Agenda of Planning & Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning & Strategy Committee MEETING

11 March 2020

Order of Business

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

- Economic Development Committee

- Planning & Strategy Committee

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

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

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

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

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

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

4. Public Comment

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

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

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the Planning & Strategy Committee meeting of 12 February 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Review of Water Supply Bylaw - s 155 Determinations Page 9

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

7. Draft Venues Policy for Consultation Page 25

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

8. Summary of Submissions for the Proposed Amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 Page 47

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

9. Draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 - Approval for Consultation Page 61

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

10. District Plan and School Travel Page 115

Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager.

11. Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results Page 121

Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager and Dave Charnley, Senior Urban Designer.

12. Committee Work Schedule Page 167

13. 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.

[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 & Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 12 February 2020, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Non Members:

Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM and Karen Naylor.

Apologies:

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

Councillor Susan Baty was not present when the meeting resumed at 11.26am. She was not present for clauses 2 and 3.

1-20

Apologies

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 1-20 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, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am.

The meeting resumed at 11.26am.

When the meeting resumed Councillor Susan Baty was not present.

2-20

Public Participation at Meetings

Memorandum, presented by Natalya Kushnirenko, Democracy & Governance Administrator.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning & Strategy Committee set aside a public comment section of not more than 30 minutes at the commencement of each ordinary meeting of the Committee to provide members of the community the opportunity to comment.

Clause 2-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

3-20

Work Schedule

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning & Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated February 2020.

Clause 3-20 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 11.30am.

Confirmed 11 March 2020

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 11 March 2020

TITLE: Review of Water Supply Bylaw - s 155 Determinations

PRESENTED BY: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COUNCIL

1. That pursuant to s 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem of providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment.

2. That pursuant to s 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council determines that a stand-alone bylaw is the most appropriate form for a water supply bylaw.

3. That pursuant to s 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council agrees that it is not anticipated that a revised bylaw would give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4. That the Chief Executive is instructed to draft an amended Water Supply Bylaw which addresses the perceived problem of providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	The Water Supply Bylaw 2015 is due for review and will be automatically revoked in May 2020 unless a determination is made by May 2020.
OPTION 1:	Determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the of perceived problem of providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment. (Recommended)
Community Views	Initial community views on this Bylaw have not yet been sought.
Benefits	The review timeframe is met, and the Water Supply Bylaw 2015 will not be automatically revoked in two years. Without the Bylaw Council’s ability to manage its water supply activity would be more limited.
Risks	No risks identified.
Financial	Costs can be met within current budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem.
Community Views	Initial community views on this Bylaw have not yet been sought.
Benefits	No benefits identified.
Risks	If the s 155 determination on the Water Supply Bylaw is not made before 25 May 2020 the Bylaw will be automatically revoked two years later. Council’s ability to manage its water supply activity would be limited which would have significant effects on the operation of this service.
Financial	Should Council determine that a Water Supply Bylaw is not required, costs will be incurred in terms of staff time and external legal advice to address the matters previously managed by the Bylaw.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to review the Water Supply Bylaw 2015 within five years of it being made. This report provides the opportunity for the review deadline to be met.

1.2 A bylaw review begins with a determination by the Committee that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. For this purpose, the “perceived problem” is providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment. Attachment 1 of this report further describes the problem and analyses the reasonably practicable options for addressing it.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The Council adopted the Water Supply Bylaw in May 2015. The Bylaw is required to be reviewed within five years of adoption, and thereafter every 10 years. If it is not reviewed by 25 May 2020 the Bylaw will be automatically revoked two years after that date.

3. Description of options

3.1 The primary purpose of this report is for the Committee to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem. The options are to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems, or to not make that determination.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 If the Committee does not determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, then the Committee will be implicitly revoking the current Bylaw. No further work on the Bylaw would be done, and unless a different decision is made later the current Bylaw would be automatically revoked two years after the five-year review deadline was reached (i.e. in May 2022). Alternative solutions to the issues identified in the attached report would need to be further explored and reported back to Council. This option is not recommended by staff.

4.2 Staff recommend that the Committee determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. This is because it is a more effective regulatory response than the alternatives of reliance on existing legislation, initiating individual customer contracts, or education, as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report. Council’s current Water Supply Bylaw is for the most part working well, and the scope of activity covered by it has not changed substantively since the Bylaw was last reviewed in 2015. Continuing with Council’s Water Supply Bylaw (and providing the opportunity to refine it further through amendment) is the preferred option.

4.3 If the Committee agrees that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, then there are two consequential determinations to make. The first is that the form of the bylaw is the most appropriate form. The second determination is whether the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Attachment 1 of this report provides analysis of these matters and recommends that the stand-alone form of bylaw is the most appropriate form, and that the bylaw, when drafted, is unlikely to give rise to any implications under the NZBORA.

4.4 Once these determinations are made then the review can continue, and staff can establish the scope of possible amendments to the Bylaw to ensure it fully addresses the perceived problem of providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Staff recommend that the Committee determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

5.2 Staff also recommend that the Committee determines that the stand-alone form of bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; that a bylaw addressing water supply is unlikely to give rise to any implications under the NZBORA; and that staff be directed to proceed with the review process and draft an amended Water Supply Bylaw for consideration by the Committee.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Committee accepts the recommendations staff will proceed with the review process. Pre-consultation activities will be conducted. A draft bylaw will be presented to the Committee later in 2020 for consideration.

6.2 Staff have identified several issues that will be considered in drafting an amended bylaw:

· Better alignment of demand management measures with Council strategy through a proactive water conservation approach (this could include water restrictions that automatically apply during daylight savings hours each year).

