pressure sewer systems these areas are formally defined as Pressure Sewer Areas within Palmerston North city. 

2.2.2    Outside of the Council defined Pressure Sewer Areas the criteria for assessing whether a pressure system can be installed in a development included in the policy are:

·    geotechnical (such as the susceptibility of the area to liquefaction),

·    technical (i.e. hydraulic, including effects on the overall wastewater system and downstream capacity constraints),

·    financial (whole of life assessment including costs and benefits),

·    environmental, and

·    safety.

If these criteria are not met then the default position is that a gravity sewer system must be installed.

2.2.3    The policy also defines ownership.  In all cases Council will own the pressure sewer pipe network located in public corridors.  Council will also own and maintain the on-property equipment for residential installations in the Council mandated Pressure Sewer Areas.  The attached map identifies the Pressure Sewer Areas currently mandated by Council. Over time it is expected that the number and extent of these mandated areas will grow and the Wastewater Service Areas will be amended accordingly.

2.2.4    Where developers elect and receive approval from Council to install pressure sewer systems, the default expectation will be that responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the on-property components will be with the property owner.  Council will only consider ownership and maintenance responsibility for on-property components where there is a significant wider community benefit. 

2.2.5    The policy also details that for Trade Premises on-property equipment is always privately owned and the property owner must engage with a suitable qualified provider to ensure appropriate maintenance of all the on-property equipment.  Property owner responsibility for on-property equipment has been chosen to ensure that the trade premise manages the wastewater generated in a manner that minimises the impact on the pressure sewer system and the receiving network.

2.3       Kingsdale Park Limited Wastewater Services

2.3.1    The Kingsdale Park development when proposed was originally conceived as a rural residential development with on-site servicing for both water and wastewater.  The development was outside the wastewater and water supply reticulation service areas and therefore not entitled to reticulated services.

2.3.2    Officers and Council supported an application from Kingsdale Park Limited for a wastewater connection to the city.  The only feasible option for provision of a wastewater service was a local mixed gravity and pumped network with a long pumped rising main.  Pressure sewer technology provided the developer with a cost-efficient option to deliver reticulated wastewater services within the development and was chosen over a local gravity network.  Currently approximately 20 properties have been developed in the Kingsdale Park with around 50% of these serviced using pressure sewer systems and 50% with on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems.  The ultimate development envisages more than 120 lots, although the number of lots to be serviced using pressure sewer is not known at this time.

 

 

 

3.         COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

3.1       Basis of the Assessment

3.1.1    Cost benefit analysis for pressure sewer systems can be considered in a variety of contexts. Officers identified three separate contexts:

i.       Costs and benefits for the individual property owner

ii.      Costs and benefits for the developer responsible for construction and implementation of pressure sewer within the sub-division or development

iii.     Costs and benefits for the community as a whole beyond the development or sub-division

3.1.2    For the individual property owner, while the cost of owning and maintaining a pressure sewer system will be low, it is likely to be higher than for gravity sewer systems, due to the cost of power and periodic maintenance and replacement of the mechanical equipment.  The actual cost will depend on the care and attention taken by the property owner in use of the system and their adherence to the recommended operating instructions.  The relative cost of pressure sewer systems compared to gravity has not been considered, but rather the marginal cost of maintaining the on-property pressure sewer components.

3.1.3    The significantly lower development costs of installing pressure sewer systems compared to gravity systems was summarised in the December report to Council supporting the adoption of a Pressure Sewer Policy.  This cost saving is a benefit to the developer and a key incentive for adoption of the technology.  However, the capital cost savings at development are not considered relevant to the decision of who owns and maintains the on-property equipment.  This is because generally only the pipe network located in public corridors will be installed at development and in all cases the pipe network will be Council owned and maintained. 

3.1.4    The assessment of costs and benefits considered are the wider community ones which may derive from Council ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the on-property pressure sewer equipment.  The assessment assumes that the costs for pressure sewer operation, maintenance and renewal are all additive.  It should be noted that while gravity on-property connections have the potential to be low maintenance they are not maintenance free and with age problems such as tree roots and blockages can result in significant maintenance and renewal costs.


 

3.2       Costs Assessed in the Analysis

3.2.1    The assessment has considered only costs associated with ownership of the on-property pressure sewer assets (pump station and pressure lateral).  Electricity costs are not included as under all ownership models the property owner is responsible for these costs.  All costs have been calculated on a per property annual basis.

