Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

2 September 2019

Order of Business

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

- Planning and Strategy Committee

- Community Development Committee

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

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

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

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

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

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

4. Public Comment

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

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

5. Draft Use Of Public Spaces Policy 2019 Submissions Page 7

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 35

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

7. Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space 2019 - Summary of Submissions Page 41

Memorandum, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager.

8. Amendment to Dog Control Policy 2018 - Deliberations and Adoption Page 59

Memorandum, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager.

9. Annual Section 10A Dog Control Act 1996 Report to Secretary of Local Government Page 103

Memorandum, presented by Aaron Thornton, Acting Senior Animal Control Officer and Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer and Operating Officer.

10. Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019 Page 119

Report, presented by David Muphy, City Planning Manager.

11. Report on Solutions to Issues Raised in Dogwood Way Petition Page 273

Memorandum, presented by Kathy Dever-Tod, Parks & Reserves Manager.

12. Pedestrian Safety Issues Quarterly Report Page 285

Memorandum, presented by Kathy Dever-Tod, Parks & Reserves Manager.

13. Committee Work Schedule Page 293

14. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

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

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

Chief Executive (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), Chief Infrastructure Officer (Tom Williams), General Manager – Strategy and Planning (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager - Community (Debbie Duncan), Chief Customer and Operating Officer (Chris Dyhrberg), General Manager - Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), Sandra King (Executive Officer) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Executive Leadership Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Democracy Administrators (Carly Chang, Courtney Kibby, Natalya Kushnirenko and Penny Odell), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

[Add Council Officers], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 05 August 2019, commencing at 9.01am

Members

Present:

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

Non Members:

Councillors Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM and Leonie Hapeta.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (early departure on Council business).

Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 9.04am during consideration of clause 53. He was not present for clause 52.

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 9.10am during consideration of clause 54. She entered the meeting again at 9.24am during consideration of clause 56. She was not present for clauses 54 to 55 inclusive.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 11.57am during consideration of clause 61. He was not present for clauses 61 to 63 inclusive.

49-19

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 49-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

50-19	Public Comment
	Public comment was received from Mr Chris Teo-Sherrell regarding parking near the College Street and Pitama Road intersection. Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 9.04am
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the public comment be received for information.
	Clause 50-19 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

51-19

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

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

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford left the meeting at 9.10am

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 51-19 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

52-19

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Tangi Utikere.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. 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.

Clause 52-19 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

53-19

Status of Master Plans in each Triennium

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

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford entered the meeting at 9.24am

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 53-19 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

54-19

Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2019 - deliberations on submissions

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

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

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.

Clause 54-19 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

55-19

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

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

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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.

Clause 55-19 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 10.20am

The meeting resumed at 11.03am

56-19

Organisational Approach to Environmental Sustainability

Memorandum, dated 6 July 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Susan Baty.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 56-19 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

57-19

Draft Venues Policy for consultation

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

During discussion it was noted that there were a number of queries in relation to the Draft Venues Policy and resolved that the Policy be considered at a later date.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Draft Venues Policy to be discussed be adjourned until the February 2020 meeting of the appropriate Committee.

Clause 57-19 above was carried 12 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Against:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 11.57am

58-19	Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change B - Napier Road Residential Area Extension Memorandum, dated 16 July 2019 presented by the City Planning Manager, David Murphy.
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change B – Napier Road Residential Area Extension 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 B – Napier Road Residential Area Extension prior to public notification under clause 5, schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
	Clause 58-19 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillor Leonie Hapeta.
59-19	Priority Intersection and Safety Treatments Across City Report, dated 19 July 2019 presented by the Transport and Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.
	Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Karen Naylor. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 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.
	Clause 59-19 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.

60-19

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

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

Clause 60-19 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.

The meeting finished at 12.35pm

Confirmed 2 September 2019

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space 2019 - Summary of Submissions

Presented By: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That Attachment 2 of the memorandum dated 2 August 2019 and titled “Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space 2019 - Summary of Submissions” be received.

1. ISSUE

The Council is consulting on the Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space 2019. Seventeen written submissions were received, and four submitters have indicated that they wish to speak to Council about their submissions.

This memorandum provides a summary of the public feedback received on the draft policy. The written submissions are attached in full to the Committee Order Paper.

2. BACKGROUND

The Council approved the draft policy for public consultation in December 2018. The draft policy addresses the desire for a consistent policy position guiding Council’s decision-making in response to requests for public space use.

Consultation started on 28 June 2019 and closed at 4pm on 29 July 2019. The full consultation document is provided as Attachment 1 of this memorandum.

Feedback was encouraged in the following ways:

· A dedicated consultation page on Council’s website with an online submission form.

· The consultation document was available in the Customer Service Centre and all city libraries.

· Public notices were placed in the Manawatū Standard and The Guardian newspapers.

· An article about the draft policy appeared on Stuff.co.nz.

· Facebook posts advising the opening of the submission period were made on Council’s page, Placemaking Palmerston North, and Palmerston North - City of Cultures.

· Emails were sent to organisations that have booked public space in the past 18 months.

· Emails were sent to stakeholders and Council’s strategic partners.

· A presentation was made to the Rangitāne Bimonthly meeting.

· Officers attended Saturday morning Parkrun, Global Festival 2019, and the Highbury Flea Market to raise awareness of the consultation.

3. summary of FEEDBACK

Attachment 2 presents a summary of both the written submissions received and conversations with members of the public about the draft policy.

Of the written submissions, six supported the policy and assessment criteria as drafted. Ten submissions suggested changes to draft policy. One submission opposed the draft policy.

4. NEXT STEPS

Officers will prepare a report with recommendations in response to the issues raised by the public, including any changes recommended to the draft policy. That report is expected to be presented to the 23 September 2019 Council meeting to provide the opportunity for the policy to be adopted before the 2019 Local Body Elections.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 169		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
<Enter text>
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the City Centre Plan The action is: to develop guidelines regarding the use of public space by commercial activities.
Contribution to strategic direction	· Provide a consistent and transparent approach to assist staff considering all applications for the use of public space. · Facilitate community access to information about Council decision-making. · Ensure the process for approving public space use contributes to meeting Council’s vision and goals to encourage greater and more diverse use of public space. · Enable the Council to respond quickly to new ideas and be flexible in its response to applications.

Attachments

1.	Consultation Document - Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space ⇩
2.	Summary Of Submissions - Draft Policy for the Use of Public Space ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Amendment to Dog Control Policy 2018 - Deliberations and Adoption

Presented By: Julie Macdonald - Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council adopts the amended Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018 provided in Attachment 1.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council adopted the Dog Control Policy in June 2018. The Policy included provision for a 12-month trial allowing dogs on-leash in public places in the Central Business District (CBD) or the City Centre. The trial commenced on 23 August 2018 following the adoption of the Dog Control Bylaw 2018 that gave effect to the adopted policy.

1.2 The trial has been monitored and has been deemed a success when measured against performance measures set by staff (see section 2.2). As a result, in May/June the Council consulted on an amendment to the policy that removed references to the trial and added the CBD to the list of public places allowing dogs to be under on-leash control.

1.3 Sixty-five submissions were received with the majority of (80%) submitters supporting the policy amendment. In addition, other feedback from the community on the issue has been analysed through an on-line form on Council’s website (generating 114 responses) on the trial, comments on Council’s Facebook page (over 100 comments) and through an analysis of calls to Council.

1.4 On balance, it is considered that the trial has demonstrated that allowing dogs into the CBD on-leash been successful and as a result, the Council should proceed to amend the Dog Control Policy 2018 to allow dogs on-leash in public places within the CBD. Attachment 1 presents the amended Dog Control Policy 2018 for adoption.

2. BACKGROUND

Timeline of events:

Date	Reporting	Comments
7 June 2017	Approval to review the Dog Control Policy 2011	At this stage of the process, general comments were made about reviewing areas in which dogs are currently prohibited, on-leash and off-leash and the ability to be flexible and responsive around the use of current prohibited areas.
4 December 2017	Approval for consultation on Statement of Proposal – draft Dog Control Policy	Feedback was sought on whether Council should consider dogs on-leash in existing prohibited areas including the CBD with around half of feedback indicating an appetite for change. There was a mix of negative and positive comments in relation to the CBD. The Committee resolved that the Statement of Proposal would include the option of a 12-month trial allowing ‘on leash’ dog access to the CBD (replacing the proposal to allow dogs at events in prohibited public places).
9 April 2018	Summary of consultation feedback on the draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy	Formal feedback on the proposal to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD for a 12-month trial period was evenly divided, with many submitters having very strong views. Many of the people who supported the trial proposal also raised concerns, particularly about the need for more enforcement and clean-up. Other feedback was presented including the results of a Facebook poll, a CBD survey (February) and ‘Let’s Talk’ sessions.
6 June 2018	Deliberation on submissions and adoption of policy	Feedback opportunities showed around two thirds of the people who engaged through the submission process allowing dogs in the CBD on-leash were positive about that proposal. The trial was made subject to a set of conditions with a formal review agreed at 6-month mark.
25 June 2018	Dog Control Policy 2018 adopted by Council
13 August 2018	Adoption of Dog Control Bylaw 2018 (including the trial)	Extraordinary Council meeting resolved that the bylaw, that gives effect to the adopted policy, come into effect on 23 August 2018. The CBD dogs on-leash trial started and dog poo bag dispensers and signs were also installed.
4 March 2019	Report on six-month review of CBD dogs on-leash trial	Several feedback mechanisms were used to gather feedback on the trial, including encouraging feedback through Council’s website and Facebook page, the review of dog-related complaints and calls received, regular staff meetings, and staff observations. Overall, the trial was considered to be going well when evaluated against set measures of success criteria.
6 May 2019	Report to Planning and Strategy Committee seeking approval to consult on amendments to policy (as a result of trial)	Further analysis of the trial concluded that it has been a success and as a result, the Council should proceed to amend the Dog Control Policy 2018 to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD.
10 May - 10 June 2019	Formal consultation period on amendment to policy	Sixty-five submissions were received with the majority of submitters supporting the policy amendment. In addition, other feedback from the community on the issue has been collected through the online form on the trial accessed on Council’s website and through posts on Council’s Facebook page.
5 June 2019	Submissions and summary of submissions reported to Planning and Strategy Committee	Twenty percent of submissions opposed 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. 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 in terms of few issues or complaints, and that it benefits people visiting the City.

3. Final Review of Trial ALLOWING DOGS ON-LEASH IN THE CBD

3.1 Starting on 23 August 2018, the purposes of the 12-month trial were:

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

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

3.2 Measures of success were developed by staff to evaluate the success of the trial. These measures are:

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

· General adherence to the bylaw during the trial period.

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

· General positive feedback received about the trial.

3.3 Feedback on the trial has been through Council’s website, reviewing dog-related complaints and calls received, regular staff meetings, and staff observations. Reports on the trial were received at the March and May 2019 meetings of the Planning and Strategy Committee.

3.3.1 Council Website Feedback Form

An online form has been accessible to members of the public for the duration of the trial. As reported in May 2019 (eight months into the trial), the majority of responses at that stage received through an online form on Council’s website were favourable (69%), with the remainder expressing negative or neutral feedback on the trial.

At the end of the trial period, a total of 114 comments have been made on the online form. Figure 1 shows the final breakdown of positive (63%), negative (34%), and neutral (3%) responses.

Comments received through the online form are in Attachment 2.

3.3.2 Contact centre calls and complaints - There were 35 calls through the Contact Centre over the duration of the trial that have been categorised into types of issues as shown in Figure 2 (with previous years shown for comparison). For 2018/19 most calls (74%) related to roaming dogs in the CBD, or roaming dogs that have been secured within the CBD, with relatively few concerns raised about other dog control issues coming through the Contact Centre.

In addition to these calls, three dog faeces complaints were made requiring Council action. There has also been one email received in relation to the type of dog leash over the last twelve months.

3.3.3 Observations - Staff have observed low uptake of dog poo bags and little dog waste needing to be attended to by CBD-based operational staff. Vandalism and misuse of the dog poo bags has occurred but has not caused any significant issues.

Animal control officers also carried out patrols within the CBD and often reported no dogs present, with some dogs observed to be off-leash.

3.3.4 CBD survey - A face-to-face survey with over 100 participants working in or visiting the CBD was carried out in December 2018. From this survey 51% of respondents considered the trial is going ‘good’; 24% of respondents either weren’t aware of the trial or didn’t know, or care about it. Ninety four percent of respondents said that they had not seen any concerning dog, or dog owner, behaviour in the CBD in the last three months (August - November 2018). Twenty seven percent of respondents said that they have seen positive interactions between dogs and people in the last three months.

3.3.5 PNCC Facebook Poll – A Facebook poll in November 2018 attracted over 400 responses, with 77% of respondents saying they felt the trial was ‘going great’, and 23% indicating they were not happy with it.

3.4 This table records an overall assessment of feedback against the success measures set by staff:

Measure	Comments
Fewer than 25 complaints received through the Contact Centre from CBD businesses and the general public about dog waste, off-leash dogs, unattended dogs, dog attacks (dog/dog; dog/person), long leads (causing tripping etc) and dogs at events.	While there have been 35 phone calls over the last year through the Contact Centre, these relate to a broader range of issues identified in the measure described. Most calls can be attributed to roaming dogs or roaming dogs that have been secured by the person finding them. An analysis of all complaints coming into Council (excluding any comments made through the opportunities described above such as formal submissions, the online form collecting trial feedback and Facebook comments) shows the following complaints: o Dog waste – 3 o Off-leash dogs – 3 o Unattended dogs – 1 o Dog attacks – 0 o Long leads – 1 o Dogs at events – 0
General adherence to the bylaw during the trial period	No bylaw infringements or fines have been issued over this time period.
Dogs are being brought into the CBD/The Square and owners/dogs are demonstrating responsible behaviour.	Observations and feedback collected through various methods show that most dogs and their owners are visiting the CBD responsibly.
General positive feedback received about the trial.	Most comments received through the various communication channels over the last twelve months have been positive about the trial. It is also noted that the matter of dogs in the CBD has been raised with Rangitāne o Manawatū representatives at bimonthly meetings. While there has been some level of discomfort expressed about dogs in Te Marae o Hine, there has also been an acceptance that the trial has not raised any significant issues.

3.5 There is some evidence of community concern about dogs in the CBD both reflected in comments received and in the measure of fewer than 25 complaints being exceeded. Overall, however, it is considered that the trial, when assessed against the success measure, has demonstrated that allowing dogs into the CBD on-leash been a successful initiative.

4. anAlysis of Submissions on the PROPOSED amendment to the policy

4.1 Submissions (made through the formal LGA process) on the proposed amendment were considered at the June 2019 meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee.

Twenty percent of submissions opposed the proposed policy amendments. Key reasons cited for opposition to allowing on-leash dogs in the CBD permanently, 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.

These types of concerns have been commonly expressed throughout the dog control policy review process (that started in June 2017) when the issue of a less restrictive environment for the control of dogs in the CBD was first introduced.

4.2 Eighty percent of submissions support the proposed policy amendments. Main reasons cited for supporting the proposed amendment are:

· enhanced social opportunities (for dogs, their owners and others interacting with the dog/dog owner)

· increased CBD vibrancy,

· enabling more dog walking opportunities,

· a more permissive approach that is becoming more common in other places,

· success of the trial in terms of few issues or complaints, and that it

· benefits people visiting the City.

These are similar themes that have emerged throughout the policy review process that started in June 2017.

4.3 In addition, feedback on the recent proposed amendment was generated through Council’s Facebook page. The first related post on 10 May generated 28 comments. Over 80 comments were received on a 26 July 2019 post signifying the trial period ending and alerting people of the up-coming decision-making process on the dog control area status for the CBD.

Facebook comments generally reflected the themes collected through the submission process, as described above. An analysis of the 10 May comments showed more favourable responses with two-thirds supporting a permanent change (with some suggesting support only if certain conditions were met such as dogs being on leash and dog owners removing waste) with the remaining third not supportive. The 26 July comments were more negative in nature (with about 53% oppositional) with less positive responses (about 38% supportive) and a further 8% expressing a neutral stance on the issue.

4.3.1 Additional concerns to those raised in formal (LGA) submissions via social media channels are:

· people’s (particularly children’s) safety for those afraid of, or uncomfortable around, or intimidated, by dogs

· dogs can attack and inflict wounds and scars

· inappropriate to have dogs at family focussed events at events in The Square

· the only dogs that should be allowed are guide/support dogs

· seen as unnecessary to take dogs into town (does not benefit the dog); CBD is a people-only place

· lack of control or responsibility from dog owners

· urine marks on walls, seats etc.

· sensible to place restrictions on not having dogs in the CBD

· we don’t need to follow what other places do (in terms of more permissive approach to dogs in the CBD)

· lack of monitoring by Council

· dogs seen unleashed

· do not need to add to other concerns occurring in The Square

· The trial should have included the need to muzzle dogs (in addition to them being on leash)

Positive comments:

· Enjoyment in able to have companion animals in the CBD

· Happy to pick up dog poo left by others

· Provides a safe walking opportunity that is well-lit at night

· Lack of dog poo evidenced

· Chance for local businesses (e.g. cafes) to benefit from dogs and their owners

· Support but need for strict enforcement and related infrastructure (waste bins)

5. conclusion

5.1 Deciding on whether to amend the Dog Control Policy 2018 requires careful consideration and balancing of the wide range of views expressed over the course of the policy review period and the targeted consultation over the trial period.

5.2 An analysis of all the feedback received from the community shows a shift over time to more support for a policy change allowing access of dogs into the CBD under on-leash control. This change could be attributed to the trial occurring without major incident, and low levels of complaints, and is reflected in the content of the feedback received. In noting this, however, the serious nature of maintaining public safety through the Council’s responsibilities under the Dog Control Act 1996, and Council’s own policy, should not be discounted.

5.3 The objectives of the Policy are guided by Section 10 of the Dog Control Act and seek to:

(a) Minimise danger, distress and nuisance dogs may cause to the community generally;

(b) Avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children or other vulnerable members of the community, whether or not children might be accompanied by adults;

(c) Enable, as far as practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs;

(d) Provide for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

(e) Ensure dogs within the city boundary are registered and microchipped.

(f) Encourage responsible dog ownership so that owners take all reasonable steps to ensure that their dogs do not cause a nuisance to other people or other animals.

5.4 Through the consultation opportunities many people have expressed real concern about their fear for themselves and their families around dogs and how this impacts on their enjoyment and use of public places. The decision to change the level of access to the CBD should, therefore, not be taken lightly.

5.5 Should the policy be amended Council’s approach to ongoing monitoring of dogs in the CBD needs to continue to ensure that the policy objectives are met and the likelihood of any incidents is reduced.

5.6 On balance, it is considered that the trial has demonstrated that allowing dogs into the CBD on-leash been successful and as a result, the Council should proceed to amend the Dog Control Policy 2018 to allow dogs on-leash in public places within the CBD.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 If adopted, the amended Dog Control Policy needs to be given effect by an amended Dog Control Bylaw. This needs to be done within 60 days of the Policy being adopted. The subsequent bylaw would be drafted for adoption by the Council on 23 September 2019 with no further consultation required.

6.2 A communications plan reinforcing expected behaviour for dog owners wanting to access public places in the CBD will be prepared and delivered.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 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 trial allowed Council time to consider future options for the permanent dog control status for the CBD/City Centre. The trial has been considered a success when evaluated against specified measures and no significant health and safety issues have been experienced over the last year. Allowing dogs on-leash into the CBD contributes to Council’s strategic direction to be a safe and connected community as well as contributing to aspirations to be a more liveable City.

Nil

Attachments

1.	Amended Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018 ⇩
2.	CBD Trial - feedback received through online form on Council's website ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Annual Section 10A Dog Control Act 1996 Report to Secretary of Local Government

Presented By: Aaron Thornton, Acting Senior Animal Control Officer
Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer and Operating Officer

APPROVED BY: Heather Shotter, Chief Executive

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the report on the Dog Control Policy and Practices for Palmerston North City Council pursuant to Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 for the period of 2018/19, as attached to the memorandum dated July 2019 and titled `Annual Section 10A Dog Control Act Report to Secretary of Local Government’, be received.

1. ISSUE

The Dog Control Act 1996 (“the Act”) requires Council’s to produce an annual report on the administration of its dog control policy and practices. This is the Palmerston North City Council report for the 2018/19 year.

2. BACKGROUND

The Act requires the following information to be provided:

(a) the number of registered dogs in the territorial authority district;

(b) the number of probationary owners and disqualified owners in the territorial authority district;

(d) the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as menacing;

(e) the number of infringement notices issued by the territorial authority;

(f) the number of dog related complaints received by the territorial authority in the previous year and the nature of those complaints; and,

(g) the number of prosecutions taken by the territorial authority under this Act.

Attached is the report on Council’s administration of its Dog Control Policy and practices for 2018/19.

The number of complaints or investigations continued to trend down. The number of reported dog attacks decreased by 23% from last year and is 14% below the five-year average. A third of the attacks were on people, 38% on other dogs and 29% on other animals. The most significant source of complaint was in relation to roaming or uncontrolled dogs (45%) followed by barking dogs (20%). The number of barking dog complaints received by Council decreased by 36% from the previous year to continue the downward trend.

During the year the following service improvements were made:

· The Senior Animal Control Officer position was reviewed and changed to Team Leader Animal Management and Education to reflect the increased focus on compliance and education.

· A Kennel Manager was employed and commenced on 29 April 2019. This has enabled improved assessment of the health and wellbeing of dogs and the development of individual food plans based on size and condition. All dogs are now provided with adequate daily exercise. Scales were procured to enable dogs to be weighed to assess and monitor their condition on entry and whilst in the Pound.

· Improvements at the Pound have been made to ventilation, heating, bedding, access to exercise, drainage, cleaning and hygiene, storage of chemicals and bird-proofing. Remodelling has been carried out to create three pens for extra large dogs. Security cameras providing coverage of all internal areas and the Pound surrounds have been installed.

· Neighbourhood surveys have been introduced to assist resolving barking dog complaints. There are often difficulties obtaining evidence of loud and persistent barking. Obtaining information from a neighbourhood provides a more complete picture of each situation to better inform compliance action.

It is particularly pleasing to note that customer satisfaction with the animal control service increased for very satisfied from 64% to 80% and decreased for very dissatisfied from 6 % to less than 2%.

3. NEXT STEPS

This report, if received, must be placed on the Council’s website and publicly notified.

4. Compliance and administration

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

Attachments

Annual Dog Control Report 2018-19 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019

Presented By: David Muphy, City Planning Manager Strategy & Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019 is endorsed to inform future Council decision making, in particular the preparation of Asset Management Plans and Long Term Plans.

2. That it be noted that future decision making processes, including Long Term Plans, will enable further public consultation and direct engagement with affected stakeholders on the implementation of the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019.

3. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019.

1. ISSUE

The Draft Urban Cycle Network Masterplan was approved for consultation at the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting on the 6 May 2019.

Following a two month consultation period and analysis of submissions, an updated Masterplan is being presented for endorsement. A copy of the final Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019 is included as Attachment A.

2. BACKGROUND

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

· That the Chief Executive be directed to develop an Urban Cycle Network Development masterplan (resolution 3.18).

Subsequently, on 6 May 2019 the Planning and Strategy Committee resolved that:

· That the Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan be approved for consultation.

· That the chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee and the Deputy Mayor be authorised to make minor amendments to the Draft Urban Cycleways Masterplan.

3. CONSULTATION

A number of direct engagement meetings took place in relation to the Masterplan and related work, including:

· 24 November 2017: Active and Public Transport Forum (public invited) to review draft maps and solicit input on opportunities and issues.

· 11, 12 December 2018: Business case and Masterplan development workshop 1 and 2.

· 17 January 2019: Business case and Masterplan development workshop 3.

· 14 March 2019: Briefing with the People on Bikes Forum.

· 15 March 2019: Workshop with councillors.

· May -July 2019: Public consultation period

· 13 August 2019: Revised Masterplan briefing with the People on Bikes Forum.

The consultation ran for an initial period of one month, from 13 May till 6 June 2019. This period was extended by a further month, to ensure local community groups and stakeholders had additional time to submit on the Masterplan. The extended submission period closed on 5 July 2019.

156 submissions were received. The submissions have been analysed and informed the amendments made to the Masterplan. Submissions were received from individuals, community groups and a number of key stakeholders, including:

· NZ Transport Agency.

· The NZ Police.

· Midcentral Health.

· Sport Manawatu.

· Massey University

· Community cycling advocate groups e.g. People on Bikes Forum.

Submissions were generally supportive of the overarching vision, implementation plan and phasing plan. A common theme in submissions was support for Council proactively planning for alternative modes of transport in the face of climate change. Another reoccurring theme was the importance for Council to focus on separated/buffered cycle lanes, rather than painted cycle lanes.

A summary of submissions, including a response to common issues raised in multiple submissions (Part 1), and Council officer responses with recommended amendments (Part 2) is included as Attachment B.

In the submission form, participants were also given three yes / no questions asking if they agreed with:

· The proposed vision.

· The proposed network.

· The proposed phasing plan.

A fourth question was asked whether to focus investment on:

· Better or more cycleways.

The bar graphs below (Figure 1 and 2) represents the results from the questions and demonstrates that submitter agreement is high in relation to the overall vision but decreases in terms of the proposed network and phasing. Submitters also favoured better cycleways over more cycleways.

Figure 1: Results – Vision, Network and Phasing

Figure 2: Results – Better or more cycleways

The Masterplan was featured in four Facebook posts during the consultation period on the PNCC Facebook page, which has 14,621 followers. The popularity of the posts was as follows:

· First post (asking if people agree with the cycleways vision) –seen by 30,692 individuals and had a total of 2582 likes/comments/shares

· Second post (asking for an opinion on the prioritised streets) – seen by 6906 individuals and had a total of 1776 likes/comments/shares

· Third post (asking what would encourage people to cycle more) – seen by 8028 individuals and had a total of 1484 likes/comments/shares.

· Fourth post (asking how we can make it easier for people to cycle in our city) – seen by 6577 individuals and had 1089 likes/comments/shares.

The Social Media Report is included as Attachment C.

4. AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTERPLAN

While a number of minor amendments have been made to the Masterplan, key amendments include the following new sections:

· Summary – setting out the main strategies and challenges to be met.

· Public input – how the public was involved in the development of the Masterplan.

· Strategic alignment – new references to align+ with Council’s Eco-City Strategy.

· Intersections – why cycle lanes in roundabouts are only possible in limited cases and means of providing for people on bikes at traffic signals.

· Central city – expanding on previous content, particularly for access across the ring road and cycling within the city centre.

Other significant changes include:

· The NZ Transport Agency’s Transportation Enhanced Funding Assistance Rate (TEFAR, referenced on page 11 of the draft Masterplan) is no longer available. In addition, previous funds for College Street from programme 279 – minor works, are now proposed to be allocated to the James Line barrier arms project ($480,000). Therefore, staff are now proposing to use part of the Masterplan capital budget to complete College Street.

· The Masterplan has been amended to ensure it is a strategic document rather than a detailed implementation plan. Section 5 of the Draft Masterplan included a phasing plan for allocation of the $2.9M in LTP Programme 1559 over the 19/20 and 20/21 years. To provide Council with flexibility in how funding is allocated, including further investigation and programming through the business case process, the phasing plan table has been replaced with a priority list for the top 25 ranked corridors.

5. NEXT STEPS

· Publish the Masterplan and implement initial priorities (section 9 of the Masterplan)

· Use the Masterplan to inform future decision making, in particular the preparation of Asset Management Plans and Long Term Plans.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan The actions are: Smart city practices, Sustainable Practices, and Strategic Partnerships
Contribution to strategic direction	The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan The actions are: · Identify and implement pedestrian and cycle focused improvement to intersections and road crossings · Develop a pack of programmes to complete the Primary On-road Cycling and Shared Pathway Network, including higher cycle lane visibility, improved paint quality, and rearranged parking and kerb line layouts · Upgrade, on a prioritised bases, cycle route interconnections and intersections · Develop and implement a programme to promote the city’s walkways, cycling programmes, and activities aimed at generating a behaviour change for a mode shift · Develop (a pedestrian) and cyclist amenity plan and implement projects identified in this plan

Attachments

1.	Attachment A - Urban Cycle Network Masterplan ⇩
2.	Attachment B - Summary of Submissions UCNMP ⇩
3.	Attachment C - Social Media Report UCNMP ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Report on Solutions to Issues Raised in Dogwood Way Petition

Presented By: Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee receive the report entitled “Report on Solutions to Issues Raised in Dogwood Way Petition.

2. That the Committee endorse the implementation of the low cost parking management intervention described in the report as Option 1 – Install Passing Bays.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Dogwood Way is a 9m wide residential cul de sac road in the north-west of the city, which backs onto the airport. The road currently provides access to an existing 20 residential dwellings, which will increase to 32 once full development occurs, as well as the Julia Wallace Retirement Centre, which includes 108 residential units and an aged care facility.

1.2 The road is classified as a local road/cul de sac in Council’s roading hierarchy and as such is expected to operate as a slow speed residential environment. The road width is adequate to provide for parking on both sides of the road with a single traffic lane. Two directional flow of vehicles and particularly larger freight and commercial vehicles is problematic, particularly when there is parking on both sides of the street. Furthermore, the road has several horizontal bends which restrict sight distance encouraging drivers to drive more cautiously.

1.3 There is a high demand for all day parking on both sides of the road, both from staff working in the Julia Wallace facility as well as contractors involved in the construction of residential properties. This effectively reduces the road down to one traffic lane. Drivers report being uncomfortable with the limited visibility as well as the conflict with oncoming vehicles, which requires drivers to give way to one another. Officers have received communication from both residents of the street and Julia Wallace around these issues.

1.4 At the 6^th May meeting of the Planning and Strategy of Committee, a deputation of residents from the residential units within the Julia Wallace Retirement Centre, submitted a petition to Council, asking that Council resolve the issues. The committee resolved that Officers provide a report back to the committee on possible solutions to resolve the issues raised in the petition.

1.5 This report provides detail of the consultation undertaken with the Dogwood Way residents and residents of Julia Wallace Retirement Centre on both issues and possible solutions as well as an officer assessment of the merits of the solutions and the recommended course of action.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Vehicle parking on both sides of the road, reducing the trafficable area to one lane, is a common feature of low volume and low speed roads around the city. On such roads, where parking occurs on both sides, drivers are more aware of their surroundings and typically reduce speed due to the environment and perceived road safety risk. In general, drivers typically exercise care and demonstrate courtesy to enable opposing vehicles to pass.

2.2 Residents and road users across the city frequently approach Council Officers seeking investment in active parking management to provide for passing bays or to restrict parking along some sections of the road to increase the active traffic lane width. Officers are reluctant to intervene unless there is a clear safety risk, and then do so only by implementing parking restrictions in the form of no-parking lines. Council’s Parking Management Plan makes clear the desire that provision of time limited parking is utilised only in the CD or high parking demand areas around major facilities.

2.3 A traffic survey undertaken in Dogwood Way between 3 August and 11 August 2019 recorded a weekday traffic volume of 936 vehicles per day. The highest peak hour during the survey period recorded 104 vehicles, which equates to less than 2 vehicles per minute on average. The volume of traffic recorded on this road is well within acceptable levels for a local residential street. In addition, the NZTA Crash Analysis System has no record any crashes on Dogwood Way.

2.4 The traffic survey recorded an operating (85^th percentile speed) of 43km/h. This is below the posted speed limit of 50km/h and therefore does not meet the priority threshold for implementation of traffic calming treatments.

2.5 Parking use in Dogwood Way, comprises a mix of use by residents of the street, staff from Julia Wallace, visitors to Julia Wallace and contractors involved in constructing new properties along Dogwood Way. The level of parking demand results in parking on both sides of the road for approximately 150m west of the Julia Wallace facility entranceway, during the day time hours of 9 am to 3 pm. Outside of these core work hours parking levels reduce significantly and the issues raised are not of concern.

2.6 Approximately two years ago, to provide more convenient parking for visitors within the facility, Julia Wallace Retirement Centre management requested that staff, other than senior managers and maintenance staff, no-longer utilise parking within the facility. This is estimated to have resulted in approximately 20 staff having to parking outside the facility and it appears many of these staff have elected to park on Dogwood Way. The management restriction applies until 3pm after which time evening and night staff can park within the complex. It is therefore likely that excluding the contractor’s vehicles, that most of the all-day parking is by Julia Wallace staff.

2.7 There are some unique features of the Dogwood Way situation not present in other established residential areas. Firstly, the scale of the Julia Wallace Retirement Centre, results in a significant number of commercial vehicle movements involved in delivery of goods or undertaking maintenance work. These vehicles are of such a size that they preclude overtaking in the traffic lane when there is parking on both sides of the road. Secondly in common with other active sub-division areas in the city, there are a significant number of vehicle movements associated with the development of the area and construction of new dwellings. This is unavoidable and while unfortunate will be a temporary matter which will be resolved once the development is completed.

2.8 Council Officers have received requests to address the issues in recent years and have implemented some minor changes to parking in the road. In March 2019, Officers extended the non-parking area (yellow lines) at the bend of Dogwood Way near Julia Wallace, to improve driver visibility of oncoming vehicles and assist drivers to give way to oncoming traffic.

2.9 The concerns raised by residents of Julia Wallace and Dogwood Way relate to two separate but interrelated matters namely:

· the safety concerns associated with negotiating Dogwood Way with parking on both sides of the road, limited visibility around the bend and the presence of large commercial vehicles

· the availability of on-street parking for visitors and residents between the hours of 9am and 3pm on weekdays

3. Consultation

3.1 To better understand the concerns of the residents and help inform Officer feedback to Council on the potential solutions, Officers undertook the following consultation:

· Meeting held with approximately 12 Julia Wallace Residents on 25 July 2019 with two centre staff present

· Letter drop to all 20 households on Dogwood Way on 29 July 2019 which sought feedback from residents on the options of installing localised passing bays and or implementing time restricted parking on one side of Dogwood Way.

3.2 Key matters raised and discussed with the Julia Wallace residents included:

3.2.1 Residents highlighted that their primary concern was the safety issues associated with driving along Dogwood Way. The issues of parking provision and availability was a secondary concern.

3.2.2 Officers clarified that while facilities such as Julia Wallace were required to provide minimum levels of parking for staff and visitors as part of their development they were not obliged to satisfy all foreseeable parking requirements. On-street parking was available for all users including residents, staff and visitors.

3.2.3 Parking availability was becoming an issue in many parts of Palmerston North and would continue to be challenging with greater intensification of the city and medium density development. Officers explained that Council was taking a lead from other major urban centres in positively discriminating in favour of active transport modes to encourage people to rely less on cars for short distance commuting.

3.2.4 Officers explained that the solution most likely to be supported by staff and Council would be one that tackled the safety issues and reduced the conflict for traffic. The preference would either be for passing bays or installation of time limited parking on one side of the road.

3.3 Results from the letter survey to the 20 residential properties on Dogwood Way are summarised as follows:

· 17 of the 20 households provided a response – 85%

· No-parking passing bays – 5 in support (30%), 12 did not support (70%)

· Time limited parking on one side – 5 in support (30%), 10 did not support (58%), 2 – no opinion (12%)

Table 1 – Dogwood Way Resident Feedback on Options 1 and 2

3.4 General feedback included:

· Proposed changes will have no effect on the parking issue

· Proposed changes will impact negatively on resident ability to park on-street

· 14 respondents (82%) believe the on-street parking and safety issues are caused by Julia Wallace

· 8 respondents (47%) believe Julia Wallace should resolve the issues with parking on-street by either reallocating parking on-site to staff, or by purchasing adjacent land and building a carpark.

· 8 respondents (47%) indicated they wanted improvements to access/exit their own properties due to vehicles parking too close to driveways and restricting access.

3.5 Although the option to widen the road or construct indented parking was not included in the options consulted on with residents, 1 respondent proposed this solution while 4 respondents indicated they were not in support of this solution.

Table 2. : Summary of Residents Feedback/Comments

4. mitigation Options

4.1 In considering the possible solutions, Officers considered 3 potential options which are set out below. In consultation with residents, Officers consulted only on the two options which they considered to be merited by the problem and feasible for implementation. The option of providing indented parking is included as this was previously raised by Julia Wallace residents in their petition to Council.

4.2 Option 1: Install Passing Bays

Option 1 comprises the creation of two passing locations in the road by restricting parking in those locations and so providing locations for oncoming traffic to pass safely. The passing bays would need to be of sufficient width to allow for commercial vehicles servicing Julia Wallace and the residential development.

4.3 Benefits: The passing bays will improve visibility of oncoming traffic and reduce the likelihood of vehicles having to backup. This option retains much of the parking on-street, while still enabling all day parking to occur. The treatment is low cost and relatively simple and quick to implement.

4.4 Impact/Issues: Some localised loss of parking will occur on-street, reducing the quantity of parking available to staff, residents and their visitors close to their property or the retirement centre. The local loss of parking will result in a spread of parking further down the street. Currently there is no parking capacity issue, although if monitoring indicates an issue, further passing bays may need to be added in the future. The loss of parking would be permanent rather limited to the period of 9am to 3pm when the greatest conflicts occur.

Figure 1. Option 1: Install Passing Bays

4.5 Option 2: Time Limited Parking

Option 2 comprises the implementation of timed parking restrictions such as P120 on one side of the road, during fixed daytime hours. Time restricted parking will force all day parking users to move further down the street.

4.6 Benefits: Experience with time limited parking elsewhere in the city is that it will result in fewer parking cars, providing more opportunities for passing of vehicles and improved visibility of oncoming traffic. It will also improve the availability of on-street parking for visitors to the area including Julia Wallace.

4.7 Impact/Issues: Time limited parking restrictions will reduce the number of all-day parking spaces available on street and is likely to result in the demand for parking spreading further down Dogwood Way toward Clearview Drive. It is possible that other nearby roads may experience an increase in parking. To ensure compliance with the time restrictions, active monitoring by Council’s Parking Officers will be required. This will be an additional cost to Council and given it is on-going cost, will require additional operating budget to be effective.

Figure 2 - Option 2: Time Limited Parking

4.8 Option 3: Indented Parking

Option 3 would give effect to the request made by Julia Wallace residents in their petition that the traffic lane be widened, by providing for parking on one of street by way of indented parking. In effect parking would only be permitted on one side of the street in indented parking areas rather than on the carriageway. This would require replacing the berm in part or in full with hardstand areas for parking vehicles.

4.9 Benefits: This option will enable two movement lanes of traffic to occur safely and improve the visibility of oncoming traffic making it more comfortable for traffic to traverse the road. This option also preserves most of the existing parking capacity within the road.

4.10 Impact/Issues: While this option will enable much of the parking capacity to be retained, there will be a net loss, as parking bays will require entry and exit splays. Construction of indented parking bays is costly with an individual parking space estimated to cost roughly $15-20k per parking space installed. It is estimated that parking for approximately 10 cars could be constructed in the section of Dogwood Way from the first house in the street to the Julia Wallace entrance on one side of the road. One of the consequences of improving the trafficable width is that traffic speeds are likely to increase, with the potential consequence that the likelihood and severity of any crashes occurring within the street may increase.

Figure 3 - Option 3: Indented Parking Bays

5. Assessment of options

5.1 As highlighted earlier in the report, Officers have identified that there are two separate but related matters involved, namely the safety concerns of residents of Julia Wallace when driving in Dogwood Way and the availability of parking close to Julia Wallace and/or outside existing residential properties.

5.2 In respect of safety, the assessment of on-site visibility, crash history, traffic speeds and traffic volumes in Dogwood Way, provide no evidence to justify significant investment in mitigation to address resident concerns. There are many other local roads within Palmerston North with much greater traffic conflicts and more significant traffic safety issues deserving of Council investment.

5.3 Officers acknowledge that the safety concerns of residents of Julia Wallace are an issue and deserving of some mitigation. However, given that the safety issues are not reflected in any crash data, or excessive speeds, it is Officers advice that only simple low cost interventions can be justified.

5.4 Although the implementation of passing locations by way of no parking areas, had limited support from Dogwood Way residents, it is the most cost-effective solution, both because of its low implementation cost and the ease of enforcement. It is also the option with the least impact on parking availability in the street.

5.5 The second option consulted on with residents which involves the implementation of timed parking restrictions on one side of the street, would be more costly to enforce given the requirement for Parking Officers to visit multiples times during the day to ensure compliance.

5.6 In respect of parking availability, Council Officers have visited Dogwood Way on several occasions at different times of the day and have identified that while parking is well utilised close to Julia Wallace, beyond the extent of the existing residential development, there is significant unused parking capacity. There appears to be an expectation among both Dogwood Way and Julia Wallace residents that convenient and readily available parking outside their residence at most times is a level of service Council are obligated to provide.

5.7 While the availability of parking has been raised as an issue for both on-street residents and the residents of Julia Wallace, inspections confirm that there is ample parking available within 100m of the Julia Wallace entrance. Consultation with residents of Dogwood Way indicates only low levels of support for changes to parking to address the perceived safety issues. However, residents did raise concerns around parking close to accessways.

5.8 Option 3 is not supported by Council Officers and was not consulted on. Regardless of the level of priority in this case, the key risk and consequence of Council investing in indented parking in a residential street, is the precedent that will be set. There are innumerable requests sitting with Officers to address perceived parking constraints in other parts of the city.

5.9 Council Officers receive many requests for minor changes and investment in new parking infrastructure such as line marking and signs to resolve issues associated with the city’s growth. Currently there is no approved capital new programme budget to invest in new parking assets and infrastructure. Up until now, minor parking infrastructure investments have been funded through other capital new budgets, which has impacted on the delivery of these programmes and projects.

5.10 Officers have separately reported to Council on the need for a separate capital new programme budget for minor parking infrastructure. Any budget will be 100% Council funded as any investment in parking will not be eligible for NZTA subsidy.

6. Summary and recommendation

6.1 While the crash data, vehicle speeds and vehicle volumes on Dogwood Way do not justify significant investment in infrastructure to mitigate safety, the concerns of the residents of Julia Wallace around the visibility of oncoming traffic and the restricted ability for on-coming vehicles to pass are valid.

6.2 In the absence of any serious safety issues, Officers recommend that the option of providing for passing lanes by implemented no parking areas along the road be adopted – Option 1. The passing areas will improve safety and have only a limited impact on the availability of parking in the street.

6.3 While parking is constrained close to the Julia Wallace entranceway and outside existing properties, there is parking available further down Dogwood Way. There is no evidence of a need to manage the availability of parking in the area.

7. NEXT STEPS

7.1 Following Council confirmation of the mitigation option to be implemented, Officers will advise the residents of Dogwood Way and the Julia Wallace retirement facility of the decision taken.

7.2 If the option to be implemented is low cost, then Officers will look to programme the works to be implemented as soon as practicable.

7.3 If option 3 for indented parking is to be implemented, Officers will need to get Council approval for funding before proceeding to detailed design. Implementation timing will be dependent on funding, design services and contractor availability.

8. 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?		No
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 Strategic Transport Plan The actions include: · Provide transport infrastructure for growth · Implement the proposed parking management plan · Enforce parking rules and time limits
Contribution to strategic direction	The recommendations support consistent implementation of Council’s strategies which promote efficient provision of transport services to meet the needs of business, residential and wider economic growth as well encouraging a strong culture of walking, cycling and public transport use.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 September 2019

TITLE: Pedestrian Safety Issues Quarterly Report

Presented By: Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That Council receive the memorandum titled `Pedestrian Safety Issues Quarterly Report” dated 24 August 2019.

2. That Council approve a change to the timing of the quarterly report to October, January, April and July of each year to allow time for NZTA to update crash data.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council has a long-standing commitment to improving safety for pedestrians in the roading network, with a focus on reducing deaths and serious injury crashes. Council has signalled its desire to create a strong culture of walking and cycling in the city under the “Creative and Liveable City Strategy.” Under this strategy the “Active and Public Transport Plan” states that Council’s goal is to see more people walking, cycling and using public transport around Palmerston North. The “Plan” also acknowledges that for this to happen Council will need to ensure road design, way-finding and planning is undertaken in a way which considers the space and safety needs of cyclists and pedestrians.

1.2 Council received a report from Officers at the June 2019 meeting of this committee, entitled Prioritising Pedestrian Safety in the Network.” The report provided a summary of a needs assessment undertaken by external consultants and recommendations for further investigation and action.

1.3 Officers proposed an action plan with a range of tasks to be undertaken to support safety improvements across the network. At the June meeting the Committee requested regular quarterly updates continue to update Council on progress with addressing pedestrian safety. This report is the first of the quarterly updates. The report considers both the 2018-19 year as a whole and quarter 4 being the period April to June 2019.

2. scope of Quarterly Report

2.1 The scope of the quarterly report has been developed to provide a brief overview and update for pedestrian safety in the following three areas:

· update crash and serious injury data

· summary of identified pedestrian safety projects

· progress with the Action Plan

3. Crash and Serious Injury Data

3.1 Pedestrian crashes data extracted from the NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) for the 10 years from 2009 to 2018 are summarised in Table 1 below. The data is recorded by calendar year.

Table 1: Crash Data Over the Period 2009 to 2018

Period	Total	Fatal	Serious	Minor
2009-2018 (Last 10 Year)	201	4	42	155
2014-2018 (Last 5 Year Period)	96	4	22	70
2018	18	1	4	13
2017	17	1	2	14
2016	23	0	6	17
2015	22	1	8	13
2014	16	1	2	13

3.2 Pedestrian crash data extracted from the NZTA crash database (CASS) for the last 4 quarters are summarised in Table 2 below. It is intended that data will be provided on a rolling 4 quarters (12 months) to provide an understanding of any trends.

Table 2: Crashes Over Last 4 Quarters

	Total	Fatal	Serious	Minor
4^th Quarter (Apr 19 – Jun 19)	7	0	0	7
3^rd Quarter (Jan 19 – Mar 19)	3	0	1	2
2^nd Quarter (Oct 18 – Dec 18)	3	0	1	2
1^st Quarter (Jul 18 – Sep 18)	5	1	0	4
Last 12 Months Total	18	1	2	15

3.3 For the last 4 quarters (2018-19 financial year) there was a single fatality and two serious pedestrian injury crashes. All three events were out of Council’s control. The fatality which occurred in the 1^st quarter of the year was caused by a vehicle reversing out of a driveway and hitting a pedestrian on the footpath. Of the two serious pedestrian injury related crashes, one was located on state highway 3 (NZTA responsibility), while the second involved a car reversing from a property and hitting a child playing in the street.

3.4 Crashes involving pedestrians within the city over the last 10 years are widely distributed with few locations experiencing multiple pedestrian crashes. Figures 1 and 2 provide an indication of the location of pedestrian injury crashes within the city.

Figure 1: Heatmap of Crashes in Palmerston North City 2009-2018

Figure 2: Indicative location and severity of crashes 2009-2018

Note: Clusters of crashes shown in figure 2 have been grouped by NZTA’s Crash Analysis System (CAS) and do not necessarily mean that all of the crashes in a cluster occurred at the same location.

4. Identified Pedestrian Safety Improvement Projects

4.1 There are range of projects currently in design and development by Council officers, which include improvements to pedestrian safety. The projects which are either in design or planned for construction in 19/20 are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Current Council Projects with Pedestrian Safety Benefits

Programme / Project No:	Project	Planned Construction	Status
244 / 1549	Square East - CBD Streetscape works	19/20	Design
279 / 1373	Benmore Avenue – Pedestrian Crossing Point	19/20	Design
279 / 871	Ruapehu Street, Outside Peren Park - Pedestrian Crossing Point	19/20	Design
1578 / 2106	Monrad / Pencarrow /Ronberg Street - New Roundabout	19/20	Design
279 / 1256	Walding Street / Taonui Street – Intersection Modifications	19/20	Design
279 / 1218	Pioneer / Lyndhurst / West – Intersection Modifications	19/20	Design
279 / 870	Wood Street – Midblock Pedestrian Central Point	19/20	Design
279 / TBC	James Line - Central median islands between Railway Line and Brooklyn Heights Drive	19/20	Design
636 / 1737	Aokautere Drive – Footpath from Petersens Road to Polson Hill Drive	19/20	Design
1358 / 1939	Aokautere Drive - Shared path on south side between Pacific Drive and Johnston Drive	19/20	Design
1440 / 1583	Cuba Street Urban Streetscape Improvement - Upgrade between Rangitikei to George Street	19/20	Design
279 / 692	Te Awe Awe /Albert Street - Roundabout Renewal	20/21	Design
324 / TBC	Park Road / Cook Street - Intersection Upgrade	20/21	Design
1361 / 2117	Turitea Road - Pedestrian Steps near Valley Views	20/21	Design
910 / TBC	Ferguson -Linton Street to Pitt Street) - Road Widening and Traffic Signals	20/21	Investigation

4.2 In addition, there additional projects which have been identified by Council Officers as priority projects for inclusion in the next Lon Term Plan. These include:

· Long Melford Road near Mudgway Place – Pedestrian Crossing Point

· Broadway Avenue - Pedestrians between Princess Street and Albert Street

· Albert Street / Broadway Avenue – Roundabout Renewal

· Square / Church Street / Fitzherbert Avenue – Pedestrian signals reprioritisation

4.3 The projects identified do not directly correspond to locations where pedestrian crashes have occurred, as pedestrian injury crashes are often random and unrelated to local roading issues. Instead locations for upgrades have been identified by considering areas with significant pedestrian volumes and potential for conflicts and locations where there are significant deficiencies of gaps in infrastructure such as for example desired crossing locations on roads with high traffic volumes and well utilised pedestrian routes with long crossing distances.

4.4 These projects are only indicative and are not accounted for in the budget at this time. Further planning is required prior to the projects being included in the programme of work.

5. Action Plan Progress

5.1 The action plan included in the June 2019 report to this committee is reproduced below in Table 4 with an indication of the status of each action. At this stage 3 of the 10 actions are complete, with the remaining 7 still on schedule to be completed in the nominated time frame.

Table 4 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

Action Area	Recommended Action	Timeframe	Progress / Status
Engineering Solutions	Inspections and audits of existing facilities – annually – March each year.	Annually – March each year.	On Schedule
	Traffic signal timings and protection for pedestrians	December 2019	On Schedule
	Review priorities for pedestrian safety interventions annually using latest crash data and service requests.	Annually – February each year.	On Schedule
	Review current provision of pedestrian crossing facilities on Ruahine, Rangitikei Street, Featherston Street and the “Ring Road’.	September 2019 (report back to Council).	On Schedule
	Review driveway and off-street parking standards and requirements to better prioritise pedestrian safety	October 2019.	On Schedule
	Review pedestrian safety at roundabouts	February 2020.	On Schedule
Strategic Planning Recommendations	Support design for liveability which promotes pedestrian safety, access and convenience.	On-going.	On Schedule
	Ensure pedestrian connectivity and key links in high pedestrian use areas are identified and included in planning and engineering solutions e.g. CBD / Neighbourhoods / Hospital / Massey Food HQ	Include specific case studies within the “Roads and Streets Framework” programme which address key pedestrian rich places – August 2019.	Complete
		Consider pedestrian and active transport needs as part of the “Speed Limits Bylaw Review” currently underway – June 2020	On Schedule
Education / Travel behaviour change	Continue to support school and work place travel plans	Consider school communities / hubs in the specific case studies within the “Roads and Streets Framework” to provide infrastructure to achieve step change – August 2019.	Complete
Education / Travel behaviour change	Continue to support school and work place travel plans	Engage with school bus travel providers to consider how to expand use and uptake as well as safety outcomes – on-going.	Complete

6. next steps

6.1 Officers will continue to monitor and report on a quarterly basis on pedestrian safety across the network and continue to implement the action plan as adopted by Council.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter text>		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan The actions include: · Undertaking remedial work in areas with high crash or safety concerns, taking into consideration context-sensitive design (based on road function, adjacent land use and user routes). · Identifying and implementing pedestrian and cycle focussed improvements to intersection and road crossings. · Upgrading on a prioritised basis, pedestrian routes, connections and road crossings.
Contribution to strategic direction	The quarterly update provides Council with confidence that the package of projects and actions will deliver enduring and sustainable improvements in pedestrian safety across the network.

Attachments

Nil

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

9.	Marilyn Bulloch on behalf of Railway Land Action Group
15.	Major M A Pettersen on behalf of Linton Military Camp
16.	Kerry Hocquard on behalf of Cancer Society of New Zealand, Manawatu Centre