· Ensuring clear ownership and delineation of responsibilities between Council and customers, especially regarding private mains.

· Improving clarity of the process for approval of contractors to work on Council water services as well as the on-going quality and performance standards to be met to maintain and enable renewal of any approvals.

· Expanding on the respect responsibilities of Council and customers in respect of installing, maintaining, testing and funding backflow protection devices for all domestic and commercial water supply connections.

· Wording and structure changes to increase document readability.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The following pre-consultation activities are planned:

· Engagement with Rangitāne through the bi-monthly meetings.

· Media release to be distributed on the PNCC website and Facebook highlighting the opportunity to raise any issues and capture general community views on the current Bylaw.

· Engagement with stakeholders including the development community, service contractors and relevant government agencies.

7.2 Feedback gathered will be used to inform the recommendation of amendments to the current Bylaw. An amended Water Supply Bylaw will be brought to the Committee to approve for public consultation. Information on that consultation process will be provided at that time.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
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: Provide a safe water supply to the city.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	A Water Supply Bylaw ensures that Council continues to deliver its water supply activity in line with regulatory requirements and its strategic goals.

Attachments

Water Bylaw Review s155 Determination Report ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 11 March 2020

TITLE: Draft Venues Policy for Consultation

Presented By: Julie Macdonald, Strategy and Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 1 of the memorandum titled ‘Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 11 March 2020) is received.

2. That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 2 of the memorandum titled ‘Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 11 March 2020) is adopted for consultation.

3. 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

The Draft Venues Policy was first presented to the Council in June 2019 and in August staff proposed changes to enable the Draft Venues Policy to be adopted for consultation. The purpose of these changes was to achieve legal compliance. The amended Draft Venues Policy (August 2019) is attachment 1 to this memo, with the proposed changes marked in red.

The Council decided not to approve the draft for consultation in August and instead resolved: “That the Draft Venues Policy to be discussed be adjourned until the February 2020 meeting of the appropriate Committee” (clause 57.19).

The purpose of this report is to reopen discussion on the Draft Venues Policy. Staff do not recommend that the draft considered by Councillors is August is adopted for consultation, for the reasons discussed below. A further draft (attachment 2) is instead proposed for consultation. Staff consider that this draft should be publicly consulted on due to the time which has currently lapsed since any public airing of the issues raised by the initial resolution to adopt a policy, and because Councillors have resolved that they would like to provide policy guidance for decisions about the use of Council venues.

The Draft Venues Policy recommended for consultation (attachment 2) provides clear and transparent guidance for decision-making about the use of Council venues. The proposed Policy is grounded in the Council’s goals; it reflects the desire to promote an inclusive community, while also supporting city growth and innovation. Implementation of the proposed Draft Venues Policy, therefore, would support Council’s relationships with its strategic partners and would only preclude activities where there was an agreed rationale for doing so.

2. BACKGROUND

The timeline for the development and consideration of the Draft Venues Policy is outlined below:

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 deputations from people objecting to the Council hosting the New Zealand Defence, Industry and National Security Forum at Central Energy Trust Arena.

Councillors provided guidance on the direction of this policy at a workshop, and then in June 2019 the Planning and Strategy Committee considered the Draft Venues Policy proposed for consultation (v1 in the diagram above). The Committee 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 5 June 2019 Committee agenda. The Planning and Strategy Committee resolved to approve the Draft Venues Policy for consultation, subject to (among other things) widening of the scope of the policy to include sponsors of events and activities.

Staff provided advice to the 24 June 2019 Council meeting that the amendments proposed by the Committee may not be lawful, and that the consultation process was paused pending further legal advice. Because the Committee had delegated authority to adopt the draft for consultation, this advice had to be considered by the Planning and Strategy Committee, rather than by Council.

On 5 August 2019 the Planning and Strategy Committee received advice about the legality of the amendments made to the Draft at the June Committee meeting(v2). Officer advice in August was limited to the legal issues raised during consideration of the amended draft. Staff considered that the amended draft may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). 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.

The amended draft proposed for consultation in August 2019 was one which reflected the changes agreed by Councillors in June, alongside further changes staff considered necessary to address the legal issues within the Draft (v3).

The Draft Venues Policy considered by the Committee in August had its origins in the first draft proposed by staff for consultation in June. While staff gave advice about the legal ramifications of the Draft in August, these discussions were a continuation of the earlier Committee process. The adjournment of discussions on the proposed Venues Policy means that staff have an opportunity to provide further advice. For the reasons outlined below, staff now recommend for consultation a draft policy which they consider to be consistent with the purposes of the proposed Policy, which are to:

o Support the strategic goals which govern each of the venues within the scope of this policy;

o Enact Council’s Governorship principle;

o Provide decision-makers with clear and accessible processes;

o Provide transparent decision-making for the public.

3. draft venues policy proposed for consultation in february 2020

This section outlines each of the proposed changes to the Draft Venues Policy and provides information about both the amendments proposed in August (attachment 1), as well as the Draft Venues Policy proposed for consultation (attachment 2).

3.1 Change of wording from ‘a main purpose’ to ‘purpose’ in guidelines for bookings for events and activities in venues directly covered by the Policy (resolved by Committee)

August 2019 Draft (attachment 1) - The word ‘main’ was deleted from Guidelines 1 and (new) 3 of the proposed Draft Venues Policy (August 2019) (shown in red). These changes would considerably broaden the scope of the proposed policy.

February 2020 Draft (attachment 2) – The word ‘main’ is not deleted in the draft proposed for consultation in Guidelines 1 and 2. Staff consider that this amendment would broaden the scope of the policy to an unreasonable extent.