3.2.2    The specific costs considered are all maintenance and renewal costs and include the following:

·    Call-out fee and repair. The cost has been derived from maintenance history in large New Zealand and Australian installations where typically a call out and repair is required only once every 10 years, or alternatively only 10% of systems require attention in any one year.  Call out fee used is $670 which is a cost provided by one of the pressure sewer supply companies.

·    Cost of providing a communication channel between the pump station and the Council’s control centre. Current costs are based on the cost of a SIM card, however with time cheaper communications alternatives may provide. The cost of $60 is based on the lowest telco provider for a current network service.

·    Cost of replacing the pump after 20 years.  This is based on the current pump cost of $2,500.

·    Cost of upgrading and replacing the electrical and control equipment every 15 years currently estimated at $1,400.

 

3.2.3    Table 1 summarises the costs for communications, callouts, renewals and upgrades to be $345 per property per annum, excluding electricity.

Table 1.  Summary of Costs for On-Property Pressure Sewer Components

Item

Cost per property per annum

One $670 call out and repair every 10 years

$67.00

SIM card for communications link

$60.00

Replacement of $2,500 pump every 20 years

$125.00

Upgrade of electrical and control equipment every 15 years

$93.00

Total of On-Property Costs (per annum)

$345.00

 


 

3.3       Benefits Assessed in the Analysis

3.3.1    As outlined only those benefits which are realised by the wider community have been included in the analysis as it is considered that these are the only benefits that can be appropriately offset against the on-property costs to justify Council assuming ownership of the on-property pressure sewer system components.

3.3.2    There are a wide range of potential community benefits however only a few of these can be easily quantified.  An example of a key benefit which though important is difficult to quantify, is the greater resilience of pressure sewer systems to seismic events.  This enhanced resilience is expected to significantly reduce the period of disruption and the cost of reinstating wastewater services following a major earthquake however given the low likely of such events it is difficult to put a financial value on this benefit.

3.3.3    Specific wider community benefits which can be assessed and valued include:

·    Environmental benefits and cost savings associated with the smaller volumes of wastewater generated due to the significantly reduced stormwater inflow and infiltration to the network

·    Capital cost savings and benefits due to the deferral of major capital investment in the downstream receiving network due the significantly reduced wastewater peak flows

 

3.3.4    The significant reduction in wet weather flows associated with reduced stormwater infiltration and inflow to the network is a real and measurable benefit. 

3.3.5    To assess this benefit the cost to treat wet weather flows from the current gravity system have been calculated on a per property per annum basis.  This gives a figure of $24 as shown below. 


 

Table 2.  Costs to Treat Higher Wet Weather Volumes with Current Gravity System

Item

Total for WWTP

Per Property (28,000 prop)

Total annual dry weather flow volume m3 (based on 25,000m3/day)

9,125,000

326

Annual average total wastewater flow volume m3 (10 years of data)

11,100,000

396

Average wet weather flow treated per year m3

1,977,000

70

Cost to treat wet weather flows (trade waste charge of $0.3315/m3)

$655,375

$24

 

3.3.6    This has been compared with the per annum cost to treat wet weather flows from a property served by a pressure sewer system, which is estimated to be a cost of $8 as shown in Table 3 below. The net difference of $16 per annum has been used as the amount of the environment related community benefit.

Table 3.  Costs to Treat Higher Wet Weather Volumes for Pressure Sewer System

Item

Per Property

Dry weather flow volume m3 per property based on 25,000m3/day and 28,000 properties)

0.9

Wet weather flow volume m3 (based on wet weather flow comprising 10% of dry weather flow)

0.09

Wet weather flow days per year (average number of days in last 10 years when flow exceeded 25,000m3/day)

265

Wet weather flow volume m3 per PSS property per year

24m3

Cost to treat wet weather flows (trade waste charge of $0.3315/m3)

$8

 

3.3.7    The other significant wider community benefit is the potential saving in capital investment in new infrastructure required to provide additional network capacity.  The actual cost savings will be location specific however as a basis for this assessment, estimates of the capital costs avoided in the North Eastern Industrial Zone (NEIZ) have been used. 

3.3.8    The cost of the infrastructure within the NEIZ and for upsizing of the trunk sewer were estimated to be approximately $5,500,00. The avoided cost of this capital invested and repaid over a 30-year period is summarised in Table 4 below. Based on the design flows the equivalent number of residential properties was used to estimate the per property benefit.

