Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

5 August 2019

Order of Business

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. Summary of Submissions - Proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 Page 7

Memorandum, dated 21 June 2019 presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager.

6. Dog Control Policy Submissions Page 13

7. Confirmation of Minutes Page 83

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 5 June 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

8. Status of Master Plans in each Triennium Page 93

Memorandum, dated 16 July 2019 presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager.

9. Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - deliberations on submissions Page 99

Memorandum, dated 24 June 2019 presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager.

10. Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change D - Pressure Sewer Systems Page 151

Memorandum, dated 8 July 2019 presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager.

11. Organisational Approach to Environmental Sustainability Page 247

Memorandum, dated 6 July 2019 presented by Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer and David Murphy, City Planning Manager.

12. Draft Venues Policy for consultation Page 253

Memorandum, dated 11 July 2019 presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager.

13. Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change B - Napier Road Residential Area Extension Page 271

Memorandum, dated 16 July 2019 presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager.

14. Priority Intersection and Safety Treatments Across City Page 275

Report, dated 19 July 2019 presented by Robert van Bentum, Transport and Infrastructure Manager.

15. Committee Work Schedule Page 289

16. 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.

Governance and Legal Team Leader (Charlotte Greig) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Rachel Corser and Natalya Kushnirenko), 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

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Summary of Submissions - Proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018

DATE: 21 June 2019

Presented By: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the summary of submissions on the proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 be received.

1. ISSUE

The Council is consulting on the proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 in relation to the dog control area for public places in the Central Business District (CBD). Sixty-five submissions were received, and three submitters have indicated that they wish to speak to Council about their submissions.

This memorandum provides a summary to the points raised by submitters. The submissions are attached in full to the Committee Order Paper.

Attachment 1 presents a summary of feedback raised by submitters in response to the proposed amendments included in the Statement of Proposal.

2. BACKGROUND

The Council approved the proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 in May 2019 for public consultation. The scope of the proposed amendment is related to the outcome of a trial allowing dogs on-leash in the CBD that has been running since 23 August 2018 (when the Dog Control Bylaw 2018 became operative).

Consultation started on 10 May 2019 and closed at 4pm on 10 June 2019. Feedback on the proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy was encouraged in the following ways:

- Letters to over 7,000 registered dog owners (a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002).

- A public notice in the Manawatū Standard and the Guardian newspapers.

- The Statement of Proposal being made available in the Customer Service Centre, the City and branch libraries, and the Ashhurst Service Delivery Centre.

- A dedicated consultation page on Council’s website that included an online submission form.

- Facebook posts to advise the opening and closing of the submission period.

- Emails to previous submitters to the Dog Control Policy review and those who have commented on the on-leash trial in the CBD.

3. summary of submissions

Attachment 1 presents a summary of feedback made by submitters in response to the proposed amendments included in the Statement of Proposal. The summary is grouped into themes, with comments both opposing and supporting the policy amendment proposing dogs be allowed in public places in the CBD.

Twenty percent of submissions oppose the proposed policy amendments. Key reasons cited for opposition are safety concerns, the availability of other public places to walk dogs, concern about dog poo not being disposed of, and, that until Council’s general approach to dog control improves, problem dog behaviour will negatively impact on everyone including allowing dogs in the CBD.

Eighty percent of submissions support the proposed policy amendments. Main reasons cited for supporting the amendment are related to enhanced social opportunities, increased CBD vibrancy, enabling more dog walking opportunities, a more permissive approach that is becoming more common in other places, success of the trial, and that it benefits people visiting the City.

4. NEXT STEPS

A deliberations report will be brought back to the Strategy and Planning Committee seeking the adoption of amendments to the Dog Control Policy 2018. Following adoption, a further report seeking adoption of the associated Dog Control Bylaw 2018, that allows enforcement action to be taken by Council, will be made.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Safe Community Plan The action is: Achieve compliance with relevant legislation, bylaws, and policies through provision of information, education and enforcement (animal control, building compliance, bylaws, health compliance, liquor licensing, noise control, planning compliance).
Contribution to strategic direction	The proposed amendment to the policy follows a trial period allowing Council time to consider future options for the permanent dog control status for the CBD/City Centre. Consultation on the amendment to the policy is a statutory requirement and will guide the Council in its future deliberations.

Attachments

Summary of submissions to proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy 2018 ⇩

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 05 June 2019, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair), 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 and Leonie Hapeta.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (Council business), Councillors Rachel Bowen (early departure), Adrian Broad (early departure on Council business), Vaughan Dennison (Council business), Lew Findlay (early departure) and Leonie Hapeta (early departure).

Councillor Vaughan Dennison was present when the meeting resumed at 10.57am. He was not present for clauses 35-36 inclusive.

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 11.22am during consideration of clause 40. She entered the meeting again at 11.55am during further consideration of clause 40. She left the meeting again at 3.30pm during consideration of clause 46. She was not present for clauses 46-49 inclusive.

Councillor Adrian Broad left the meeting at 11.50am during consideration of clause 40. When the meeting resumed at 2.01pm he was present. He was not present for clauses 40-41 inclusive.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 12.00pm during consideration of clause 41. She entered the meeting again at 12.04pm during consideration of clause 42. She left the meeting again at 2.41pm during consideration of clause 43. She was not present for clause 41, and clauses 43 to 49 inclusive.

Councillor Lew Findlay was not present when the meeting resumed at 2.01pm. He was not present for clauses 42-49 inclusive.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 2.44pm during consideration of clause 43. She was not present for clauses 43 to 49 inclusive.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 3.19pm during consideration of clause 43. He was not present for clauses 35-42.

35-19	Apologies
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Committee receive the apologies.
	Clause 35-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
36-19	Public Comment Public comment was received from Mr Chris Teo-Sherrell regarding the pedestrian needs assessment.
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the public comment be received for information.
	Clause 36-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting adjourned at 9.10am

The meeting resumed at 10.57am

When the meeting resumed Councillor Vaughan Dennison was present

37-19

Submissions - Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019

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

Resonant Consulting Limited (3)

Mr Kevin Judd spoke to the submission and made no additional comments.

38-19

Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - Summary of Submissions

Memorandum, dated 17 May 2019 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the summary of submissions on the draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 be received.

Clause 38-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

39-19

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 6 May 2019 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 39-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Abstained:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford.

40-19

Prioritising Pedestrian Safety in the Network

Memorandum, dated 21 May 2019 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 11.22am
Councillor Aleisha Rutherford entered the meeting at 11.55am

Councillor Adrian Broad left the meeting at 11.50am

During discussion Elected Members were of the view that a quarterly report should remain on the Committee’s work schedule.

Moved Tangi Utikere, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled `Prioritising Pedestrian Safety in the Network’ dated 21 May 2019.

2. That Council endorses Officers’ proposed action list as identified in Table 1 of the memorandum titled `Prioritising Pedestrian Safety in the Network’ dated 21 May 2019 to improve safety outcomes for pedestrians through enhancement of existing approaches and programmes implemented within existing approved budgets.

3. That a quarterly report on Pedestrian Safety Issues continue to be placed on the Committee’s work schedule.

Clause 40-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford.

37-19

Submissions - Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - continued

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

Murray Guy – Kingsdale Park Limited (2)

Mr Guy spoke to his submission and made no additional comments.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 12.00pm

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

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 37-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Councillor Rachel Bowen entered the meeting at 12.04pm

41-19

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

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

During discussion Elected Members requested that the word ‘environmental’ be included in the recommendations.

The meeting adjourned at 12.59pm
The meeting resumed at 2.01pm

When the meeting resumed Councillor Lew Findlay was not present
When the meeting resumed Councillor Adrian Broad was present

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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 rationale sitting behind the ratings differential being applied to the first five hectares of residentially zoned land and the remaining balance is reviewed. The review should consider how the Ratings Policy can best support the release of residential zone land for development.

3. That a targeted review of the District Plan is undertaken that investigates the options to further refine the approach to managing retail and office activities across the Inner, Outer and Fringe Business Zones.

4. That the rationale sitting behind the ratings differential being applied to Inner and Outer Business Zone property by its Ratings Policy is reviewed. The review should consider how the Policy can best support the social, environmental and commercial outcomes being sought for the Inner and Outer Business Zones.

5. That the purpose of the Leased Parking Policy is reviewed so that it considers how best the Policy can support the social, environmental and commercial outcomes being sought for the Inner Business Zone.

Clause 41-19 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

42-19	Draft Venues Policy for consultation Memorandum, dated 8 April 2019 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald. Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 2.41pm Councillor Leonie Hapeta left the meeting at 2.44pm The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 3.19pm
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Leonie Hapeta. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 1 of the memorandum titled `Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 8 April 2019) is approved for consultation, subject to editing ‘a main purpose’ to ‘a purpose’, and inclusion of ‘sponsors’, in Guidelines 1-3 and subject to ‘to the extent that this impact would outweigh the financial or other benefit of the activity or event’ is deleted from point 4 on Page 5 of the draft policy. 2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Draft Venues Policy prior to consultation.
	Clause 42-19 above was carried 11 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Bruno Petrenas. Abstained: The Mayor (Grant Smith).
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Brent Barrett. Note: On a motion that the words ‘subject to ‘to the extent that this impact would outweigh the financial or other benefit of the activity or event’ be deleted from point 4 on Page 5 of the draft policy’ be included in recommendation 42.1 the motion was carried 8 votes to 4, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Jim Jefferies and Duncan McCann. Abstained: The Mayor (Grant Smith).
	Moved Jim Jefferies, seconded Vaughan Dennison. On a motion to remove the words ‘subject to editing ‘a main purpose’ to ‘a purpose’, and inclusion of ‘sponsors’, in Guidelines 1-3’ from recommendation 42.1, the motion was lost 6 votes to 6, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies and Bruno Petrenas. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
43-19	Extension of meeting
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the meeting be extended until 5pm.
	Clause 43-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

44-19

Update on Interdisciplinary Group on Signs

Memorandum, dated 14 May 2019 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the memorandum titled `Update on Interdisciplinary Group on Signs’ dated 14 May 2019 is received.

Clause 44-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 3.30pm

45-19

Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy Review

Memorandum, dated 16 May 2019 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the review of the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy be put on hold until the amendments to the Smoke-free Environment Regulations 2017 are adopted at the end of the 2019 year.

2. That officers report back to the Planning and Strategy Committee in December 2019 about the next stage of the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy review.

Clause 45-19 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

46-19

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 - Deliberations on Submissions

Memorandum, dated 15 May 2019 presented by the Parks & Reserves Manager, Kathy Dever-Tod.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council adopts the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019.

2. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of minor amendments to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 prior to publication.

3. That the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 is revoked upon commencement of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 on the 15^th July 2019.

Clause 46-19 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

47-19

International Relations Policy

Memorandum, dated 17 May 2019 presented by the International Relations Manager, Toni Grace.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council adopts the International Relations Policy.

2. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of minor amendments to the International Relations Policy prior to publication.

Clause 47-19 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

48-19

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 48-19 above was carried 11 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Against:

Councillor Lorna Johnson.

The meeting finished at 4.07pm

Confirmed 5 August 2019

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Status of Master Plans in each Triennium

Presented By: David Murphy, City Planning Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the information contained within the report titled “Status of Master Plans in each Triennium” be received.

1. ISSUE

The following instruction was passed by the Planning and Strategy Committee on 6 May 2019:

That the Chief Executive be instructed to provide a report on the status of the City’s Masterplans (currently Arena Masterplan, Streets for People/Central City Masterplan, Reserves Masterplans, with the Civic & Cultural Masterplan and Urban Cycle Network Masterplan in progress) in each triennium, to the Planning and Strategy Committee by September 2019.

2. BACKGROUND

Current Master Plans and Frameworks approved by the Council include:

- City Centre Framework (2013).

- Street Design Manual (2013).

- Arena Master Plan (2014 and 2017).

- City Centre Streetscape Plan (2016).

- Vegetation Framework (2016).

- Manawatū River Framework (2016).

- Esplanade Master Plan (2018).

Master Plans and Frameworks under development include:

- Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan.

- Te Apiti Master Plan.

- Ashhurst Domain Master Plan.

- Streets and Roads Framework.

- Urban Cycle Network Master Plan.

- Stormwater Management Framework.

All current Master Plans and Frameworks have been adopted or approved by the Council. This means they are enduring and have effect across trienniums, unless specifically rescinded.

Role of Master Plans and Frameworks

When assessing the impact of Master Plans and Frameworks adopted by Council being enduring, it is important to consider the specific role of Master Plan and Frameworks within the broader context of Council decision making.

One of the primary purposes of Master Plans and Frameworks is to drive integrated decision making on the development of complex parts of the city that evolve over a long period of time. While three years or six years may seem like a long time for an elected member or Council officer, it is generally a short period of time in the life of a City. Master Plans and Frameworks are typically operating at 20 to 30 year timeframes.

History suggests without Master Plans and Frameworks there is a greater risk of ad-hoc or short-term decision making driven by particular drivers at a particular time, e.g. direction provided by elected members, technical advice of Council officers and consultants, stakeholder expectations, operational decisions, budget constraints, emerging trends, current agendas and the availability of external funding. The risks with ad-hoc or short-term decision making is poor city image, duplication of investment or poor efficiency of real estate.

In most cases Council operational processes are relied upon to deliver projects in a manner consistent with Master Plans and Frameworks adopted by the Council. In certain situations, the Council may also elect to include the Master Plan or Framework within the District Plan. This ensures independent, evidence-based decisions are made regarding whether a development is consistent with the Master Plan or Framework. For example, the 2014 Arena Master Plan was included in the District Plan.

Process of Developing Master Plans and Frameworks

The process for developing a Master Plan or Framework involves weighing up a variety of inputs, including Council direction, stakeholder and community expectations and technical advice. In most cases there are inherent tensions between these inputs and the finalisation of any Master Plan or Framework requires an evaluative expert to provide an overall broad judgement.

The consultation for any Master Plan or Framework needs to be fit for purpose. The greater level of specificity, the greater the level and detail of consultation. Put another way, the lower the level of specificity, the greater the reliance on existing strategic direction.

Types of Master Plans and Frameworks

Not all Master Plans and Frameworks are the same. Some provide a high-level of specificity to a particular location or project that will be delivered over a certain time period, whereas others provide a low-level of specificity to a particular location that will evolve over a longer period of time. For example, the City Centre Streetscape Plan provides a high-level of specificity to a series of streetscape programmes in the City Centre whereas the Manawatu River Framework provides a low-level of specificity to future investment at the Manawatu River. The Master Plans and Frameworks prepared for larger areas of the City will generally have less specificity.

Some Master Plans may be better described as a proposition that will require more detailed analysis and design, consultation, fund raising, collaboration and research. They may contain some big moves, but the developed design and detail is to come. The Draft Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan fits into this category.

Finding the appropriate level of specificity for Master Plans and Frameworks can be challenging. For example, given the sensitivities of the Esplanade and the tension between vehicles, pedestrians and access / connectivity, the Esplanade Master Plan ended up being a higher-level principles-based document that will inform the developed and detailed design of future investment. The nature and role of the Te Apiti Master Plan has needed to adjust to the decision of NZTA to include a shared path alongside the new Manawatu Tararua Highway and the research underway by CEDA on tourism opportunities. It is likely it will end up providing a high-level of specificity in some locations and less in others. A number of the projects and opportunities will be funded by other public and private organisations.

Regardless of the level of specificity within a particular Master Plan or Framework, they should not be confused with Developed Concept Plans or Detailed Design Plans which are both subsequent steps within the overall design process. The design process is detailed below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Design Process Vision to Reality

Council Approval of Master Plans and Frameworks

Council approval of Master Plans and Frameworks is an important step as it sets expectations and provides direction to Council officers and the community. A small number of similar documents were prepared in the 1990s and 2000s, but many were not approved by Council or were quickly shelved to gather dust. With all Master Plans and Frameworks now approved by Council and available on-line, there is less risk today that they become discarded or irrelevant. An overview of existing Master Plans and Frameworks should form part of the discussion with elected members following an election. That way any new Council can determine if they want to review or rescind any existing Master Plans or Frameworks, just like they can with Council strategies.

Funding of Master Plans and Frameworks

The approval of Master Plans and Frameworks does not commit Council funds. This can only be achieved via the Long Term Plan, Annual Budget or an explicit resolution of Council.

In more recent years, resolutions recommended by Council officers have contained more specificity to help emphasise the role of Master Plans and Frameworks. For example:

City Centre Streetscape Plan:

- That the Palmerston North City Centre Streetscape Plan is endorsed to inform future Council decision making, in particular the 2018 Asset Management Plans and Long Term Plan.

- That it be noted that the implementation of the Palmerston North City Centre Streetscape Plan is subject to the Council Financial Strategy and 2018 Long Term Plan and will need to be staged over a number of years given the significant costs involved.

- That the Chief Executive be authorised to consult on the priorities within the Palmerston North City Centre Streetscape Plan prior to the preparation of the 2018 Asset Management Plans and Long Term Plan.

- That it be noted that the 2018 Long Term Plan provides a formal opportunity for the Council to consult on the priorities within the Palmerston North City Centre Streetscape Plan.

3. NEXT STEPS

Progress the development and implementation of Master Plans and Frameworks and provide an overview of existing documentation as part of the discussion with elected members following an election.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		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?		Yes
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 Urban Design Plan The action is: Implement Urban Design Principles.
Contribution to strategic direction	Council has made good progress in applying urban design principles to city development. The District Plan has been reviewed and urban design principles incorporated into the residential and business zones. A variety of design-led planning documents, such as the City Centre Streetscape Plan and Manawatū River Framework, are available to inform public investment and encourage private development.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - deliberations on submissions

DATE: 24 June 2019

Presented By: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council confirms that the Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

2. That the Council adopts the Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 Administration Manual, as shown in attachments 1 and 2.

3. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 and Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 Administration Manual prior to publication.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Council is reviewing the Wastewater Bylaw following the adoption of the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy in December 2018.

1.2 The Council has carried out public consultation on the draft Wastewater Bylaw. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide advice on the submissions.

2. BACKGROUND

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

2.2 The Council adopted the Wastewater Bylaw in May 2017. This was a new bylaw, and therefore it is required to be reviewed within five years of adoption, and thereafter every 10 years. The Planning and Strategy Committee agreed at the 5 November 2018 meeting to review the Bylaw early.

2.3 A draft bylaw was approved for consultation at the Committee’s 1 April 2019 meeting, and consultation was carried out between 13 April and 20 May 2019. Four submissions were received during that time, and two submitters spoke to their submissions at the 5 June committee meeting.

3. Analysis of issues raised by submitters

Submitter #1

3.1 The first submitter has raised concerns about the impacts of making pressure sewer systems mandatory for wastewater connections in the Northeast Industrial Extension Area. In particular, the submitter believes there is a lack of clarity in the Pressure Sewer Design Standards, the Engineering Standards for Land Development (ESLD), and the District Plan, about the limits of water usage (and by extension, wastewater discharged) within the zone. The submitter is concerned that the current design standards could require developers to install and maintain underground storage tanks for up to 24 hours total discharge, which would impose a significant cost on the developer. Further, the submitter identifies ongoing maintenance costs for these storage systems, which could impact the economic viability of land development in this area.

3.2 Officers do not recommend making a change to the draft Bylaw. The issue appears to rest with the ESLD, particularly the requirement regarding water flow limits, which has implications for wastewater discharge. A more appropriate response would be to revise the ESLD (which are currently under review) and remove the section that sets specific flow rates. This would likely address most of the submitter’s concern. It would also be useful to note that any issues with capacity will be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the consent process for subdivision, rather than enforced through the Bylaw.

Submitter #2

3.3 The second submitter suggests that the Wastewater Service Area Map in the draft Bylaw should show not just the proposed service area, but also include rural residential areas with consent approval granted by Council, so that the Service Area includes the total consented areas, not just the physically connected area.

3.4 Officers do not recommend making a change to the draft Bylaw. While the concern of the submitter is appreciated – that if such consented areas are not shown on the map, this could be used as a reason to deny a wastewater service connection – clause 5.4 of the draft Bylaw allows for such connections to be granted. Specifically, it makes clear that where a property is within the rural residential overlay, and the Council has approved a subdivision consent on the basis that the property will receive access to the public wastewater system, then a new connection may be permitted.

3.5 In summary, the submitter has requested that the Wastewater Service Area Map include those areas with subdivision consent. However, it is impractical to extract that information from subdivision consents to include on the map, and redundant when the conditions of the consent are more specific than the map. Coupled with the explicit exception contained in clause 5.4, there is no benefit to amending the map to reflect subdivision consents.

Submitter #3

3.6 The third submitter has expressed support for clause 5.4 of the draft Bylaw, which permits connections for properties in the rural-residential overlay, where a subdivision consent has been given on the basis of receiving access to the public wastewater system. However, the submitter is opposed to clause 9. The submitter argues that clause 9 makes it mandatory for properties within the Pressure Sewer Service Area to connect to the public Pressure Sewer System. The submitter notes that they have an agreement with the landowner at 146 Richardsons Line – PMB Landco Ltd – to utilise the existing wastewater main. The submitter suggests including in the draft Bylaw a specific exemption for the property at 146 Richardson Line, to recognise this alternative arrangement.

3.7 Officers accept that the specific case of 146 Richardsons Line would be adversely affected by a strict interpretation of clause 9, making it mandatory for that site to connect using a pressure sewer system. The pre-existing agreement to connect via the existing wastewater main would be an appropriate means of servicing the site. However, rather than exempting that site via clause 9, a simpler solution is recommended – to redraw the Wastewater Service Area map in the Administration Manual to exclude 146 Richardsons Line from the area marked as “pressure sewer system”.

3.8 The submitter also supports concerns raised by the first submitter, relating to the impacts of making pressure sewer systems mandatory for wastewater connections in the Northeast Industrial Extension Area.

3.9 The points made in paragraph 3.2 apply to this aspect of the submission also. Officers suggest that a more appropriate response would be to revise the ESLD (which are currently under review) and remove the section that sets specific flow rates.

Submitter #4

3.10 The fourth submitter supports the identification of the Proposed Wastewater Services Areas, including the City West growth area, and servicing growth areas through Pressure Sewer Systems. The submitter does raise concerns that there is sufficient capacity in the pressure sewer infrastructure to support the needs of the City West growth area, and wants to ensure that there is direct engagement with affected parties to ensure that the staging of development is properly managed.

3.11 Officers can confirm that there is capacity in the pressure sewer infrastructure to support the needs of the City West growth area. The staging of development of this infrastructure will be through the District Plan and the Long Term Plan, and there will be opportunities to engage with affected parties through those processes.

4. Other considerations

4.1 The Council is required by S155 of the Local Government Act 2002 to determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any concerns under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

4.2 A full consideration of these matters was provided in a report presented to the Committee on 5 November 2018, and was confirmed again in the April 2019 report that approved the draft bylaw for public consultation. At each stage, the Committee determined and confirmed that a standalone form of bylaw was the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that the bylaw was unlikely to give rise to any concerns under NZBORA.

4.3 Following consultation, the assessment remains the same. The standalone form of bylaw remains the most appropriate for the Wastewater Bylaw. No concerns under NZBORA have been identified during the consultation process.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Officers recommend that the draft Wastewater Bylaw and Administration Manual is adopted as presented in the attachments to this report. As a result of submissions received, one change to the proposal is suggested – the removal of 146 Richardsons Line from the Pressure Sewer Services area of the Wastewater Service Area maps.

5.2 The other issues raised by submitters are best addressed via other means, such as the revision of the Engineering Standards for Land Development. The officers responsible for that work have been notified of these issues, and will take these into account.

5.3 If the Council confirms the recommendations to this Committee to adopt the Wastewater Bylaw, then it will replace the current Wastewater Bylaw. The new Wastewater Bylaw will be published to the Council’s website, with physical copies placed in the Customer Service Centre.

5.4 Submitters will be contacted and advised of the outcome of the consultation process, and given a copy of the adopted Bylaw.

5.5 A public notice will be published in the Manawatū Standard and the Guardian advising of the adoption of the new Bylaw, and that it will commence on 30 September 2019, allowing time for implementation.

6. Compliance and administration

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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 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 action is: Adopt a pressure sewer policy for the City, supported by revisions to the Wastewater Bylaw (by end of 2018/2019)
Contribution to strategic direction	The development of a pressure sewer policy was identified as part of the Three Waters Plan, along with consequent changes to the Wastewater Bylaw to support the implementation of that policy. Conducting consultation on the draft Bylaw and Administration Manual will contribute to the completion of this action in the identified timeframe.

Attachments

1.	Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 ⇩
2.	Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 Administration Manual ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change D - Pressure Sewer Systems

DATE: 8 July 2019

Presented By: David Murphy, City Planning Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change D – Pressure Sewer Systems be approved for public notification under clause 5, schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change D – Pressure Sewer Systems prior to public notification under clause 5, schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1. ISSUE

Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change D – Pressure Sewer Systems (Plan Change D) has been prepared to ensure the District Plan gives effect to the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy December 2018 and is consistent with the Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2019.

Plan Change D is required to be approved by the Planning and Strategy Committee for public notification.

2. BACKGROUND

Pressure sewer systems (PSS) are alternatives to conventional gravity sewer systems and have advantages over a conventional gravity sewer system in areas with geotechnical and technical constraints. For example, pressure sewer systems:

· Allow for a controlled transfer of sewage from homes and businesses to a central treatment facility;

· Can be used in difficult or challenging terrain and in poor ground conditions because the pipe does not need to be buried deeply; and

· Can have a relatively small construction footprint compared to installation of conventional gravity systems.

PSS are rapidly expanding within New Zealand with significant numbers now installed in over 20 territorial authority areas with thousands of systems installed in Rotorua Lakes, Christchurch, Bay of Plenty and Auckland. They are increasingly being used to service low lying coastal communities where traditional septic systems are resulting in significant negative environmental effects and where traditional gravity systems are difficult and expensive to construct.

Plan Change D seeks to amend the District Plan to require the installation and use of pressure sewerage systems in identified Pressure Sewer Areas in City. Plan Change D will also allow for the installation of Pressure Sewer Systems in other urban areas. Pressure Sewer Areas will overlay growth areas identified by the Council. These areas have already been identified as Pressure Sewer Areas in the Council-wide Pressure Sewer System Policy, which was adopted by Council in 2018. The Pressure Sewer Areas are:

· The North East Industrial Zone Extension Area as shown in Map 7.2 of the District Plan.

· The City West Area as shown in Map 9.2 of the District Plan.

· The area of land bound by Napier Road, Roberts Line, the remnant river terrace and Macpherson Grove (PT LOTS 2 3 SEC 418 TOWN OF PALMERSTON NORTH LOT 10 DP 499783, LOT 1 DP 41671, PT LOT 1 DP 25691, LOT 1 DP 16031 BLK XI KAIRANGA SD, LOT 1 DP 456688 and LOT 5 DP 74205 LOT 2 DP 456688)

The technical analysis to support Plan Change D is included in the accompanying Section 32 Report.

A copy of Plan Change D is included as Attachment 1.

3. NEXT STEPS

Publicly notify Plan Change D for submissions and further submissions and then hold a hearing to make decisions on submissions, if necessary.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 182		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 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 Growth Infrastructure Plan The action is: Supporting infrastructure is in place to support planned housing and industrial development.
Contribution to strategic direction	More resilient and cost-effective infrastructure to support growth. Pressure sewer systems are alternatives to conventional gravity sewer systems and have advantages over a conventional gravity sewer system in areas with geotechnical and technical constraints

Attachments

Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change D - Pressure Sewer Systems ⇩

PDF Creator

PDF Creator ..

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Organisational Approach to Environmental Sustainability

DATE: 6 July 2019

Presented By: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer
David Murphy, City Planning Manager

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

Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Memorandum dated 6 July 2019 and titled “Organisational Approach to Environmental Sustainability” be received.

1. ISSUE

There have been a number of requests for reports on environmental sustainability, including the most recent calling for a report on a Science and Sustainability Champion. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the organisation’s approach to environmental sustainability that addresses the issues raised in previous resolutions of Council. The approach taken is one of integration to ensure that environmental sustainability is embedded across the organisation to maximise ownership and responsibility.

2. BACKGROUND

The following instructions have been made:

“That the Chief Executive be instructed to report on Council’s environmental sustainability plans and progress including reducing transport and plastic waste” (Council 25 March 2019).

“That the Chief Executive be instructed to report annually on the Council’s Emissions Reduction and Management Plan” (Planning and Strategy 6 May 2019).

“That the Chief Executive be instructed to report on the proposal to create a Science and Sustainability Champion in the organisation, with recommendations for any necessary action” (Committee of Council 20 May 2019).

3. ORGANISATIONAL APPROACH

Strategic Context

Goal 4 of Council’s Strategic Direction is to be an Eco-City with a target of 25% reduction in carbon emissions by 2028. To achieve this, the Council has adopted an Eco-City Strategy and 5 plans covering three waters, waste, energy, biodiversity and sustainable practices. These plans have a major strategic theme of sustainable practices to ensure that these practices are embedded throughout Council’s business. The Council has also adopted the Waste Minimisation Plan. In addition, the organisation has developed and reported on the Council’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan to ensure that the organisation is working towards the target set by the Council. The Council has also approved a programme for year 2 of the Long-Term Plan for the development of a low carbon road map.

Environmental Sustainability Programme and Champions

To implement this strategic direction, the Executive Leadership Team has approved an environmental sustainability programme that focuses on its planning, building, and operations activities. Part of this programme established a cross-functional working group from across the organisation as well as those staff who have particular responsibilities for environmental sustainability. This working group reports to the Sustainability Leadership Group who is taking oversight of the implementation. The Leadership Group comprises second tier managers who can best influence the delivery of this programme. In effect the staff working group and the leadership group are acting as environmental sustainability champions.

Partnerships

While to date, the focus has been on the organisation, the road map will provide further direction on the approach with the community. Discussions have also been held with Massey University and Horizons Regional Council about how we can work together to achieve our mutual goals in this area. Horizons Regional Council is taking a lead on a regional climate change strategy and will have held a forum (24 July) by the time this report is considered by the Committee. Palmerston North City Council and Massey University have discussed the future of the Living Lab and will be co-hosting an unconference on climate change with the intention to include iwi and the relevant managers and staff with environmental responsibilities from major organisations. This will guide further research and action in this area. These relationships with Horizons Regional Council and Massey University are particularly important for accessing any scientific knowledge where required.

The Council has been a long-standing member of ICLEI and more recently signed up to the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration to ensure that the organisation is able to keep abreast of best practice. In addition, we are applying the United Nations Sustainable Development goals to drive the Palmy Global Ambassador Programme as part of the Council’s Global Partnerships.

Integration and Implementation

In establishing the operational framework for the organisation’s approach to environmental sustainability consideration has been given to the cultural context that this operates within. To achieve the integrated Strategic Direction of Council, the organisation is taking an integrated approach to implementation to ensure that environmental sustainability is embedded in all parts of the organisation. Having a single champion has not been an effective approach in the past as it centralises ownership in one person resulting in slow implementation with sub-optimal ownership across the organisation and mixed results in embedding change into business as usual.

The diagram attached as an appendix is a summary of the Council’s and organisation’s approach to sustainability. The yellow boxes represent Council’s Strategic Direction, the blue boxes represent the organisation’s response through its operations and the green boxes represent the external drivers through best practice opportunities and legislative constraints.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Report on environmental sustainability, including transport and plastic waste: The initial focus will be on reporting on the monitoring of Council’s Strategic direction. This includes Goal 4 Eco-City. We will then be in a position to assess whether further detailed reporting is required. It is important to note, the integrated nature of the strategic direction and that these goals have an inter-dependency in meeting the purpose of local government in achieving Community Wellbeing.

4.2 Report annually on the Council’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan: This report provides Council with an update on progress on the organisation’s operations.

4.3 Science and Sustainability Champion: The organisation has established a number of champions conducive to its culture. This has oversight at the highest level. In discussion with Massey University and Horizons Regional Council, access to the science is able to be achieved through partnerships such as the Living Lab.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Sustainable Practices Plan The action is: “Help foster more sustainable behaviours and practices will help Council achieve its other sustainability goals, such as the reduction of energy, waste and carbon emissions.”
Contribution to strategic direction	The organisations approach to environmental sustainability is designed to deliver on Council’s Goal of being an Eco-City and its target to achieve a 25% reduction in carbon emissions.

Attachments

Environmental Sustainability Model for Implementation ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Draft Venues Policy for consultation

Presented By: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 2 of the memorandum titled `Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 5 August 2019) is approved for consultation.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Draft Venues Policy prior to consultation.

1. ISSUE

In June 2019 the Planning and Strategy Committee resolved that the Draft Venues Policy be approved for consultation, subject to (among other things) the inclusion of ‘sponsors’ to Guidelines 1-3 of the draft. The original Draft Venues Policy proposed in June is attachment 1 of this report.

Staff consider that the amended draft may breach the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and have therefore paused the consultation process to allow this issue to be resolved. Section 19 of BORA states that everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act (HRA). Prohibited grounds under the HRA include political opinion and religious belief.

Because the Committee had delegated authority to adopt the draft for consultation, this matter must be addressed by the Planning and Strategy Committee, rather than by Council. Council received this information at its June meeting.

2. BACKGROUND

In October 2018 the Council resolved that: “[t]he Chief Executive develop a PNCC Venues Policy which includes hireage and allowable uses of PNCC venues”. This resolution followed multiple deputations from people objecting to the Council hosting the New Zealand Defence, Industry and National Security Forum at Central Energy Trust Arena.

In June 2018 the Planning and Strategy Committee considered the Draft Venues Policy proposed for consultation. That report outlined the process undertaken to develop the Draft Policy as well as the rationale for each part of the policy proposed for consultation. That material is not reproduced here but is part of the June 2018 Committee agenda.

The Committee resolved (refer clause 42.19):

“1. That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 1 of the memorandum titled `Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 8 April 2019) is approved for consultation, subject to editing ‘a main purpose’ to ‘a purpose’, and inclusion of ‘sponsors’, in Guidelines 1-3 and subject to ‘to the extent that this impact would outweigh the financial or other benefit of the activity or

event’ is deleted from point 4 on Page 5 of the draft policy.

2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Draft Venues Policy prior to consultation.”

3. Discussion

This section will address the proposed changes to the Draft Venues Policy in turn. These changes include both the resolutions made by the Committee in June, as well as a further recommendation by staff.

3.1 Change of wording from ‘a main purpose’ to ‘purpose’ in Guidelines 1-3 (attachment 1) (resolved by Committee)

This change has been incorporated into the proposed Draft Venues Policy (August 2019) (attachment 2). This change broadens the scope of the proposed policy.

3.2 Deletion of the words ‘subject to the extent that this impact would outweigh the financial or other benefit of the activity or event’ from Guideline 4 of the Draft Policy (attachment 1) (resolved by Committee)

This change has been incorporated into the proposed Draft Venues Policy (August 2019) (attachment 2). This is a relatively minor amendment and staff are comfortable that this change does not have any material significance to the meaning of the proposed draft.

3.3 Inclusion of ‘sponsors’ in Guidelines 1-3 (attachment 1) (resolved by Committee)

The amendment made by Committee relating to the inclusion of sponsors in the guidelines is more problematic. Staff consider that this change can be added as (new) Guidelines 2 and 4 (attachment 2) without any legal issues arising. However, the addition of sponsors to the proposed guideline about events ‘in public’ does raise some concerns. As amended in June, the guideline would be:

“3. Bookings will not be accepted where a ~~main~~ purpose of an activity or event, or of any sponsor of an event or activity, is religious worship, party political advocacy (for example, of a single political party), or the promotion of misinformation^{^[1]} AND the event or activity would able to be overheard by members of general public (for example, in the Central Library’s Event Central).”

Legal advice on the change resolved at Committee suggests that this provision may be unjustifiably discriminatory and a breach of BORA.

Staff therefore propose that guidance about event sponsorship is limited to the guidelines relating to the (new) Guidelines 2 and 4 shown in red (attachment 2).

3.4 Legality of Guideline 3 (attachment 1) (raised by staff)

The purpose of the proposed Guideline 3 was to guard against people feeling unwelcome or excluded from community venues. Staff have now sought further advice about the proposed guideline and have concluded that Guideline 3 may be unjustifiably discriminatory.

Staff therefore propose that Guideline 3 in the original draft is replaced with the following Guideline 5 (the new numbering reflects the other changes made to the draft) (shown in red in the Draft Venues Policy (August 2019) in attachment 2):

“5. When deciding whether to accept a booking for an activity or event in an area able to be overheard by members of the public (for example, the Central Library’s Event Central) staff will assess whether an event or activity may unreasonably disrupt the ability of other members of the community to use the venue. Unreasonable disruption could include the amount and duration of noise, or whether the purpose of an activity or event is the promotion of misinformation^{^[2]}^. This is to ensure that council venues remain inclusive and welcoming of the whole community.”

4. Summary

Staff have updated the proposed Draft Venues Policy as resolved by the Committee in June. However, one of the items resolved by Council would be unjustifiably discriminatory. The proposed consultation on the Policy has therefore been delayed to allow the Committee to resolve this issue.

An additional change to the Draft Venues Policy is recommended by staff following the consideration of further legal advice. The amended Draft Venues Policy (August 2019) is attachment 2 of this memo with the changes marked in red.

5. NEXT STEPS

If the draft policy is approved for consultation, then staff will consult with the community on the draft and there will be an opportunity for Councillors to hear submissions. Information about any potential operational implications will also be reported when the draft policy, with any proposed amendments, is recommended for adoption.

It is anticipated that there will be five broad groups of external stakeholders who may wish to contribute to consultation on the draft policy:

1) Venues whose agreements with Council will be guided by the Policy

2) Rangitāne o Manawatū and other strategic partners of Council

3) Potential users of Council venues

4) Interest and advocacy groups

5) The wider Palmerston North community

A variety of methods and materials will be used to invite feedback and engagement on the draft policy, including:

· posters for venues

· an online interactive map

· attendance at meetings (e.g. with community centres and CCOs)

· direct mail

· various social media tools

· attendance at events

The delay in going out for consultation will mean that hearings of submissions and deliberations will now occur after the election of the new Council.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 168.4		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 5: A Driven and Enabling Council
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Not Applicable
Contribution to strategic direction	By contributing to the operation of Council venues, and venues where Council has an influence, the policy will contribute to all of Council’s goals, and will be an enactment of the Council’s principle of Governorship (Goal 5: Driven and Enabling Council).

Attachments

1.	Draft Venues Policy June 2019 ⇩
2.	Draft Venues Policy August 2019 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 5 August 2019

TITLE: Priority Intersection and Safety Treatments Across City

PRESENTED BY: Robert van Bentum, Transport & Infrastructure Manager

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council receive the report outlining the current approach and options for maintaining, enhancing or reducing investment in intersection safety improvements.

2. That Council endorse the Officer recommendation to adopt Option 1 being the maintenance of the current level of investment safety improvements for the 2018-2021 three year NZTA funding cycle.

Summary of options analysis for Intersection Safety Improvements

Problem or Opportunity	A high proportion of traffic crashes on the Palmerston North network occur at intersections. Council has programmes in place to address the causes of crashes by completing safety improvements at intersections that encourage safer driving practices and reduce risks to road users. This report outlines the current approach and outlines options for either decreasing or increasing investment in programmes to deliver improved safety outcomes at intersections.
OPTION 1:	Council maintains the current level of investment in safety improvements.
Community Views	The community have not been specifically consulted but are generally supportive of Council’s focus on improving safety.
Benefits	Reduced incidence of deaths and serious injuries. The approach is consistent with national policy direction.
Risks	There are few risks associated with adopting a proactive approach to improved safety outcomes.
Financial	Council has an established annual programme of work (Programme 279 – Minor Road Projects - $879,000) that invests in targeted safety improvements. The size of the programme balances safety outcomes with other transport system outcomes.
OPTION 2:	Council increase the level of investment in safety improvements
Community Views	The community has not been consulted.
Benefits	Enhanced implementation of safety improvements over time leading to even greater reductions in deaths and serious injuries.
Risks	There are few risks associated with adopting a proactive approach to improved safety outcomes.
Financial	Council would need to increase its investment in intersection safety upgrades and ensure there are adequate resources for delivery. It is unlikely that NZTA would approve any additional funding.
OPTION 3:	Council reduce the level of investment in safety improvements.
Community Views	The community has not been consulted.
Benefits	Reduced investment would provide additional funding for non-safety related outcomes.
Risks	There is a risk of a measurable increase in the incidence of deaths and serious injuries. There is also likely to be a community backlash if safety concerns are not seen to be addressed as traffic volumes and the incidence of crashes increases over time.
Financial	The net savings will be small but may allow other capital programmes of work to be advanced more quickly within Council’s overall infrastructure investment programme.
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 Strategic Transport Plan The action is: Improve intersection safety, structural integrity and traffic flow on primary freight, over-dimension, overweight and emergency service routes with context sensitive design.
Contribution to strategic direction		Safety upgrades at intersections have the primary aim of reducing deaths and serious injuries, often with secondary benefits in terms of increased intersection efficiency and reduced travel delays. Further, they improve roading layouts for vulnerable users, cyclists and pedestrians as more modern design philosophy addresses historic shortcomings associated with vehicle centric approach.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Nationally there has been an upward trend in road deaths and serious injuries over the past 6-8 years. Recently the Government has moved to address this problem through the release of a draft Road Safety Strategy 2020-2030 entitled “Road to Zero”. The new strategy sets a target of achieving a 40% reduction in road transport deaths and serious injuries across the country. Last year there were 6 fatal crashes and 23 serious injury crashes across the Palmerston North network. Historically a high proportion of all crashes occur at intersections and therefore intersection safety improvements are accorded a high priority in the allocation of funding.

1.2 The March 2019 meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee considered a report outlining options for a safety upgrade of the intersection of Monrad Street with Ronberg and Pencarrow Streets. Alongside the resolution to approve a roundabout solution for the intersection, the Committee approval the following resolution:

1.3 “That the Committee requests a further report to the Planning and Strategy Committee outlining priority intersections across the city and what safety treatments are planned”.

1.4 This report provides some background to intersections within the network and how they are controlled, as well as the current challenges and the proposed approach to improving safety outcomes at an affordable cost while not compromising traffic movement efficiency.

2. Background

2.1 There are more than 1550 intersections in the Palmerston North transport network. There are no traffic controls in place at over 550 of these intersections which are largely tee junctions. The type and number of traffic controls in place at the remaining intersections comprise:

· Give way and/or Stop signs are installed at 692 intersections (note, does not include some boundary roads or slip lanes)

· Roundabouts have been installed in 44 intersections

· Traffic signals have been installed at 34 intersections with 3 additional dedicated pedestrian signals

2.2 While safety is critical in determining the requirement for and the type of traffic control other important factors include:

· The importance of the intersection within the network in terms of efficient flow of vehicles e.g. traffic flow across high volume intersections is improved with roundabouts

· The level of conflict between different transport modes, such that higher levels of control will be implemented where there are multiple modes in conflict e.g. pedestrian, people on bikes and vehicles

· The speed environment such that almost all intersections on high speed open roads e.g. State Highways, side or connecting roads will have give way or stop signs installed

2.3 The pattern of intersection control that has been adopted and implemented in Palmerston North reflects both legislative requirements as well as principles and requirements adopted by Council including:

· The legislative requirement that all cross-road intersections must be provided with some form of traffic control

· Roundabouts have been prioritised for intersections with traffic volumes greater than 5000 vehicles per day where efficient movement of vehicles is a priority

· Traffic signals have been implemented largely on the cross-road junctions on the dual carriageways within the city aside from selected intersections in and around the square

· Low cost safety measures such as improved signage, road markings, splitter islands and refuges are employed at intersections to improve intersection visibility, improve driver awareness and provide safety for pedestrians.

2.4 Roundabouts offer significant safety benefits largely due to their effectiveness at reducing traffic speeds if well designed. Roundabouts also provide for efficient traffic movement and as a result have been prioritised for use on the collector road network where movement priority needs to be balanced with safety. Design standards for roundabouts have made significant advances in recent years. The large style roundabouts with multiple lanes, are being replaced with more compact designs that provide greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

2.5 Since 2004 sixteen roundabouts have been added to the City’s network (an average of 1 per year) and three existing roundabouts have been upgraded to current design standards. The cost of a roundabout varies from $300,000 to $600,000 depending on the complexity of the road network and other services to be managed.

2.6 Traffic signals have been used on major arterial roads or in areas with heavy pedestrian flows. The most recent traffic signals to be added to the network are at Tremaine Avenue and North Street. While traffic signals offer significant safety benefits they are not as effective as roundabouts in reducing injury severity as approach speeds can be high when collisions occur, which can lead to fatal or severe injuries to vehicle occupants.

2.7 Rural intersections, particularly crossroads, have specific safety problems because approach speeds are typically high. The most cost-effective solutions are usually a combination of improved signage and road markings. Higher level treatments such as roundabouts, improved channelisation or realignment of approach roads tend to be high cost due to the higher design standards associated with the high approach speeds.

2.8 It is not considered necessary to treat all intersections, and many intersections particularly in low speed residential environments will remain acceptable as uncontrolled intersections. There is however demand from the community for strategic interventions that promote low and safe speeds in residential areas. Council has previously funded a programme of work called Local Area Traffic Management to address perceived localised speed and safety issues. However due to other funding priorities there is no currently no dedicated funding for such a programme.

3. current safety programme approach

3.1 Intersection safety related projects are identified through a range of channels including:

· Annual reviews of death and serious injury statistics

· Network efficiency and safety studies

· Reviews of KBase requests for service

· Consultation with other network users and agencies including NZTA, Police, Horizons Regional Council and user groups

3.2 For each safety or intersection issues identified, Council Officers undertake an assessment to confirm the validity of the concern, the level of risk, the recommended approach for treatment (as recommended by NZTA) and develop a priority ranking. The intervention is then added to the programme list to be considered during each annual plan and long term plan consultation.

3.3 Council has approved funding in Programme 279 Minor Road Projects (2019/20 budget $879,000) for achieving safety improvements at intersections, however this programme is also called on to fund a range of other safety related work such as railway level crossings, pedestrian crossing and cycle infrastructure. Given the significant call on this budget, typically only a small number of safety interventions can be advanced each year.

3.4 Where more substantive investment (above $300k for an individual project) is required separate programmes have been approved by Council through its Annual and Long Term Plan processes. Current targeted intersection safety programme budgets included in the current LTP include:

Table 1 – Planned safety upgrades (City centre Streetscape and subdivision roads excluded)

Programme Number	Year	2019-20 Budget	Location and treatment	Key Drivers
1090	2019/20	$456,000	Richardsons Line Roberts Line – upgrade to industrial standard	Road capacity
1183	2019/20	$1,294,000	Stoney Creek Road SH3 – Realignment of intersection (part of school safety upgrade)	Parking and safety
1578	2019/20	$650,000	Monrad Street Ronberg/Pencarrow – Installation of Roundabout	Safety
1362	2019/20	$100,000	Roberts Line Railway Road – Installation of right turn bay	Safety / Heavy traffic movement
167	2020/21	$100,000	James Line Kelvin Grove Road – Right turn bay	Safety
324	2020/21	$40,000	Park Road Cook Street – Traffic signals	Cycle safety
684	2021/23	$102,000	No 1 Line Longburn Rongotea Road – Upgrade of rural crossroads	Heavy traffic movement safety
839	2022/23	$0	Rangitikei Street Featherston Street – Land purchase for future upgrade	Traffic movement efficiency
910	2020/21	$0	Ferguson Street with Pitt Street and Linton Street – Signals, possible turn restrictions	Movement on inner ring road
1359	2020/21	$0	Hillary Crescent Cambridge Ave – Improved geometry	Safety
1040	2023/24	$0	Napier Road Roberts Line – Active Transport improvements	Active transport safety

3.5 Programme 279 has an annual budget of just over $800,000 and most small-scale safety improvements are completed under this programme. Typically, the budget is over-committed, and it can take some years for projects to be progressed, because of the wide range of other transport safety interventions funded from the programme.

Table 2 Intersection Treatments under Programme 279

Location	Treatment	Expected cost $k
Pioneer West Lyndhurst	Turn restrictions, chanelisation	$97
Walding Taonui	Turn restrictions, chanelisation	$40
Various citywide	Install cycle phases	$41 p.a.
Keith Mihaere	Improved road layout at roundabout	>$300 – Needs own programme
Te Awe Awe Albert	Roundabout Improvements	$250
College Albert Churchill	Install Roundabout	>$300 – Needs own programme
Broadway Victoria	Roundabout Improvements	To be reported to Council with options
Parkland Manson	Intersection improvements	$60
Tutaki Kelvin Grove	Intersection improvements	$45
Victoria Church	Improved pedestrian layout at roundabout	$75
Broadway Albert	Improved pedestrian layout at roundabout	$75
Franklin/Ascot/Churchill	Improved layout	$50
Milson/Fairs/McGregor	Minor pedestrian improvements	$25
Bunnythorpe Roundabout	Improved layout	Not scoped
Church West	Improved layout	Not scoped
Church Fitzroy	Splitter Island	$25
Kairanga Bunnythorpe/Te Ngaio	Threshold treatment	Not scoped
College Maxwell	Splitter Island	$25
Te Matai/Riverside	Improved layout	Not scoped
Pitt/Bourke/Cuba	Pedestrian protection at signals	Not scoped
Apollo Gemini	Improved layout	Not scoped
Featherston Heretaunga	Roundabout or signals	$250+

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1 - Maintain Current Level of Investment

4.2 Council has achieved significant improvements in its urban network over recent years. While part of this has been in response to urban growth, the focus of creating a safer network has also been a driving force. Council currently has a performance measure in the LTP which targets annual and 5 year rolling average reductions in deaths and serious injuries over time. Such measures align both with Council Strategic Goal 3 of A connected and safe community, as well as the alignment with NZTA’s recently unveiled “Road to Zero” national road safety strategy currently out for consultation.

4.3 The current level of funding for road safety projects is significant if the dedicated intersections projects are included. The programme of work is fully supported by NZTA at current levels of investment and is undertaken within the low-cost low risk programme category agreed through the Regional Land Transport Plan. This sets modest expectations in terms of business case justification and simplifies implementation.

4.4 The minor road safety programme 279, is heavily over-subscribed given the wide range and variety of users and interventions funded from this programme. Some of the categories of work currently funded from the programme include minor intersection safety upgrades, pedestrian safety initiatives, cycling improvements, urban bus stop improvements, rural bus safety, mobility access as well as railway level crossing contributions. NZTA is supportive of the programme at current funding levels and has approved current levels of funding in the current 3-year Regional Land Transport Plan.

4.5 There is steady growing demand from the community for more investment in road safety initiatives. This is partly due to the increasing congestion and conflicts between different modes on the transport network. In addition, there are increasing requests for Council investment in creation of slower speed environments in residential streets and high place value urban areas e.g. CBD and neighbourhood centres. Currently aside from specific placemaking programmes, the only programme with scope for funding such initiatives is Programme 279 Minor Road Safety Improvements.

4.6 While the programme of intersection and minor road safety responds to specific death and injury statistics, the evidence basis for some of the interventions and programme priorities is not as strong as it could be. A strong evidence basis and clear prioritisation process is required to ensure projects and programmes are targeted to interventions which reduce crash and injury risk. This work still needs to be developed and will be required to support funding requests in the next 3-year Regional Land Transport Plan.

4.7 Option 2 - Increase Level of Investment

4.8 Any additional funding allocation to intersection and road safety initiatives will either need to be fully funded by Council, given the NZTA funding for LTP period is fixed, or be funded by reallocating funding from another programme of work. While re-allocation is possible, this will require consultation and agreement with NZTA.

4.9 NZTA have signalled that funding is fixed for the current three-year RLTP within the Ten-Year Plan and there are very limited opportunities for increasing or changing the programme. In addition, any projects over $1 million in capital cost will require a properly formulated business case to be developed and again this is not likely to be approved for funding in the current 3-year funding cycle.

4.10 As outlined while there is a significant backlog of safety interventions the evidence basis is still being developed to support the justification for investment and priority. With the improved safety mapping and visualisation of data being developed by NZTA and the Ministry of Transport, it will be possible to more appropriately focus works programmes and justify investment to NZTA.

Figure 1 – Spatial Plot of Intersection Level of Service Safety

4.11 An example of the type of spatial data now available is provided in Figure 1. This has been generated from the new Network Operating Framework and shows intersections with crash problems. The measure used is LoSS (Level of Safety Service) which compares local intersections with similar intersections around the country based on volumes, road type and crash history. The coloured dots represent problem locations rated on a 1-5 basis with level five the highest category, shown by black dots, indicating intersections that need further investigation, prior to any

4.12 Council Officers have identified the need to improve the evidence basis of the safety programme, both to ensure investment achieves the optimum safety benefits but also ensure that NZTA continue to support the programme of work. The current capital works programme is proving challenging to deliver given the available in-house, consultant and contractor resource base in the region, so higher levels of investment will exacerbate this issue.

4.13 While it is possible to reallocate and increase safety focussed funding, Officers do not recommend this occurs until there is a better prioritised and integrated programme of work, which can support applications to NZTA for enhanced levels of funding.

4.14 Option 3 - Decrease Current Level of Investment

4.15 A decrease in the level of investment in safety improvements across the network would seriously hamper Council Officers ability to meet both community expectations around investment in safety initiatives and respond to the increasing conflicts between different modes as congestion within the city increases. In addition, there is a risk that the lower level of investment will fail to achieve the targeted reductions in fatal and serious injuries adopted by Council as KPIs in its LTP.

4.16 The current minor road safety budget is significantly over-subscribed, such that only a small number of minor safety treatments can be implemented in any one year. Reducing funding will extend the timeframes under which safety and intersection improvements can be made, requiring staff to further prioritise work and decline to respond to many requests for safety improvements from the community.

4.17 Reducing funding on road safety and intersection improvements will free up funding for other Council priorities within the LTP. If funding is re-allocated to activities other than transport, then the available funds will be only 50% of the total budget given the NZTA subsidy funding.

4.18 Officers do not recommend that the current level of investment is reduced, largely because of the potential negative impacts on safety outcomes and the limited financial benefit if funding is allocated to another activity outside transport.

5. summary

5.1 Council has an extensive programme of targeted safety upgrades at priority intersections supplemented by a programme of minor road safety works. While the interventions often also deliver efficiency improvements the programmes are primarily aimed at achieving a reduction in deaths and serious injuries.

5.2 Current safety programme budgets are over-subscribed and given the increasing congestion and conflicts between various modes in the transport system, the pressure on funding is only likely to increase. Given that the current level of funding is supported by NZTA, Officers do not support a reduction in the level of investment although it may allow funding to be reallocated to other priority activities, noting that non-roading investment would receive only 50% of the funds reallocated.

5.3 The current programme of work has been approved by NZTA and is sufficiently challenging to deliver given the constraints in the consultancy and contracting environment. Further increases in funding may result in poorer value outcomes and be delayed by resourcing issues.

5.4 Data collection, analysis and presentation techniques for developing an optimised safety programme of work are evolving. Resources such as the network operating plan and roads and streets framework which are currently under development will provide a more rigorous and integrated process for identifying safety improvements. Council Officer are active in adopting these approaches so that more robust programmes of works can be developed to inform the next Activity Management Plan prior to the next LTP.

5.5 Increasing the investment in intersection safety in the short term is not recommended, both due to in-house staff, consultant and contractor capacity constraints, but also because any increase in funding is unlikely to be matched by funding from NZTA during the current 3-year funding cycle.

5.6 Officers recommend that Option 2 be adopted, and efforts focussed on improving the data capture, analysis and presentation of safety challenges to inform better targeted and prioritised programmes of work for the next long-term plan and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP).

6. Next actions

6.1 If Council endorses Option 2 which supports the current level of investment, staff will prioritise improving the data capture, analysis and presentation of safety information and challenges to inform better targeted and prioritised programmes of work in the lead up to the next Long-Term Plan (LTP) and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP).

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 No community engagement has occurred at this time.

Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

Nil

[1] ‘Misinformation’ is defined as false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

[2] ‘Misinformation’ is defined as false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

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