For example, under the August Draft Policy, a ‘casino night’ community group fundraiser at the Conference and Function Centre could be considered to “promote casino gambling” as a purpose, and therefore not be accepted as a booking in a council venue. Under the February Draft Policy, because “casino gambling” is not the main purpose of the event, such an event would be allowed by the 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 the Guideline about the reputation of the Council (resolved by Committee)

August 2019 Draft (attachment 1) - This change was incorporated into Guideline 6 of the proposed Draft Venues Policy (August 2019). This is a relatively minor amendment and staff are comfortable that this change would not have any material significance to the meaning of the proposed guideline.

February 2020 Draft (attachment 2) - This change is also included (in Guideline 4) of the proposed Draft Venues Policy (February 2020). The reasoning is as above.

3.3 Inclusion of ‘sponsors’ in the guidelines for bookings for events and activities in venues directly covered by the Policy – Guidelines 1 and 2 (resolved by Committee)

August 2019 Draft (attachment 1) - This change was added as (new) Guidelines 2 and 4. These changes would considerably broaden the scope of the proposed policy.

February 2020 Draft (attachment 2) – The expansion of the Draft Policy to include sponsors of activities and events raises two issues:

Firstly, Guidelines 2 and 4 of the August draft (attachment 1) are unlikely to be feasible. They would require event organisers to provide information about their sponsors at the point at which a booking is made – information which may not be available at that stage.

Secondly, these guidelines may not be consistent with the intent of the policy (stated above), which is to ensure that events and activities support the strategic intent of the venues. Sponsors of events and activities are somewhat distant from the purpose of an activity or event, in the same way that the origin of goods and services purchased for an event or activity are also distant and are not subject to Council regulation.

For example, a community event (which supported the strategic goals of the Council venue) sponsored by a fuel company may not be accepted as a booking under the August Draft, which seems at odds with the purpose of the Policy.

The proposed draft (attachment 2) therefore omits all guidance referring to the sponsors of events and activities.

3.4 Inclusion of ‘sponsors’ in the guidelines for bookings for events and activities in venues directly covered by the Policy held in public in Guideline 3 (resolved by Committee)

August 2019 Draft (attachment 1) - The addition of sponsors to the proposed guideline about events ‘in public’ raised some concerns. As amended in June (by Committee), the Guideline (new) 5 would have been:

“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 have been unjustifiably discriminatory and a breach of BORA. In August, therefore, staff proposed that this guideline exclude any mention of event sponsorship. The wording proposed for Guideline (new) 5 is discussed under 3.5 below.

February 2020 Draft (attachment 2) – This draft also includes the wording proposed in August (as Guideline 3), for the reasons described above.

3.5 Legality of Guideline 3 (raised by staff)

August 2019 Draft (attachment 1) - The purpose of Guideline 3 (as initially proposed in June) was to guard against people feeling unwelcome or excluded from community venues. In preparing the August report, staff sought further advice about the proposed guideline (setting aside the sponsorship issue described above) and concluded that it could be reworded to better reflect its intention, and to ensure it was not unjustifiably discriminatory.

Staff therefore proposed that Guideline 3 in the June draft was replaced with the following Guideline 5 (the new numbering reflects the other changes made to the draft) (shown in red in attachment 1).

“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.”

This new guideline removes any potentially discriminatory restrictions on events and emphasises the need for events in public not to unreasonably disrupt the experience of other members of the community.

February 2020 Draft (attachment 2) – This draft also includes the wording proposed in August (as Guideline 3), for the reasons described above.

Summary of Drafts

This table provides a summary of the changes proposed in each of the drafts provided for consideration.

Changes proposed to the Draft Policy in June 2019	Draft Venues Policy August 2019 (attachment 1)	Proposed Draft Venues Policy February 2020 (attachment 2)
Change of wording from ‘a main purpose’ to ‘purpose’ in guidelines for bookings for events and activities in venues directly covered by the Policy (resolved by Committee)	Incorporates this change	Excludes this change
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 (resolved by Committee)	Incorporates this change	Incorporates this change
Inclusion of ‘sponsors’ in the guidelines for bookings for events and activities in venues directly covered by the Policy (resolved by Committee)	Incorporates this change	Excludes this change
Inclusion of ‘sponsors’ in the guidelines for bookings (for events and activities held in public) in venues directly covered by the Policy (resolved by Committee)	Excludes this change	Excludes this change
Additional changes to guidelines for bookings (for events and activities held in public) for legal reasons (raised by staff)	Incorporates this change	Incorporates this change

4. conclusion

Staff are still of the view that a Venues Policy would provide useful guidance for decision-making about the use of Council venues. It is noted that there has not yet been a formal opportunity for the public to have input on this matter, despite the initial resolution to develop a policy being made in October 2018. For this reason, staff consider it appropriate to consult with the public on a Draft Venues Policy which is both feasible and supports the proposed policy objectives.

5. NEXT STEPS

If the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 2) is approved for consultation, then there will be an opportunity for Councillors to hear submissions from the public. 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

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

· direct mail

· various social media tools

· attendance at events

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 5: A Driven and Enabling Council
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	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 (August 2019) ⇩
2.	Draft Venues Policy (February 2020) ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 11 March 2020

TITLE: Summary of Submissions for the Proposed Amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018

Presented By: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO PLANNING & STRATEGY cOMMITTEE

1. That the memorandum titled “Summary of Submissions for the Proposed Amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018” and dated 11 March 2020 be received.

1. ISSUE

This memorandum presents a summary of submissions that were received by the Palmerston North City Council in response to its consultation on the proposed amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2019 (Attachment 1).

The consultation document, including the proposed amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw, was released to the public for comment on 02 November 2019. Written submissions closed on 06 December 2019 and 27 submissions were received by the closing date. Three submitters have indicated that they wish to speak to their submission.

2. BACKGROUND

On 26 August 2019 the Council resolved:

‘That the Chief Executive be instructed to draft an amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 that removes section 11.7 ‘No person may decorate the soil of a grave located in the lawn cemetery with the use of construction materials such as concrete, stone or metal or with the construction of fences or pavement’ for consultation with the public in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002’.

The rationale for this resolution, provided by the Mayor in the background to the Notice of Motion proposing the amendment, was that “[t]he inclusion of the reference to construction materials in the operative Bylaw does not reflect the permissive nature of what the community expects to be able to have in place at the cemetery”.

In September 2019 the Council approved for consultation a consultation document (including the draft amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw) proposing this change. The proposed amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw seeks to revoke in its entirety clause 11.7 ‘No person may decorate the soil of a grave located in the lawn cemetery with the use of construction materials such as concrete, stone or metal with construction of fences or pavement’.

Attachment 1 includes a table that groups the submissions into the themes that arose. A second table includes submissions which officers deemed were outside the scope of the proposed amendment. However, they have been included for completeness and to ensure that these comments are directed to the appropriate staff.

Feedback from Facebook users, which was generated from two Council Facebook posts, has also been included in the summary.

3. NEXT STEPS

Deliberations on the submissions are scheduled to be held during the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting on 13 May 2020. At that meeting, an officer report will be presented outlining recommendations in respect of the proposed amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018. It is anticipated that the Committee will make recommendations to the Council in respect of the proposed amendment of the Bylaw, for adoption by the Council on 27 May 2020.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
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 Community Services and Facilities Plan The action is: Cemeteries (at Kelvin Grove, Terrace End, Ashhurst, and Bunnythorpe) and a crematorium (at Kelvin Grove) are meeting community needs.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Providing transparency in process to ensure community views are presented on proposed changes to the management of the Council Cemeteries and Crematorium.

Attachments

Summary of Submissions for the proposed amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 11 March 2020

TITLE: Draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 - Approval for Consultation

PRESENTED BY: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council approve the draft Palmerston North Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 Consultation Document (attached as attachment one of the report titled “Draft Speed Limit Bylaw 2020 – Approval for Consultation, dated 11 March 2020) for consultation with the public.

2. That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be authorised to approve minor amendments to the consultation document prior to publication.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	The Speed Limits Bylaw 2013 will expire in September 2020, and be automatically revoked unless the Council revokes it and replaces it with a new bylaw before that date. This is an opportunity to adopt a new bylaw that will continue existing speed limits, and to adjust some speed limits on roads that have been identified as being a high priority.
OPTION 1:	Approve the draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 for public consultation
Community Views	Feedback from the community was received in 2019 as part of an informal engagement exercise. The community views helped to refine the proposal that is now put forward for public consultation.
Benefits	Consulting on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw will allow the Bylaw to progress towards adoption in August 2020.
Risks	No particular risks have been identified.
Financial	Consultation on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw will be met within existing budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 for public consultation
Community Views	Though there was some feedback during the informal engagement exercise in 2019 opposed to specific aspects of the suggested speed limit changes, there was generally broad support for the proposals in the areas identified by Council.
Benefits	No particular benefits have been identified.
Risks	If the draft Speed Limits Bylaw is not approved for public consultation, and an alternative draft bylaw is not approved for consultation by Council in March, then there will be insufficient time to adopt a replacement Speed Limits Bylaw before the current Bylaw expires on 25 September 2020.
Financial	No particular financial implications have been identified.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Speed Limits Bylaw 2013 expired on 25 September 2018 and will be automatically revoked on 25 September 2020 unless it is revoked and replaced earlier. Without a Speed Limits Bylaw there will be no valid speed limits for most roads within Palmerston North.

1.2 Officers have reviewed speed limits for roads that were identified as a high priority, and made proposed changes for a replacement bylaw. These changes are now ready for approval by the Council for public consultation.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The current Speed Limits Bylaw was adopted in September 2013, representing a city-wide review of speed limits. The notable changes were the introduction of variable speed limits for 17 schools and the extension of the Urban Traffic Area in Palmerston North (where the default speed limit is 50 km/h) to the east and west (reflecting urban growth in those areas). Urban Traffic Areas were created for Longburn and Bunnythorpe, following the boundary change with Manawatū District Council. Speed limit changes for a number of specific roads were also included in the 2013 bylaw.

2.2 In 2013, the Council considered the introduction of a 30 km/h speed limit for the CBD (within the ring road). However, following public consultation, the Council chose to not proceed with that proposal.

2.3 The variable speed limits for schools came into effect in December 2014.

2.4 In 2019, officers briefed Councillors on a staged approach to future Speed Limits Bylaw reviews. The staged approach allows the Council to be more responsive to requests for speed limit changes as they emerge, along with changes in development around the City. This draft Speed Limits Bylaw represents the work of stage one, with initial work on stage two due to begin in April 2020.

2.5 In February 2020, officers briefed Councillors on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw, ahead of it being presented in this report. The topics covered at the Councillor briefing included:

- An overview of the speed limit setting process.

- PNCC’s staged approach to the speed limit review.

- An overview of the proposed changes in stage one (comprising the changes included in this draft Bylaw).

- An indication of the scope of changes being explored for future stages (namely, the possibility of a reduced speed limit for the City centre, extending the application of variable speed limits for schools in the City, a comprehensive review of priority roads in Bunnythorpe, and working with NZTA on speed limit changes to state highways as they relate to future development around Te Wanaka Road (the Kikiwhenua development) and Napier Road).

- An overview of forthcoming changes to the speed limit setting process as signalled by the Government in the Road to Zero Action Plan.

This briefing for Councillors was for information only, and no decisions were sought or made.

3. Description of options

3.1 The first option is to consult on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw. This would give identified stakeholders and the wider community the opportunity to make a formal submission on the proposed changes.

3.2 The second option is to not consult on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw. In the absence of any other instructions from the Council, no further work would be undertaken on speed limits, and the current Bylaw would be automatically revoked on 25 September 2020. This is because the existing Speed Limits Bylaw is made, partly, under the Local Government Act 2002, and bylaws which are not reviewed within five years of being made (or 10 years, if it has been reviewed initially within five years of being made) expire and are automatically revoked two years after the review should have been completed (see s160A, Local Government Act 2002).

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Consulting on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw (option one) allows the community and identified stakeholders the opportunity to make a formal submission on the proposed changes. This follows up on informal community engagement conducted in 2019. The timeframe for the consultation process enables the Council to receive written and oral submissions, deliberate on those submissions and adopt a final bylaw before the existing bylaw is automatically revoked in September 2020.

4.2 Not approving the draft Speed Limits Bylaw for consultation (option two) would create a dangerous situation in the City where there would be no valid speed limits for most roads in Palmerston North. While in practical terms most drivers would comply with the current speed limits, Police would be unable to enforce speed limits. This constitutes a key reason for recommending that the draft Speed Limits Bylaw be approved for public consultation.

4.3 The community engagement exercise carried out in 2019 canvassed feedback from identified key stakeholders and the general public on suggested changes to speed limits on specific roads in Ashhurst, Bunnythorpe/Milson, Tennent Drive, and Pahiatua-Aokautere Road. Over 700 comments were received through the online engagement platform Social Pinpoint. A further dozen written responses were received, and approximately 60 responses were received via social media.

4.4 In addition to the 20 roads where a speed limit change was suggested by Council, comments were made on a further 92 roads. A few were able to be incorporated into the current proposal, where they aligned with the scope of the existing work (such as the short extension of the 50 km/h limit on Colyton Road in Ashhurst, to complement the proposal to reduce the speed limit on Oxford and North Streets). Most of the additional roads identified during the 2019 engagement exercise have been scheduled for further investigation and technical assessment, and will be included in the next stage of the speed limits review, starting later in 2020.

4.5 In terms of the details of the proposal in option one, there is very limited scope to add or change roads and their speed limits at this point. If Councillors are not comfortable with some aspects of the proposed speed limits for public consultation, then it is recommended that those aspects are removed from the proposal and the remainder are continued with. This will allow the process to move forward, and a new bylaw adopted in August, before the current bylaw is automatically revoked. Any speed limits which are not included in this proposal can be carried forward to stage two, and investigated further.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Option one – approve the draft Speed Limits Bylaw for public consultation - is recommended. This will allow the process of making a new bylaw to proceed, to be adopted in August before the current Bylaw is automatically revoked. The scope of the proposed changes has already been canvassed with the community, and formal consultation gives the opportunity to receive formal submissions.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Committee approves the draft Bylaw for approval for public consultation, then the Consultation Document will be finalised for publication, and the consultation process will begin.

6.2 The proposed consultation period is from 1 April to 1 May 2020. Hearings for oral submissions will be planned for June. A final report, with officer advice on the issues raised by submitters, and recommendations on changes to the draft Bylaw for adoption, will be presented to the Planning and Strategy Committee in August. If the draft Bylaw is adopted in August, then it will come into effect on 21 September 2020.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Community engagement was carried out in 2019, beginning in June with a six-week long exercise to seek feedback from stakeholders and the community about the speed limit changes we were suggesting.

7.2 Engagement was conducted using a mix of online and in-person methods. Social Pinpoint – an online engagement tool involving interactive maps – was used to illustrate where the Council was considering changing speed limits. The nature of the tool allowed anyone to place a pin on the map and indicate whether they supported the suggested change, whether they had concerns, or to suggest other areas of change altogether. Over the six weeks that the site was live, over 700 comments were received. These comments were a mix of pinned comments and responses to other pins, demonstrating the conversational nature of this tool.

Screenshot of speed limits review consultation on social pinpoint

7.3 In addition to the comments received via Social Pinpoint, a further 60 comments via other social media, and a dozen written responses, were received.

7.4 A series of community drop-in sessions were held, giving opportunities for members of the community to attend and ask questions or learn more about the suggested changes. These were held in Ashhurst Library, the Central Library, and at the Bunnythorpe community meeting. The sessions in Ashhurst and Bunnythorpe were particularly well attended.

7.5 Printed copies of the engagement document were circulated to all of Council’s distribution points (the Customer Service Centre, and all libraries), and all identified stakeholders (including statutory stakeholders under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017).

7.6 The community engagement process was promoted via social media, radio advertising, flyers distributed to households in the affected areas, poster advertising, and on the Council website.

7.7 The proposed consultation on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw will follow a similar format to the engagement conducted in 2019, with a few differences. We are not proposing to use Social Pinpoint for the formal consultation stage, as it appears to be better suited to more open-ended engagement rather than focussed on a specific set of changes. We are likely to continue using Social Pinpoint for stages 2 and 3 of the Speed Limits Review, commencing later in 2020.

7.8 The main component of online engagement will take place on Council’s website, with a page set up to highlight and illustrate the proposed speed limit changes, and maps to show the affected roads. An online submission form will follow a similar design to that included in the Consultation Document, and provide the opportunity for people to indicate support or opposition to a specific proposed change, with space to provide additional comments.

7.9 We propose to hold community meetings in Ashhurst and Bunnythorpe again, and will likely make use of the Central Library as a general opportunity for people to learn more about the proposed changes. We are also exploring the opportunities to hold a community meeting in the Aokautere area.

7.10 The Consultation Document is being designed for public release and will be circulated directly to identified stakeholders, including statutory stakeholders, with copies available at all of Council’s distribution points. The Consultation Document (attachment one) is a Word version and represents the content of the final document as recommended in this report. Any changes or modifications made by the Committee will be incorporated into the final design.

7.11 The opportunity to make a submission will be promoted as a coordinated communications campaign, with social media advertising, radio advertising, flyers distributed to households in the affected areas, and poster advertising. The consultation will be notified by a public notice placed in the Manwatū Standard and the Guardian newspapers.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		Yes
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
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 action is: Review speed limits under proposed new national rules for setting speed limits.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The “new national rules” identified in the action are the revised Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017, and the speed limit changes proposed in the draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 are made in accordance with those rules.

Attachments

Consultation Document - Draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 11 March 2020

TITLE: District Plan and School Travel

Presented By: David Murphy, City Planning Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO PLANNING & STRATEGY COMMITTEE

1. That the report titled “District Plan and School Travel” and presented to the 11 March 2020 Planning and Strategy Committee be received.

1. ISSUE

Following a report on Rural School Bus Safety in May 2019, the Planning and Strategy Committee passed the following resolution:

That the Chief Executive be instructed to provide a report on the ability of the District Plan to require developers to consider at the planning stage how children might get to school from a new development; and to enable safe connection to the active and public transport network (including the MoE School bus service in the definition of public transport) once the development is complete. Such a report is also to identify steps that can be taken to progress this issue if the District Plan currently lacks the ability to provide for such action.

2. BACKGROUND

Introduction

Increasing the number of children travelling to and from school safely by active and public transport is consistent with a wide variety of Council’s strategic objectives.

While the District Plan has an important role to play, there are a number of broader societal and institutional changes that affect this objective. These include:

· Increased traffic on the transport network.

· Unplanned urban development.

· Street design practices.

· Urban intensification turning its back to the street (streets as movement corridors, not places).

· Driver behaviours.

· Perceptions of safety.

· School zonings.

· Increased number of children travelling across the City to attend a particular school.

· New urban growth areas without schools.

· Increased proportion of parents and guardians in full-time or part-time employment.

· A lack of interdisciplinary and integrated planning.

· Increased number of urban people moving to rural areas.

· Requirement to wear cycle helmets.

The District Plan

The District Plan controls new development on private land. It generally does not control the maintenance, upgrade or renewal of existing transport infrastructure managed by PNCC or NZTA, except where there are direct effects on the transport network as a result of new development. For example, the need to upgrade an intersection to accommodate new housing. Public transport or school transport is managed by Horizons Regional Council and the Ministry of Education respectively. School transport is largely targeted at getting children from rural areas and surrounding towns and villages to secondary schools in the city.

Activities to increase the number of children travelling safely to and from school by active or public transport

Bearing in mind the many societal factors outside of Council’s control, a programme to increase the number of children travelling safely to and from school by active or public transport could include all or a combination of the following activities:

1. A well-connected transport network in new development areas.

2. Safe walking and cycling facilities as part of the transport network in new development areas.

3. Urban intensification that has a connection with streets and public spaces (the application of urban design principles).

4. The timely provision of new schools in urban growth areas.

5. Increased investment for walking, cycling and public transport facilities within the existing transport network.

6. Slowing the speed of traffic through modern street design and reducing speed limits.

7. Enhanced public transport and school bus services.

8. Good provision for trip-end facilities, e.g. visible and secure storage.

9. School travel plans.

10. Bike to school programmes.

11. Community initiatives such as the walking school bus.

12. Education and promotion.

Of all the activities listed above, activity one, two, three and four (to a limited extent) can be managed via the District Plan.

Activities 1 and 2: New development areas - Kelvin Grove and Aokautere / Summerhill

Most of the new urban development in the City over the last 30 years has occurred under a market-led, effects-based planning regime with little or no outcome-based city planning. The entire area of Kelvin Grove and Aokautere / Summerhill has developed without an overriding structure plan or masterplan. As a result these are generally poorly connected, vehicle-oriented communities.

Neither Kelvin Grove or Aokautere / Summerhill (the urban area) have a dedicated primary school. Kelvin Grove has relied upon a rural school at Whakarongo and Aokautere / Summerhill has a school site designated, but no school. Children living in these areas have been forced to travel long distances across the City or onto high speed rural roads to access a school. In the case of Whakarongo School, the Council stepped in and constructed a shared path from Kelvin Grove in order to enable children to travel safely by active transport.

Activities 1 and 2: New development areas - Whakarongo Residential Area

The Sectional District Plan Review introduced a structure plan for the Whakarongo Residential Area that requires a local road access to the school from within the development to avoid children having to use Stoney Creek Road in the future. It is anticipated that the main entrance to the school will be shifted from Stoney Creek Road to the western edge of the school alongside the new housing development. This change, together with the existing shared path and best practice street design of new streets, will improve the safety of access to Whakarongo School.

Activities 1 and 2: New development areas - Kakatangiata and the balance of Aokautere

District Plan changes are also being developed for Kakatangiata and for the balance of Aokautere, both of which will include master plans to guide new development in these areas. Council has also resolved that separated cycleways be investigated on collector roads in new development areas. The draft structure plan for Aokautere shows a new school site on the southern side of Aokautere Drive, which has been identified as a more central location than the current vacant school site on Ruapehu Drive. This location would require a land swap between the Ministry of Education and one of the landowners at Aokautere, a matter which has been discussed with both parties as part of the development of the structure plan. It is anticipated that the Kakatangiata master plan will include a school site, although the Ministry of Education has indicated that the schools on the western side of the City have remaining capacity. There was some indication from a media statement in 2019 that the Ministry of Education may be considering a new primary school in Palmerston North. Further detailed engagement is planned within the Ministry of Education on this matter.

Activity 3: Urban intensification

The city is experiencing increased levels of urban intensification as many original dwellings reach the end of their useable life and land prices continue to increase. The way in which this intensification is designed has a significant impact on the way in which we perceive and experience our streets. The District Plan has introduced urban design controls for multi-unit residential development and some infill development, typically lots below 350m2. Implementation of the urban design controls continues to be a challenging area with the development community.

Activity 4: The timely provision of new schools in urban growth areas

While the District Plan can include a structure plan that shows or sets aside a school site, it may be challenging to include a rule in the District Plan that requires a school to be built. Evidence would need to be produced that the absence of a school was resulting in environmental effects. This may be difficult to prove when children can be driven safely to a school elsewhere in the City that has the capacity to take them. The Ministry of Education tends to manage schools as a citywide network, as opposed to a local asset.

Activities 5-12: Non-District Plan Matters

Activity five (increased investment) and activity six (slowing traffic through street design) are addressed via Asset Management Plans, the Long Term Plan and NZTA funding decisions, all of which should be informed by Council’s strategic direction, including the Urban Cycle Network Master plan and the proposed Roads and Streets Framework.

Activity six (slowing traffic through speed limits) is addressed via Bylaws together with NZTA and is directed by the Land Transport Act 1998. The new Government Policy Statement for Transport places greater priority on safety, speeds and active and public transport and presents an opportunity for positive change in this area.

Activity seven (public & school transport) is managed by Horizons Regional Council and the Ministry of Education. The Council has the option to advocate for changes to these services in accordance with its strategic direction. A recent meeting with the contractor who operates the school bus service identified no major concerns with Council infrastructure. The provision of rural bus shelters is a level of service matter addressed through Asset Management Plans.

Activity eight (trip-end facilities) is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and schools. While the District Plan could assess the provision and quality of trip-end facilities at schools, this would only be triggered by new building development. Furthermore, all schools are designated and therefore not required to comply with the District Plan.

Activities nine to twelve are non-regulatory matters that can be promoted and managed by schools, community groups, the District Health Board, NZ Police, Horizons Regional Council or the Council, via a specific Long Term Plan programme.

New Rural Development

Children in rural areas are typically bused or driven to school. The Sectional District Plan Review sought to provide a clear differentiation between urban and rural development to minimise the cost and risk of providing urban infrastructure in rural areas. As a result, footpaths and cycleways are not anticipated or required in new rural development areas. Enhanced public transport and school bus services in rural areas is the responsibility of Horizons Regional Council and the Ministry of Education. As noted above, advocacy is an option to drive improvements to these services. Enhanced bus stop facilities in rural areas is a matter that could be addressed via Asset Management Plans and the Long Term Plan process.

Conclusion

Increasing the number of children travelling to and from school safely by active and public transport is consistent with a wide variety of Council’s strategic objectives. While the District Plan is a useful tool to guide positive change in new development areas and urban intensification, significant change will require a dedicated, long-term and integrated approach to a broad set of activities, such as those outlined above.

Note

This report is general in nature and not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the most efficient and effective means of increasing the number of children travelling safely to and from school by active and public transport. A more comprehensive assessment would require a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency approach. The report responds to the Council resolution and details the ability of the District Plan to help achieve the objective. As noted above, significant change in this area will require a dedicated, long-term and integrated approach to a broad range of activities.

3. NEXT STEPS

Consider the advice for future decision-making.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
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 and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	For information only. Not applicable.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 11 March 2020

TITLE: Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results

Presented By: David Murphy, City Planning Manager and Dave Charnley, Senior Urban Designer

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

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning & Strategy Committee

1. That the report titled ‘Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results’ prepared by Charles Landry be received, and used to inform future decision-making, in-particular the processes associated with the preparation of the 2021 Long Term Plan.

1. ISSUE

In 2013 Council invited Charles Landry, author of ‘The Creative City’ to Palmerston North to carry out our first Creative Cities Index. The resulting report ‘Creative City Index: Comfortable or Captivating – An Assessment of Palmerston North’ provided an initial stocktake of how well the city is harnessing its collective imagination and creative potential.

This report has since played a critical role in Council setting a new strategic city vision of Small City Benefits, Big City Ambition, including the adoption of Goal 2 to be a creative and exciting city. The target in achieving Goal 2 is to obtain a Creative City Index score above 65 by 2028.

In early 2019, a follow up Creative Cities Index survey was conducted to measure how far the city has come in that time. This time around Palmerston North received a Creative Cities Index score of 55.90%, up slightly from the 55.41% received in 2013.

A copy of the report by Charles Landry on the Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results is included as Attachment A.

The 2019 report serves as an addendum to the original 2013 report. It compares the results to find the key differences between the survey results then and now and identifies the areas where the City is making significant improvement as well as areas that require significant improvement. It is important to focus on the key differences between the survey results as opposed to where Palmerston North ranks against the other cities assessed. This is because more cities have been indexed since 2013 and the other cities that rank higher than Palmerston North are, within the context of their own countries, more important and central. Palmerston North could not be expected to out-perform them.

2. BACKGROUND

The ‘Creative City Index’ takes stock of a place’s creative pulse. The index looks at the city holistically as an integrated whole, from both insider and outsider perspectives. We use it to establish if Palmerston North is punching above its expected weight, given our size, location, resources and opportunities and it helps generate a narrative for a city by highlighting what it needs to achieve. While it’s called the ‘Creative City Index’, it assesses the city’s creative abilities and potential through 10 key city themes:

• Political & Public Framework

• Distinctiveness, Diversity, Vitality and Expression

• Openness, Tolerance, Participation & Accessibility

• Entrepreneurship, Exploration & Innovation

• Strategic Leadership, Agility & Vision

• Talent & Learning

• Communication, Connectivity & Networking

• The Place & Placemaking

• Liveability & Well-being

• Professionalism & Effectiveness

In 2013 Charles Landry undertook a week-long residency in Palmerston North to undertake our first Creative Cities Index. Interviews, site visits and presentations were held with a wide range of city stakeholders including leaders, businesses, community groups and residents. A city-wide survey was also carried out by both locals and visitors.

Globally, the context of priorities and expectations have changed since 2013. In particular environmental issues around climate change, population, resource consumption, congestion, pollution, circular economies, technological disruption and the vortex effect of larger cities over regional cities. There is rising anxiety and fear of escalating problems that cannot be solved without a shift of thinking, planning and action. Many feel a business as usual approach will not get us to where we need to be with many global agendas stressing the need for a systems change.

The 2019 Creative Cities Index Survey was undertaken between 8 February 2019 and 26 April 2019 and was carried out by online questionnaire only. Key highlights of the survey being:

· A good response rate to provide comparative data to the 2013 survey. 423 respondents compared to 490 in 2013. 115 completed the longer survey compared to 63 in 2013.

· The commitment to the longer survey this time indicates a greater willingness to be involved with the subject matter and therefore development of the city.

· It attracted a significantly different demographic with a more rounded and balanced age sample compared to 2013. This shift in respondent demographics perhaps helps to understand some of those shifts in the 2019 assessment and partly explains the differences of response from 2013.

· Age distribution has a very good representation of 25’s – 54’s, a reasonable sample of under 25’s and an appropriate number of older age ranges. Those under 45 years make up over 54% of all respondents in 2019 compared to 29.9% in 2013. Those over 55yrs are significantly less at 24% whereas they represented around 50% in 2013.

· Like 2013, there were significantly more male than female respondents but a larger gap between genders this time around.

· More respondents are employees this time around (+ 8.22%) while there is a similar corresponding drop in the unemployed or retired (- 8.89%). There were increased responses from engineering/manufacturing and construction (+6.0%), public service employees (+4.63%) and services and retail/marketing (+4.39%). There was less representation from those in the arts (-4.63%) while markedly more from the creative industries (+6.75%). The reduced numbers employed in creative industries, expansion of the service sector and decline in the knowledge sector can also explain some of these shifts.

· There also appears to be significant change in the general make-up of the City’s population, in terms of economic activity. The number employed in the creative industries has roughly halved. The tertiary or service sector has expanded considerably, and the knowledge economy has declined. If these are genuine shifts, then they too explain some of the changes of opinion shown in our results.

· Overall there is a slight upward movement between surveys, but when we look at each theme area the picture is more mixed. An overview is provided in Table 1 below. Again, the differences between survey participants could help us to understand some of those shifts.

· Significant positive domain movement:

o Domain 1: Political and Public Framework (+5.73%)

o Domain 8: Place & Placemaking (+7.64%)

o Domain 10: Professionalism & Effectiveness (+3.57%)

· Significant negative domain movement:

o Domain 7: Communication, Connectivity & Networking (-8.92%)

o Domain 9: Liveability & Well-being (-5.78%).

o These two domains also moved from above to below the Creative Cities Index average.

Table 1: Survey Results 2013 v 2019

Domain Changes above CCI average:	CCI Average 2013	PN Average 2013	CCI Average 2019	PN Average 2019	MOVE
1.Political & Public Framework	45.73%	53.92%	48.94%	59.65%	+5.73
2.Openness, Tolerance & Accessibility	57.78%	60.80%	60.41%	63.73%	+2.93
3.Strategic Leadership, Agility & Vision	47.15%	53.04%	51.09%	53.25%	+0.21
4.Professionalism & Effectiveness	57.27%	58.43%	60.10%	62.00%	+3.57
Domain Changes below CCI average:	CCI Average 2013	PN Average 2013	CCI Average 2019	PN Average 2019	MOVE
5. Distinctiveness, Diversity, Vitality	58.99%	50.26%	60.92%	52.73%	+2.47
6. Entrepreneurship & Innovation	47.24%	44.48%	49.76%	41.34%	-3.14
7. Talent & Learning	52.90%	50.35%	55.03%	50.55%	+0.20
8. The Place & Placemaking	55.98%	46.73%	57.04%	54.37%	+7.64
Domain Changes from above to below CCI average:	CCI Average 2013	PN Average 2013	CCI Average 2019	PN Average 2019	MOVE
9. Communication, connectivity & networking	58.41%	66.51%	59.05%	57.59%	-8.92
10. Liveability & Wellbeing	66.39%	69.59%	68.93%	63.81%	-5.78

3. NEXT STEPS

As in 2013, the results from the 2019 survey should serve to draw individual conclusions, stimulate critical thinking and promote debate and conversation amongst city leaders, partners and stakeholders about the strategic future of Palmerston North.

The report findings should inform future strategic direction and decision making, in particular:

· Council Strategies and Policies

· The 2021 Long Term Plan

· Partnership Agreements

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
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 Not Applicable
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Measurement of progress towards Goal 2 to obtain a Creative City Index score above 65 by 2028.

Attachments

Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results ⇩

[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.

Aleisha Rutherford (Chairperson)
Patrick Handcock ONZM (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Rachel Bowen	Billy Meehan
Zulfiqar Butt	Bruno Petrenas
Renee Dingwall	Tangi Utikere
Leonie Hapeta