Table 4.  Avoided capital costs due to use of pressure sewer system

Item

 

Avoided capital costs for the network outside of the development (NEIZ Extension Wastewater Capacity Assessment - June 2014)

$5,500,000

Annualised loan cost (based on 30-year loan period and 5.2% interest rate)

$365,980

Residential properties equivalent to the assumed design flow (June 2014 NEIZ report and standard PNCC residential design flows)

1585

Cost saving per property per year

$230.00

 

3.3.9    The benefit costs have been combined to calculate an overall benefit in Table 5.

Table 5.  Summary of Wider Community Benefits for Pressure Sewer Networks

Item

Benefit per property per annum

Reduced treatment costs due to lower wastewater volumes (exclusion of stormwater)

$16.00

Reduced costs due to avoided cost of capital investment

$230.00

Total Community Wide Benefits (per property per annum)

$246.00

 

4.         Relevance to KINGSDALE PARK Submission

4.1       Kingsdale Park is an atypical situation, given the only feasible option for providing wastewater services was a long pumped rising main connection to the city network.  Within the sub-division a local gravity network may have been an option, however the developer chose to proceed with a full pressure sewer network.

4.2       The discharge point for the Kingsdale Park wastewater rising main is the Aokautere gravity network which currently does not have any known capacity issue.  No network upgrade requirement has been identified as being required to accommodate the additional flows from the development. 

4.3       As already identified there is a wider environmental community benefit from the installation of pressure sewer systems in development, which has been estimated to be approximately $16 per property per annum.

5.         Summary

5.1       This assessment has identified a wide range of benefits arising from the use of pressure sewer systems in place of conventional gravity sewer networks and Council owned and operated pump stations. Many of these benefits accrue to the developer and property owner such as significantly lower installation and construction costs.

5.2       The specific benefits which have been considered in this assessment are those which are shared by the wider community. Such benefits include greater resilience to seismic events, provision of distributed emergency storage as well as reduced wet weather flows and avoided capital investment in upgrading of downstream infrastructure resulting in rates savings. It is these benefits which have been considered when assessing whether Council should take responsibility for on-property pressure sewer system components.

5.3       Of the wider community benefits, only two, namely cost savings from reductions in the total volume of wastewater and avoided capital investments for upsizing infrastructure, are easily quantified. The assessment of wastewater flow reductions indicates a cost saving of around $16 per property per annum. The most significant benefit is however assessed to come from costs savings due to avoided capital network investment which in the case of the NEIZ has been estimated to be $230 per equivalent residential property per annum. While there are other potential benefits it is not possible to put a value on these.

5.4       By way of comparison the estimated cost to Council of accepting ownership and maintenance responsibility for on-property pressure sewer assets is around $345 /annum and includes call-out fees, renewal costs for the mechanical and electrical assets as well as communication costs.

5.5       In summary, allowing for both environmental and deferred capital investment costs, Council will at best still be accepting an additional annual cost of $100 per property, where ownership of on-property assets rests with Council.  If there are only reduced wastewater volume cost savings, as applies to the Kingsdale Park situation and other privately requested developments, and no savings due to deferral of upgrading or new infrastructure investment then the additional cost to Council rises to $329 per property/annum. It should be noted that this additional cost is 30% more than the current targeted wastewater rate.

5.6       Officer’s consider that without the significant cost savings possible from avoiding investment in upgrading and new infrastructure, there is inadequate community wide benefit savings to appropriately offset the additional cost to Council of assuming ownership and maintenance responsibility for the on-property pressure sewer components.

6.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

No

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

No

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 Three Waters Plan

The actions include:

A pressure sewer policy is developed to support wastewater bylaw reviews to mandate pressure sewer implementation in NEIZ and City West zones

Provide for the safe collection, treatment and disposal of the city’s wastewater

Provide infrastructure for growth

Contribution to strategic direction

The Pressure Sewer Ssytems Policy contributes to the goal of being an Eco City, as well as an innovative and growing City.  It supports the Eco City and City Development Strategies by creating a framework to allow the installation of pressure sewer systems in Palmerston North City.  This will enable areas of the City, including designated growth areas that would be difficult to service with a conventional gravity sewer system, to be more cost effectively connected to the sewer reticulation. It enables Council to provide more resilient sewerage services at a lower overall cost to the City when compared with traditional gravity systems. It will allow Council to realise significant reductions in peak flow enabling deferral of major network capacity upgrades and it provides distributed sewage storage in the network in the event of a service outage.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.

Wastewater areas to be served by pressure sewer systems

 

    


PDF Creator


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Report

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 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?

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

1.

School Transport Infrastructure Review 2018

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Committee Work Schedule

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           6 May 2019

TITLE:                            Committee Work Schedule

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

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

 

 

Attachments

1.

Committee Work Schedule

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator