Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 1 March 2023

Council MEETING

1 March 2023

Order of Business

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

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

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

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

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

4. Public Comment

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 15 February 2023 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Reports

6. Determining the Future of Panako Park Hall Page 19

Report, presented by Stephanie Velvin, Community Development Manager.

7. Annual Budget (Plan) 2023/24 - Consideration of draft of Consultation Document and Supporting Information

Memorandum, presented by Steve Paterson, Strategy Manager - Finance.

Report to be circulated separately.

8. Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area & Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area Page 33

Memorandum, presented by Michael Duindam, Principal Planner - Strategic Planning.

9. Consideration of Options to Progress the Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan Page 39

Report, presented by Jono Ferguson-Pye, City Planning Manager David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer.

10. Draft Interim Speed Management Plan - Approval for Public Consultation Page 193

Report, presented by Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst.

11. Adoption of CEDA Appointment of Directors Policy 2023 and Alteration to CEDA Constitution. Page 235

Memorandum, presented by Sarah Claridge, Democracy and Governance Advisor.

INFORMATION Reports

12. Council Submission on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill Page 251

Memorandum, presented by Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst.

13. Council Submission to the Inquiry into the 2022 Local Elections Page 259

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy and Governance Manager.

14. Council Submission on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill Page 273

Memorandum, presented by Desiree Harvey, Legal Counsel.

15. Council Work Schedule Page 289

Recommendation from Committee Meeting

16. Presentation of the Part I Public Economic Growth Committee Recommendation from its 22 February 2023 Meeting Page 293

“That the Committee recommendation be adopted or otherwise dealt with.”

17. 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
18.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 15 February 2023	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 15 February 2023, held in public present.
19.	Trustee Appointment to The Regent Theatre Trust Board	Privacy	s7(2)(a)

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 Council Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 15 February 2023, commencing at 9.02am

Members

Present:

Grant Smith (The Mayor) (in the Chair) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Councillor Mark Arnott left the meeting at 11.47am during consideration of clause 7. He entered the meeting again at 11.56am during consideration of clause 8. He was not present when the meeting resumed at 1.34pm. He was not present for the vote on the substantive motions in clause 7, and clauses 9 to 16 inclusive.

	Karakia Timatanga
	Councillor Roly Fitzgerald opened the meeting with karakia.

Declaration of Interests

The Mayor (Grant Smith) declared he had an interest in item 6 but no conflict.

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald declared a conflict of interest in Item 8 and took no further part in discussion or debate.

1-23

Confirmation of Minutes

It was requested that the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 14 December 2022 Part I Public be amended to record in clause 193-22 that the Mayor (Grant Smith) chaired the item and participated in the discussion.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the ordinary meeting of 14 December 2022 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record, as amended.

Clause 1-23 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

2-23

Suspension of Standing Orders

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Standing Order 2.20.1 Presentations be suspended for the duration of this meeting.

Clause 2-23 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

3-23

Presentation - NZ Rural Games Trust

Margaret Kouvelis, Chairperson, James Stewart, Trustee, and Daniel O’Regan, Communications and Marketing Manager of NZ Rural Games Trust made a presentation about the Ford Ranger NZ Rural Games taking place on 10-12 March 2023 at Te Marae o Hine – The Square.

Mrs Kouvelis highlighted how this free event celebrates rural life at the city centre, and thanked Council for its support. The event costs approximately $1.35million with support from over 75 sponsors.

Beyond the 3-day event, the Trust aims to have positive economic impacts in the region and encourages young people to consider career paths in the food and fibre sector.

Mr O’Regan talked about the audience of the event which is estimated to be 40,000-42,500, drawing participants from Taranaki, Hawkes Bay, Whanganui, Wairarapa and Wellington.

Finally, Mrs Kouvelis acknowledged the partnership with Rangitane o Manawatū.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That the Council receive the presentation for information.

Clause 3-23 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Reports

4-23

Adoption of Triennial Agreement

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council adopt the Triennial Agreement for the Manawatū-Whanganui Region.

Clause 4-23 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

5-23

Council Response to the Draft Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Change Action Plan

Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer and David Watson, Climate Change Analyst.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Rachel Bowen.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the response to the Draft Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Change Action Plan as included in Attachment 2 ‘Palmerston North City Council Response to the Draft Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Change Action Plan’.

Clause 5-23 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

6-23	Approval of International Travel for the Mayor, March 2023
	Memorandum, presented by Gabrielle Nguyen, International Relations Manager.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Leonie Hapeta. RESOLVED 1. That Council grant approval for the Mayor to travel to Taiwan from 26 March to 31 March 2023 to attend and present at the 2023 Taipei Smart City Mayors’ Summit.
	Clause 6-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Abstained: The Mayor (Grant Smith). Note: The Mayor (Grant Smith) declared an interest in this item. He remained at the table during discussion and chaired the item.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) acknowledged the damage caused by the unprecedented weather event affecting several areas of the North Island, especially Hawkes Bay, and commended the work being done by the Civil Defence teams, Rescue teams and all the officers working on emergency response.

The meeting adjourned at 10.03am.

The meeting resumed at 10.35am.

7-23	Adoption of Standing Orders 2023
	Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager and Sarah Claridge, Democracy & Governance Advisor. Councillor Mark Arnott left the meeting at 11.47am.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Rachel Bowen. RESOLVED 1. That Council adopt the Standing Orders 2023 (Attachment 2) to replace Standing Orders 2020; subject to any amendments, including any of the following: - Allow ‘public comment’ to be presented to Council. 2. That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive to make minor edits to the Standing Orders 2023, including agreeing the te reo equivalents of Standing Order titles.
	Clause 7.1 and 7.2-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded William Wood. 3. That the Chief Executive provide clarity on the definition and application of interests and conflicts of interest to be included in Standing Orders, and that this is presented to Council to consider / adopt.
	Clause 7.3-23 above was carried 12 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Roly Fitzgerald, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin. Against: Councillors Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock and Leonie Hapeta.
	Moved Karen Naylor, seconded Orphée Mickalad.
	Note: On a motion to amend resolution 1 to add: ‘Include Option A for Council meetings and Option C for committee meetings and include the option to vote with a simple 50% majority to change the debating style to Option C for Council meetings for either specific items or for the duration of the meeting’, the motion was lost 3 votes to 13, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison and Karen Naylor. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Lew Findlay.
	Note: On a motion to amend resolution 1 to add: ‘That Option B be the alternate debating style for all meetings’, the motion was lost 3 votes to 13, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Mark Arnott, Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

8-23

Approval of International Travel for Councillor Roly Fitzgerald as Rangitāne and Council representative

Memorandum, presented by Todd Taiepa, Principal Māori Advisor and Gabrielle Nguyen, International Relations Manager.

Councillor Mark Arnott entered the meeting again at 11.56am.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council grant approval for Councillor Roly Fitzgerald to attend the Mayor-led delegation to visit Palmerston North City’s partners in the United States of America and the Netherlands in June 2023.

Clause 8-23 above was carried 13 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Against:

Councillor Mark Arnott.

Abstained:

Councillor Karen Naylor.

Note:

Councillor Roly Fitzgerald declared a conflict of interest, withdrew from the discussion and sat in the gallery.

The meeting adjourned at 12.30pm.

The meeting resumed at 1.34pm.

Councillor Mark Arnott was not present when the meeting resumed.

9-23

Transport Choices - Cycling

Report, presented by Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport & Development.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive to sign the Transport Choices funding agreement with Waka Kotahi for $4.893M over 2022/23 and 2023/24 at a Funding Assistance Rate of 100%.

2. That Council note the constrained project timeline, and agree a decision-making forum to enable decisions on final design to be made in August 2023.

3. That Council approve creation of a new Programme called ‘Transport Choices – Cycleways’ to reflect both the additional capital new expenditure and additional subsidy revenue which breaks down as follows:

a. An increase of $300k in the 2022/23 Capital New Budget for design engineering and engagement and consultation costs.

b. An increase to Waka Kotahi Capital Revenue of $300k being 100% of the new budget for 2022/23.

4. That Council note commitment to the addition of the ‘Transport Choices – Cycleways’ of $4.593M in the 2023/24 Annual Budget for capital new for construction and an associated increase to Waka Kotahi Capital Revenue of $4.593M in the 2023/24 Annual Budget.

5. That Council approve an increase of $208k to the Streets for People budget for the 2023/24FY as contingency for the Streets for People – Featherston Street project at a Funding Assistance Rate of 90% from Waka Kotahi.

6. That Council note a decrease of $1,688k for programme 1559-City-wide - Urban Cycle Infrastructure Network improvements will be included in the 2023/24 Annual Budget.

7. That Council note a decrease in Waka Kotahi Capital Revenue for programme 1559-City-wide - Urban Cycle Infrastructure Network improvements of ($780k) and a decrease in PNCC Debt Funding for this programme of ($908k) will be included in the 2023/24 Annual Budget.

Clause 9-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

10-23

Transport Choices - Public Transport

Report, presented by Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport & Development.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive to sign the Transport Choices funding agreement with Waka Kotahi for $5.5M over 2022/23 and 2023/24 at a Funding Assistance Rate (FAR) of 100%.

2. That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Horizons Regional Council for the joint delivery of the Palmerston North portion of the Transport Choices – Public Transport programme Horizons has received funding for.

3. That Council approve creation of a new Programme called ‘Transport Choices – Public Transport’ to reflect both the additional capital new expenditure and additional subsidy revenue as follows:

a. An increase of $300k in the 2022/23FY Capital New Budget for design engineering, engagement and consultation costs.

b. An increase to Waka Kotahi Capital Revenue of $300k being 100% of the new budget for the 2022/23FY.

4. That Council note commitment to an increase of $5.2M in the 2023/24 Annual Budget of capital new funding and an associated increase to Waka Kotahi capital revenue of $5.2M in the 2023/24 Annual Budget.

5. That Council remove the 2022/23 budget provision for programme 1680-City-wide - Public Transport Infrastructure Improvements of $93K and associated capital revenue of $47.3K.

Clause 10-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

11-23

Ferguson Street & Pitt Street Intersection Upgrade - Budget Adjustment

Report, presented by Hamish Featonby, Group Manager - Transport & Development, and Geoffrey Snedden, Senior Project Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the additional funding of $633,161 for the Capital New Programme 2059 - Urban Transport Improvements - Enabling Palmerston North Integrated Transport Initiative to increase the 2022-23 budget from $2,088,868 to $2,722,029 to enable the completion of the revised scope of the Ferguson Street & Pitt Street Intersection Upgrade.

2. That Council approve transferring $551,873 from programme 218 – City Wide – Water Main Renewals by creating a Capital New Programme to recognise the unplanned relocation and replacement of 3 Waters pipes that needed to occur due to the construction of the Ferguson Street & Pitt Street Intersection Upgrade.

3. That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive to vary the contract value to $3,923,763 and Contract Contingency by a further $200,000 within the provisions included in the updated programme budget if required for the successful delivery of the contract.

Clause 11-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

12-23

Council Submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill

Memorandum, presented by Jono Ferguson Pye, City Planning Manager and Michael Dunidam, Principal Planner.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve Council’s submission to the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill included as Attachment 1.

Clause 12-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

13-23

Council Submission on the Future for Local Government Review Draft Report

Memorandum, presented by Hannah White, Democracy & Governance Manager.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the submission on the Future for Local Government Review Draft Report (Attachment 1), subject to any amendments.

Clause 13-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

14-23

Council Submission on the Water Services Legislation Bill

Memorandum, presented by Mike Monaghan, Group Manager - Three Waters.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council approve the submission on the Water Services Legislation Bill (Appendix 1).

2. That Council note the response to Te Tari Taiwhenua - Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) on Draft guidance on DIA’s oversight and Monitoring guidance.

Clause 14-23 above was carried 13 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Debi Marshall-Lobb, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Billy Meehan, Orphée Mickalad, Karen Naylor, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Against:

Councillors Brent Barrett and Lorna Johnson.

15-23

Council Work Schedule

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

1. That Council receive its Work Schedule dated February 2023.

Clause 15-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Exclusion of Public

16-23

Exclusion of Public

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

RESOLVED

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

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
19.	Minutes of the ordinary meeting - Part II Confidential - 14 December 2022	For the reasons set out in the ordinary minutes of 14 December 2022, held in public present.
20.	Tender Award - Arena 3 Roof and Changing Room Upgrade	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)
21.	Tender Award - James Line Improvements (Schnell Dr. to Kelvin Grove Rd.)	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)

Clause 16-23 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The public part of the meeting finished at 3.33pm

Confirmed 1 March 2023

Mayor

Report

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 March 2023

TITLE: Determining the Future of Panako Park Hall

PRESENTED BY: Stephanie Velvin, Community Development Manager

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, Chief Customer Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

That Council either:

OPTION 1: Decide to retain Panako Park as a reserve for community use, and instruct the Chief Executive to consult the community on the proposal to classify Panako Park, contained in Lots 1 and Lot 2 DP 29836, as a Local Purpose (Community) Reserve, in accordance with Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977.

OPTION 2: Instruct the Chief Executive to prepare a reserve disposal proposal for Panako Park, contained in Lots 1 and Lots 2 DP 29836, in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 to return to the Crown for possible housing use, including consultation with the community on the proposal.

Summary of options analysis

Problem or Opportunity	Council needs to decide on the future use of Panako Park as the current lease holders, Girl Guiding New Zealand, have instigated a surrender of their community occupancy and land lease.
OPTION 1:	Council retains Panako Park as a reserve and consults on a proposal to classify the reserve as Local Purpose (Community).
Community Views	Community views on the decision to retain the hall and park for community use have not been sought at this stage; however, an expression of interest process to investigate community group demand for the hall has been completed. This process involved extensive engagement as outlined in the report below. Staff are also aware of community views from some Awapuni community members for an extended community hub, but these views have not been formally captured thus far in the process. Community views will be sought on the reclassification of the Reserve status. Community views will also be sought as part of the land lease process, as required by the Reserves Act 1977, should the reclassification proceed.
Benefits	The retention of the hall and Park for community use aligns with Council’s strategic direction, specifically Goal 3: Priority 1 and Priority 3, by enabling one or more community groups to provide services and/or facilities that foster connections between community members.
Risks	Retaining the Park and hall for community use will require a resolution to carry out consultation to change the reserve status from the current Recreation status to Local Purpose (Community) status, prior to any finalisation of a sale and purchase process on the hall itself. Since consultation will inform a decision from both Council and the Department of Conservation, if there are objections of substance and note from the public, it may result in Council deciding on an alternative use and community groups who have participated in the expression of interest process thus far being unable to proceed. Possible missed opportunity to increase the housing stock in Palmerston North. Could be inconsistent with Council’s decision to investigate opportunities to repurpose reserves for housing. Possible missed opportunity to realise aspirations that may further develop regarding neighbouring parcels of land.
Financial	Outgoing: Costs associated with the public consultation for the classification and, if proceeding, the land lease/community occupancy processes. Incoming: Funds received for the land lease/community occupancy under the current Support and Funding Policy 2022 would be $150 per annum. Maintenance costs of the land are nil as the lease holder would be responsible for maintenance.
OPTION 2:	Prepare a reserve disposal proposal in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 to return to the Crown for possible housing use.
Community Views	As above, community views have not formally been sought on the options proposed to date, beyond the expression of interest process. If Option 2 were to proceed, Council would consult the community on the disposal proposal in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.
Benefits	May provide more housing in the city, through Kāinga Ora.
Risks	Girl Guiding New Zealand would likely be required to remove the building if the final decision were to return the land to the Crown. Reputational risk if the community consultation did not support housing use. Missed opportunity to realise the benefits of ongoing community use of the hall.
Financial	Small financial cost to revoke the reserve status and manage return to the Crown.
OPTION 3:	Retain Panako Park with no change to the current reserve status, with a view to land banking for future opportunities. Council either purchase the hall or require Girl Guiding New Zealand to remove or demolish it. No further community occupancy of the Park in the short term.
Community Views	As above, community views have not formally been sought on the options proposed to date, beyond the expression of interest process. If Option 3 were to be selected, no community consultation would be undertaken at this stage.
Benefits	Preserves the land for future opportunities or decisions. Opportunity to realise aspirations that may develop further in future related to the neighbouring parcels of land.
Risks	Possible community dissatisfaction with land being held rather than utilised for housing or community use. Does not deliver in the immediate term on any Council plans or strategies, unless additional budget were to be allocated or sought to develop and deliver on community aspirations. If purchasing the building, Council would be responsible for repair costs and ongoing maintenance. Possible reputational risk if requiring Girl Guiding New Zealand to remove or demolish the hall at their own expense.
Financial	If purchasing the building, Girl Guiding New Zealand have indicated a purchase price range of $10,000 to $15,000. Investigations into the state of the building have been completed since the report to Council on 22 August 2022. Reports indicated renewal work required and an estimated additional $5,000 per annum for maintenance of the grounds and building.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 On 7 September 2022, at the recommendation of the Policy and Strategy Committee, Council asked the Chief Executive to investigate the level of community demand for recreation and community use of Panako Park with a view to retaining the park and hall for community use, before making a decision on the future use of the park. The investigation of the level of community demand for recreational and community use has now been completed and the findings are presented in this report.

1.2 The expression of interest process run by staff under the Community Support and Funding Policy identified several groups interested in the purchase of the hall (and associated land lease) which do not fit the current recreational use classification of the Park. The report therefore sets out options open to Council to progress.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Under the Support and Funding Policy 2022, where there has been a lapse or surrender of community occupancy arrangements, Council is required to undertake a decision-making process in planning for the continued use of the property. This process includes undertaking due diligence and satisfying legislative requirements related to the land use.

2.2 Girl Guiding New Zealand (Girl Guides) have a policy to divest themselves of owning and operating Girl Guides halls nationally. Girl Guides have a hall on Panako Park, Awapuni. In June 2021, they notified Council of their intention to end their lease of Panako Park and, in accordance with the provisions of their lease for the land, requested a Council decision on whether it wishes to purchase the hall, allow Girl Guides to sell it to another group, in situ, or require its removal off site.

2.3 This report should be read in conjunction with the Strategic Options Review report presented to the Policy and Strategy Committee on 10 August 2022, which includes detailed information on previous Council decisions related to this land and additional background information.

3. OUTLINE OF INVESTIGATION PROCESS

3.1 Between 14 October and 14 November 2022, staff, including officers from the Parks, Policy, Community Development, Property and Communications teams, and representatives from Sport Manawatū, carried out a community engagement process to investigate the level of demand for Panako Park hall from community groups. The process included an expression of interest for groups interested in purchasing the hall and leasing the land for community or recreational use.

3.2 Community engagement included:

· Emailing information widely to community groups through established networks (including, but not limited to, Iwi Māori organisations, Sector Lead organisations and their member groups, Strategic Priority Grant recipients, Welcoming Community Advisory Group member groups, Pasifika groups, Community Centre Committees and their user groups, churches, schools, groups who had directly contacted Council requesting hall space in the past, and local Awapuni community groups).

· A webpage on Council’s website.

· Social media posts.

· In person meetings and phone conversations with interested groups.

· Three drop-in sessions at Panako Park hall (a day, an evening and a weekend session).

· A letterbox drop to residents of Panako Place.

· Liaising with Sport Manawatū to identify possible sport and recreation group demand.

· Emails and phone calls with Girl Guiding New Zealand. An in-person meeting and emails with local Girl Guides unit leaders.

3.3 Applications to express an interest in the purchase of the hall were open via our online grants administration system (Smarty Grants) for four weeks. Criteria was based on the Support and Funding Policy 2022, Section 8c, which included the Policy for the Use of Public Space 2019. Information on building condition was also shared with applicants.

3.4 Applications received were considered by a panel of staff against the criteria. Panel assessment considerations included:

· For-purpose groups providing a service, activity, or project that primarily benefit Palmerston North residents.

· Strategic alignment: Delivers on Council goals for an active and connected community - Goal 2: Creative and exciting and/or Goal 3: A connected and safe community, and/or Goal 4: An eco-city.

· Financial position and ability to maintain the property.

· Motivation to purchase and intended use, including level of intention to share the facility with other compatible for-purpose groups including local Girl Guiding units. Girl Guides have expressed interest in continuing to hire the hall from the new purchaser, for the continued use of the local Girl Guides units, who currently occupy the hall for two afternoons per week.

· Current location of the group and reasons for moving.

· Suitability of the land and/or building for the for-purpose group, in terms of location, physical characteristics and accessibility (including impact on neighbours, parking and noise considerations). It is important to note that there is no car park provided with the hall. Consideration was given to the lack of carparking in the street for larger numbers gathering at one time. Any community recreation use for this hall needs to be cognisant of the carparking effects on surrounding streets and the street parking impact on neighbours. Additionally, any aspirations of a venue for celebrations and events raises risks around the likelihood of noise disturbance.

· Maximum hall occupancy (fire rating), which was indicatively assessed at fifty people for the current condition of the hall.

· Compatibility with reserve values (under the Reserves Act 1977).

· That the organisation does not primarily promote religious or political purposes.

3.5 Six expressions of interest were received. Each group was assessed by the panel, and three groups were identified as meeting the criteria for potential purchase of the hall and lease/occupancy of the land. However none of these groups fit the current land classification.

4. Description of options

4.1 Option One - Council retains Panako Park as a reserve and consults on a proposal to classify the reserve as Local Purpose (Community).

In this option,

· Council consults the community on the proposal to classify Panako Park, contained in Lots 1 and Lot 2 DP 29836, as a Local Purpose (Community) Reserve in accordance with Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Should the land be confirmed as reclassified then, groups then enter into a negotiation process with Girl Guiding New Zealand for the purchase of the hall located at Panako Park.

· Council subsequently initiates an appropriate land lease and community occupancy process with the successful purchaser of the hall in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Support and Funding Policy 2022, further requiring public notification.

· Should the lease be confirmed, then Girl Guiding New Zealand finalise the sale of the hall to the purchasing group.

4.2 Option Two - Prepare a reserve disposal proposal, in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, to return to the Crown for possible housing use.

· Carry out consultation under the Reserves Act 1977 proposing the revocation of the reserve status and return the land to the Crown.

· This option has not been explored further following the Strategic Options Review report in August 2022 as Council indicated a view to retaining the hall pending investigation of community demand; however, reconfirmation from Kāinga Ora has been received as to their interest in the property for housing development.

4.1 Option Three – Retain Panako Park with no change to the current reserve status, with a view to land banking for future opportunities.

· Hold the land until another opportunity is developed, such as community aspirations related to the adjacent land.

· This option has not been explored further following the Strategic Options Review report in August 2022 as Council indicated a view to retaining the hall pending investigation of community demand.

5. Analysis of options

5.1 Option One - Council retains Panako Park as a reserve and consults on a proposal to classify the reserve as Local Purpose (Community);

5.1.1 Staff have determined that there is demand for retention of the hall and Park for community use. Six groups have expressed interest, and three have been assessed as meeting the criteria for community occupancy.

5.1.2 There were no expressions of interest received from sport and recreation groups. Sport Manawatū engaged with two organisations they assessed as suitable. Neither group proceeded with an expression of interest due to the potential investment required to purchase, repair and maintain the building.

5.1.3 Whilst the number of expressions of interest received were fewer than expected, staff have determined that the three shortlisted groups meet the criteria for community occupancy and would support the delivery of Council’s strategic direction with their proposed services and activities.

5.1.4 Interested groups include communities of place of the surrounding neighbourhood, currently delivering services within the Awapuni community and services currently located only in the city centre. Retention of the hall and Park and its extension for wider community use would therefore align with Council’s goals, specifically Goal 3: Priority 1 and Priority 3, by enabling one or more community groups to provide services which foster connections between community members.

5.1.5 Further, the retention of Panako Park and hall and its extension for wider community use aligns with the value Council places on maintaining public spaces for community to meet and connect. The Community Places Report 2022 states that ‘Council recognises the importance of community facilties providing opportunities for social networking, activites and shared experiences that contribute to a sense of belonging and overall wellbeing collectively’ (Community Places Report 2022, p4).

5.1.6 Staff note that the current community centre in Awapuni, located on Newbury Street, is accommodating current user demand but does not have the capacity to accommodate new user groups who wish to utilise the facility on a regular week to week basis.

5.1.7 Retaining the Park and hall for community use requires a resolution to carry out a consultation to change the current Recreation Reserve status to Local purpose (Community), because of the nature of the activities and services proposed by the three shortlisted groups. The change means the permitted use will include the proposed types of groups and activities, in addition to recreation activities, essentially broadening the range of use allowed in future.

5.1.8 The consultation will inform a final decision from both Council and the Department of Conservation.

5.1.9 If pursuing this option, risks include a probable missed opportunity to increase the housing stock in Palmerston North. As per the Strategic Options Review in 2022, it is noted that the City Growth Plan contains an action to investigate the reuse of underutilised council and government land for housing, and in considering the 2021 Housing Capacity Assessment, the Council adopted the recommentations including ‘9.3 Undertake council owned housing development and investigate opportunities to repurpose reserves or housing’.

5.1.10 A further risk is a possible missed opportunity to realise future aspirations that may develop further related to the neighbouring parcels of land. For example, staff note the Presbyterian New Church (the combined previous parishes of St David’s, St Marks and St Andrews) have submitted to Council at various times (the May/June 2020 Annual Budget, 10 Year Plan submission 2021, and most recently the Year 2 Draft Annual Plan 2022-2023) stating their position that the adjacent St. Marks Awapuni site is surplus to requirements, and offering to make the land available to the Council for community facilities.

5.1.11 For this option, outgoing costs include those associated with the public consultation for the reclassification and land lease processes. Incoming costs include the payment received for the land lease/community occupancy, which would be $150 per annum under the Support and Funding Policy 2022.

5.2 Option Two – Prepare a reserve disposal proposal in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 to return land to the Crown for possible housing use.

5.2.1 Panako Park is Crown derived. Additional to the background information contained in the Panako Park Strategic Options Review on previous Council decisions (p18) and the reserves status and zoning of the park (p19 of the report), if the Council decides that it does not wish to retain the land for community use, and the Council initiates the process to return the land back to the Crown, then either of the following will occur:

a. If the Crown has no use for the land, and the reserve is sold

The current policy is to share net proceeds 50:50 between the Crown and the Council (the land would be valued, and the Crown would pay Council 50% of the current market value of the land on transfer, less Department of Conservation costs). [NB: There is an application process which includes determining how the funds would be expended (usually on reserves). This is an operational policy; ‘Proceeds of Disposal of Crown Reserves’ and not a legal requirement.

There would be a financial benefit with this option, however the likelihood of the land being sold by the Crown is low, as Kāinga Ora have provisionally expressed interest in the land for housing development.

Or,

b. If the Crown determines it does have use for the land

There is no compensation paid and Council would not receive half the net proceeds. Kāinga Ora have expressed ongoing interest in the reserve for housing. However, there could be other Crown uses considered. Development or use of the land would be determined by the Crown.

Note Girl Guiding New Zealand would likely be required to remove or demolish the building if the final decision were to return the land to the Crown.

5.2.2 Therefore, Option 2 is in alignment with Council’s City Growth Plan, as detailed at 5.1.13 above.

5.2.3 Realising this benefit would be at the expense of realising the benefit of ongoing community use of the hall as at Option 1, and of aspirations for the neighbourhood that might develop further as at Option 3.

5.2.4 There is also some risk of delay with this option due to the timing of housing with Crown processes, and a possible reputational risk for Council if the community consultation did not support housing use.

5.2.5 Staff note there is a limit to the number of houses that can be provided given that the size of the land is 1288 m².

5.2.6 Additionally, it is noted there would be a small resource cost to revoke the reserve status and manage the return to the Crown.

5.3 Option Three – Retain Panako Park with no change to the current reserve status, with a view to land banking for future opportunities.

5.3.1 In this option, Girl Guiding New Zealand would not sell the hall to one of the recommended groups, they would remove or demolish the hall (unless purchased by Council) and no further community occupancy would proceed in the immediate term.

5.3.2 If Council purchase the hall from Girl Guiding New Zealand to retain the reserve and hall for future use, there would be a finanacial cost at the time of purchase and ongoing financial cost to manage and maintain the park and hall facility. This would require allocation of additional budget.

5.3.3 Alternatively, there are relational and reputational risks if Council were to require Girl Guiding New Zealand to remove or demolish the hall whilst land banking for future opportunities, including with the groups who have expressed interest in using the hall.

5.3.4 As noted at 5.1.14 above, there is a possible future development opportunity relating to the adjacent land of the Presbyterian New Church. Staff are aware of an existing, and growing, community aspiration from some Awapuni community members for an extended community hub, including Library services, and establishment of wayfinding connections between existing community facilities.

5.3.5 If, in future, additional budget were to be allocated or sought enabling the development and delivery of community aspirations for this land, there would likely be in alignment with Council’s connected community goals; however, likely timeframes for the benefit to be realised would be significantly longer than with options one and two.

6. Rangitāne o Manawatū views

6.1 Rangitāne o Manawatū has been consulted through the Strategic Options Review and were also notified of the expressions of interest process.

6.2 Officers understand Rangitāne o Manawatū support the property being reclassified for wider community purpose.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report seeks a Council decision on the future use of the Panako Park and located hall.

7.2 The investigation has established that there is community demand for the purchase of the hall and community occupancy of the land.

7.3 All the three options presented deliver, or have potential to deliver, to one or more of Council’s Goals and Plans to some degree.

7.4 Option one has community benefit in the short term, with community occupancy from one of the shortlisted groups for purchase aligning strongly with Council’s connected community aspirations.

7.5 Option two has probable community benefit in the medium term, with strong potential to align with the City Growth Plan for housing provision.

7.6 Option three has less immediate and less likely community benefit compared with options one and two, and therefore less strongly aligns with Council’s current strategic direction.

7.7 Assessment of the options has not resulted in a clearly weighted direction between options one and two, and the connected community priorities continue to be in competition with the housing priorities.

7.8 Therefore, officers recommend Council proceeds with either option one, retain Panako Park as a reserve and consult on changes to the status of the reserve to Local Purpose (Community); or option two, prepare a reserve disposal proposal in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 to return to the Crown for possible housing use.

8. Next actions

8.1 If proceeding with Option One: Retain Panako Park and reclassify the reserve status to Local Purpose (Community):

8.1.1 Council would then consult with the community on a reclassification of the Reserve Status of Panako Park.

A reclassification of the Reserve will require:

· public notification of the proposal,

· hearings,

· consideration of submissions,

· resolution to proceed and gazette the new classification.

8.1.2 Then, should the reclassification be confirmed, a community occupancy lease can be determined.

A new lease will require:

· Girl Guides to negotiate a sale of the hall, subject to Council agreeing a community-occupancy lease.

· Public notification of intention to grant lease,

· Hearings,

· consideration of submissions,

· final decision to grant lease.

8.1.3 Officers will advise Girl Guides of Council’s decision and next steps in the process as relate to the sale of the hall, noting Girl Guides will manage the sale and purchase process. Officers will ensure information on all processes are provided to Girl Guiding New Zealand prior to the sale and purchase process commencing.

8.1.4 Officers will advise shortlisted groups of next steps in process for community occupancy. It is noted that there may be a requirement for a resource consent application from the successful purchaser in order for them to operate/use the land and building even if the land is reclassified for wider recreational use. This will depend on further information being provided around their operating circumstances in due course. If required, this process could run in parallel to the land lease / community occupancy process. Officers will ensure information on all processes are provided to shortlisted groups.

8.2 If proceeding with Option Two: Prepare a reserve disposal proposal in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 to return to the Crown for possible housing use:

8.2.1 A draft Reserve Disposal Proposal would be prepared for Council approval, which would form the basis of the consultation material.

· Tools used during the consultation will include: Public Notice (as required by the Reserves Act 1977), website information and submission form, drop-in sessions in Awapuni, social media posts, signs on the site, mailbox drop to housing within 500m of Panako Park and information provided to agencies for Sport, Recreation and Community.

· A hearing (if required) as per the Reserves Act 1977.

8.3 If proceeding with Option Three: Retain Panako Park with no change to the current reserve status, with a view to land banking for future opportunities:

8.3.1 No community consultation required at this stage.

8.3.2 Girl Guiding New Zealand cease their community occupancy. Council decision required on whether Council would purchase the hall from Girl Guiding New Zealand, or require Girl Guiding New Zealand to remove or demolish.

Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		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 3: A Connected and Safe Community OR Goal 1: An innovative and growing city
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Connected Communities The action is: Develop, provide, support or advocate for services, facilities, and events that create connected, welcoming and inclusive communities. OR City Growth The action is: Collaborate with the development community and Kāinga Ora on delivery of new housing developments and diverse forms of housing, such as duplexes, terrace housing, apartments and other multi-unit options.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Option one has community benefit in the short term, with community occupancy from one of the shortlisted groups for purchase aligning strongly with Council’s connected community aspirations, and potential to deliver social, environmental and cultural wellbeing outcomes. Option two has probable community benefit in the medium term, with strong potential to align with the City Growth Plan for housing provision, and potential to deliver social and economic wellbeing outcomes.

Attachments

NIL

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 March 2023

TITLE: Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area & Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area

Presented By: Michael Duindam, Principal Planner - Strategic Planning

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council approve Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area, pursuant to Clause 17 of the first schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. That Council approve Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area, pursuant to Clause 17 of the first schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. That Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area and Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area become operative on 22 March 2023 pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. That the resolutions to make Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area and Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area operative are publicly notified in accordance with Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1. ISSUE

The purpose of this memorandum is to seek final approval of Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area (PCJ) and Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area and make these District Plan Changes operative.

Operative status is a final administrative step of the District Plan Change process. The steps to a plan change becoming operative are contained in the recommendations of this memorandum.

Hearing Panels made up of commissioners have delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the Council. The Council is unable to change the decision at this stage of the process. Submitters can challenge the decision of a Hearings Panel by lodging appeals to the Environment Court. No appeals were lodged on PCJ or the Matangi Residential Area.

2. BACKGROUND

Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area

PCJ was lodged by Massey University as a Private Plan Change with Council in October 2021. The purpose of PCJ was to identify the Turitea Historic Area as a heritage precinct (see figure 1) and to introduce the following changes to the District Plan:

· New definition for ‘Massey University Turitea Historic Area’ to be inserted in Section 4: Definitions of the District Plan.

· New Objective and supporting policies for Section 19: Institutional Zone.

· Introduce a new rule in section 19: Institutional Zone related to Permitted Activities within the Turitea Historic Area.

· New rule in section 19: Institutional Zone related to Restricted Discretionary Activities.

· New non notification clause for restricted discretionary consent applications in the Turitea Historic Area.

· New overlay map showing the extent of the Turitea Historic Area (approximately 33,924m²).

(Figure 1: Turitea Historic Area overlay)

Plan Change J was notified on the 26^th of January 2022. Three submissions and two further submissions were received. The nature of the submissions was largely supportive, with requested administrative changes to some proposed District Plan provisions. Council initiated pre-hearing conferencing to seek to resolve issues that emerged in submissions. This resulted in agreement being reached by all parties. This meant that no hearing was necessary, and a decision was able to be made “on the papers” by an Independent commissioner on 9^th of December 2022. No appeals were made on the plan change.

Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area

A private plan change request was submitted by Flygers Investment Group Limited in April 2021, seeking to establish the Whiskey Creek Residential Area (renamed to Matangi Residential Zone as part of the hearing process). The Private Plan Change sought to rezone approximately 12.9 hectares of land off Rangitikei Line from Rural Zone to Residential Zone and an area of 10 hectares of land adjacent to that from Rural to Conservation and Amenity Zone. The remainder of 611 Rangitikei Line was proposed to retain its Rural Zone status. Figure 2 is the structure plan for the Matangi Residential Area and illustrates the proposed rezoning described above:

Map of proposed new residential area at Whiskey Creek.

(Figure 2: Matangi Residential Area Structure Plan)

On the 30^th of June 2021, Council resolved to accept the private plan change request and formal notification commenced on the 29^th of September 2021. 26 original submissions were received followed by two further submissions. A hearing on the Private Plan Change occurred in June and July 2022. A decision to approve the plan change was made by independent commissioners and released on 29 September 2022. No appeals were made on the plan change.

3. NEXT STEPS

The next step is to update the District Plan to incorporate Proposed Plan Change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area and Private Plan Change Matangi Residential Area.

The Common Seal will be affixed according to standing delegation.

Copies of the Plans will be provided according to Schedule 1, s20.

4. Compliance and administration

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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: Innovative and Growing City & Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions of City Growth & Arts and Heritage The actions are: Implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Update the District Plan to rezone identified growth areas for housing and business needs. Collaborate with the community to make heritage a visible part of city life and the cityscape. Review the District Plan to investigate and identify character or heritage areas.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	These Plan Changes give effect to the City Growth and Arts and Heritage Plans. Approving these Plan Changes to become operative will: · Enable housing development to meet projected demand. · Protect the social wellbeing of the area as a natural gathering place for informal recreation. · Recognise the ongoing use and value in the educational role of the university. · Retention of the oval and mature trees. · Recognise and protect the cultural values as the Turitea Historic area is the heart of the Campus and has served many generations.

Attachments

NIL

REPORT

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 March 2023

TITLE: Consideration of Options to Progress the Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan

PRESENTED BY: Jono Ferguson-Pye, City Planning Manager David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council approve Option 3 as detailed in the report presented to the 1 March 2023 Council meeting titled ‘Consideration of Options to Progress the Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan.’

2. That Council direct the Chief Executive to prepare a set of programmes to be considered by Council for inclusion in the 10-Year Plan 2024-34 to support Option 3 as detailed in the report presented to the 1 March 2023 Council meeting titled ‘Consideration of Options to Progress the Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan.’

3. That Council direct the Chief Executive to include the three options detailed in the report presented to the 1 March 2023 Council meeting titled ‘Consideration of Options to Progress the Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan’ within the consultation material prepared for the 2024-34 Long Term Plan for consideration by Council.

4. That Council direct the Chief Executive to establish a Civic and Cultural Precinct Steering Group and prepare a terms of reference to be approved by Council.

5. That Council approve the repurposing of programme 1949, Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan, to assist with advancing the urban growth District Plan programme for the 2022-2023 financial year.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	The Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan (CCPMP) project has not been progressed in a satisfactory manner and a decision was made to pause the project. The consultant was not contracted to complete the remaining phases of the project. Council direction is required on the project. The CCPMP will provide opportunities to: ‐ Direct coordinated public and private development and design in a manner that aligns with Council strategic direction and delivers an aspirational, vibrant and attractive civic and cultural destination for the city. ‐ Optimise the future use and development of Council’s civic and cultural facilities located within the precinct while resolving associated earthquake prone building issues. ‐ Build a strong sense of commitment with mana whenua, key city partners and stakeholders to enhance the civic and cultural elements and experiences within the precinct area over time.
OPTION 1:	Do not complete the CCPMP and address earthquake strengthening of existing buildings Address earthquake strengthening of the Civic Administration Building (CAB ($15m), Te Manawa ($51m), Central Library ($60.5m) and Square Edge ($10m)).
Community Views	There is an opportunity to consult with the community on the three options discussed in this report as part of the 10-Year Plan 2024-34 (2024-34 LTP).
Benefits	Core statutory obligations to strengthen earthquake prone buildings achieved. The need to finance future development to optimise the use of civic and cultural facilities is avoided.
Risks	Lost opportunities – Council facilities in the precinct are unlikely to meet the needs of the community in the future. Private investment in the precinct may be designed in an uncoordinated manner that does not align with Council’s strategic direction that seeks to deliver an aspirational, vibrant and attractive civic and cultural destination for the city. Reputational risk associated with time and resources dedicated by mana whenua and stakeholders informing the 2019 and 2022 CCPMP projects.
Financial	No significant additional financial impact apart from implementing Council’s LTP funded earthquake prone building programme (Programme 902, estimated to be $150m over 15 years). This programme is identified as a key challenge in Council’s Financial Strategy.
OPTION 2:	Take the project brief that informed the 2022 CCPMP work, appoint a new consultant and use the remaining budget quantum to finish the Master Plan.
Community Views	There is an opportunity to consult with the community on the three options discussed in this report as part of the 2024-34 LTP.
Benefits	Core statutory obligations to strengthen earthquake prone buildings achieved. This option would deliver a finalised CCPMP in time to feed into the preparation of the 2024-34 LTP.
Risks	There has been a loss of confidence from officers and Council in the deliverables developed by the 2022 project. There is a significant risk that the final CCPMP will not deliver on the aspirations and outcomes envisaged for the project. This means the CCPMP may not be endorsed by Council to inform future decision-making due to a lack of confidence and belief that outputs are fit for purpose.
Financial	The project would be completed using existing LTP budgets. Implementation of the 2022 CCPMP would need to be considered as part of the 2024-34 LTP.
OPTION 3:	Take the 2019 CCPMP to inform the preparation of a set of programmes to finalise the CCPMP to be considered by the Council for inclusion in the 2024-34 LTP that give effect to the 29 April 2019 Council resolution 41-19: That the Civic and Cultural Precinct masterplan be referred back to the Planning and Strategy Committee with the intent to undertake public consultation on the plan as a draft including library options, costings and timeline.
Community Views	There is an opportunity to consult with the community on the three options discussed in this report as part of the 2024-34 LTP.
Benefits	Core statutory obligations to strengthen earthquake prone buildings achieved. The 2019 CCPMP received good support when presented to Council in 2019. The outputs of the 2019 work are viewed by officers as providing a sound technical foundation upon which to progress the project. The final project outputs associated with option 3 are more likely to better deliver on the aspirations and outcomes envisaged for the project than the outputs from the 2022 work.
Risks	The option 3 planning process will take longer to complete than other options and it will take time to re-engage and build trust with mana whenua and key stakeholders in the project.
Financial	This option will involve increased cost and additional budget to implement. These costs can be considered as part of the 2024-34 LTP process.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The CCPMP has not been progressed successfully over the last two financial years. As the project progressed it became increasingly clear to Council and the project team that the expectation and aspirations embedded in the project brief were not being achieved. For these reasons, the project in its current form made it untenable to continue. In November 2022, a decision was made not to progress the final phase of the project and formally conclude the contract with the consultant.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council on the what the next steps to progress the project look like. Officers have developed three options, including a preferred option, to inform Council discussion. It is recommended to consult with the community on the three options as part of the 2024-34 LTP process, with option 3 identified as the preferred option.

1.3 Crafting a new way forward to progress the CCPMP provides the opportunity for Council to:

o Direct coordinated public and private development and design in a manner that aligns with Council strategic direction and delivers an aspirational, vibrant and attractive civic and cultural destination for the city.

o Optimise the future use and development of Council’s civic and cultural facilities located within the precinct while resolving associated earthquake prone building issues.

o Build a strong sense of commitment with mana whenua, key city partners and stakeholders to enhance the civic and cultural elements and experiences across the precinct area over time.

1.4 Some of the challenges the project has experienced relate to the understanding of a master plan and the nature of work associated with the project. A master plan is a long-term planning document that provides a conceptual layout to guide future development and investment over time. The CCPMP project is a high-level planning process to inform future development and investment in a series of buildings and public spaces.

1.5 A master plan does not focus on the on-the-ground implementation or the detailed design of individual elements of outputs. The implementation part of the project will occur at a later stage when individual projects are developed, costed and consulted on as part of future 2024-34 LTP processes and an implementation structure developed. A master plan does not commit the Council to funding and delivering particular projects via the 2024-34 LTP. That said, there is a statutory obligation to strengthen many of the buildings within the scope of the CCPMP. It is also accepted that a master plan will raise expectations with the community.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 On 29 April 2019 Council resolved (clause 41-19) that:

The Civic and Cultural Precinct masterplan be referred back to the Planning and Strategy Committee with the intent to undertake public consultation on the plan as a draft including library options, costings and timeline.

A copy of the 2019 CCPMP is attached to this report for Council information.

2.2 In August 2020 the project pivoted away from the 2019 Master Plan with a new project scope developed and presented to a Council workshop. In March 2021 Council went out with a formal request for proposal for the project and appointed a preferred consultant in May 2021.

2.3 On 11 May 2022 a workshop was held with Council to socialise project outputs. A key theme communicated to officers at the workshop was a request to slow progress of the project down. This was to provide time for Council to absorb the work completed to date and to provide an opportunity to feed into and influence the direction of the project.

2.4 A copy of the 2022 CCPMP outputs presented at the 11 May 2022 Councillor workshop is attached to this report for Council Information.

2.5 On 31 August 2022 a follow-up workshop was held with Elected Members to further consider project outputs and for Council to provide an opportunity to feed into and influence the direction of the project. Feedback from Council to officers indicated that confidence in the project had been lost.

2.6 In November 2022, officers made the decision not to progress the final phase of the project and formally ended the contract with the consultant. Officers communicated this decision with Council and committed to drafting a report on options to progress the project forward.

3. Description of options

Option 1: Do not complete the CCPMP and address earthquake strengthening of existing buildings

3.1 This option involves leaving all Council’s civic and cultural facilities within the precinct in their current location and only address the seismic strengthening of affected buildings, being the CAB, Te Manawa, Central Library and Square Edge.

Option 2: Take the project brief that informed the 2022 CCPMP work, appoint a new consultant and use the remaining budget quantum to finish the Master Plan.

3.2 This option involves taking the material developed by the 2022 CCPMP and appointing a new consultant to finish the work as outlined in the existing project brief using the existing 10-Year Plan budget.

Option 3: Take the 2019 CCPMP to inform the preparation of a set of programmes to finalise the CCPMP to be considered by the Council for inclusion in the 10-Year Plan 2024-34 that give effect to the 29 April 2019 Council resolution 41-19:

That the Civic and Cultural Precinct masterplan be referred back to the Planning and Strategy Committee with the intent to undertake public consultation on the plan as a draft including library options, costings and timeline.

3.3 This option would use the 2019 Master Plan as the foundation to inform the development of a set of dedicated master plan programmes over a 3 to 4-year period to action resolution 41-19. An indicative suite of programmes would address the following:

‐ Development of a new project scope (including lessons learnt from the 2022 CCPMP project)

‐ Update strategic context and settings, and any missing research pieces (what has changed?)

‐ Update spatial needs assessment for activities and space and evaluate the best spatial mix and location of civic and cultural functions across the precinct

‐ Re-engagement with mana whenua, internal and external stakeholders

‐ Development of concept plan options and test with mana whenua and stakeholders

‐ Master plan costings and business case

‐ Development of final master plan

3.4 Steering Group: This option would involve appointing a CCPMP Steering Group to provide oversight of the preparation of the set of programmes to be considered as part of the 2024-34 LTP and the delivery of key processes and outcomes. The Mayor recommended the establishment of a CCPMP steering group, as noted in the External Bodies reported presented to Council on 30 November 2022.

3.5 The Steering Group could be set up relatively quickly and assist with informing the approach to consulting on the three options as part of the 2024-34 LTP.

3.6 Repurposing of Budget: Options 1 and 3 would also enable the $220,000 budgeted in the 2022/23 financial year to finish the 2022 CCPMP to be repurposed to advance the urban growth District Plan programme. This includes the Kakatangiata, Aokautere, Medium Density and Ashhurst rezoning proposals. These strategically significant housing projects have been slowed due to existing budget constraints. The cost of delivering these projects in a manner consistent with Council’s broader strategic objectives and new and emerging planning requirements exceeds what is budgeted in the current 10-Year Plan.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 The CCPMP project is a planning process that seeks to provide a conceptual layout of the precinct to guide future development and investment over time. The analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each option has been framed by the consideration of five key issues:

- Time

- Resourcing, Cost and Project Structure

- Community and Stakeholder Engagement

- Desired Outcomes

- Structure Post Adoption of Master Plan

Time

4.2 Option 1: This option stops the CCPMP project and focuses on resolving the seismic issues associated with existing facilities. This is the timeliest option because it stops the planning process but does not deliver on the project outcomes.

4.3 Option 2: This option could potentially deliver the CCPMP within 6-12 months of restarting the project.

4.4 Option 3: The implementation of this option is likely to take at least 3 to 4 years as each 2024-34 LTP programme is worked through. This is the lengthiest of the three options.

Resourcing, Cost and Project Structure

4.5 Option 1: This option removes the need to resource and fund the CCPMP planning process. Council’s financial liability to seismically strengthen buildings within the precinct does not change, however the nature of the investment does. Option 1 foregoes opportunities to co-locate functions and facilities and may mean more budget will go into strengthening existing buildings than realising opportunities to repurpose seismic budget to develop fit for purpose new builds associated with options 2 and 3.

4.6 Option 2: This option requires the procurement of a new team of consultants using the same budget quantum currently contained in programme 1949, CCPMP. For a number of reasons, the project scope and processes developed to guide the 2022 work did not deliver on the aspirations and outcomes expected for the project.

4.7 The 2022 CCPMP project was informed by a new project scope developed in 2020. In hindsight, the structure, budget, resourcing and timeline set out in the new project scope meant the project delivered suboptimal outcomes. Given the planning process was setting up a framework for $200-400M of public and private investment over 20 to 30 years, the structure of the project, budget, processes and timeline was not proportionate to the scale of the investment the project was informing.

4.8 When looking at the cost and timeframes of other planning processes that have informed large infrastructure investment over time the following projects provide a useful reference in respect of the CCPMP:

Project	Informing Investment	Estimated Duration of Construction	Length of Planning Process	Cost of Planning Process
Tauranga Civic Precinct Master Plan	$700M	10 years	4 Years	$1.85m Master Plan concept plan and costings.
Nature Calls	$500M	10+ years	5 years	$9M (resource consent application only)
KiwiRail Freight Hub	$1,016M	10-50 years	3 years	$5-6M

4.9 On reflection the framework (project scope, resourcing, budget and timeline) developed to inform the development of the 2022 CCPMP work was inadequate to deliver the aspirations and outcomes being sought by the project.

4.10 Option 3: The outputs of the 2019 CCPMP provide a sound technical foundation upon which to progress the project. The structure of the framework (project scope, resourcing, budget and timeline) developed to support this option will need to be informed by the lessons learnt from the 2022 CCPMP and needs resourcing proportionate to the scale of investment being enabled by the project.

4.11 It is critical the development of programmes for the 2024-34 LTP which support this option are anchored by this proportionality principle. Without this lens over programme development the Council will end up in a similar position with a sub-optimal suite of outputs that do not deliver on the aspirations and outcomes envisaged for the project.

4.12 The outputs from the 2022 CCPMP will not be wasted. There is some value from the work that has been completed that can be used to inform the development of new programmes and master plan work.

4.13 The creation of a CCPMP Steering Group would provide oversight and input into the development of a project structure. The Steering Group may also assist with the principles used to develop 2024-34 LTP programmes to give effect to option 3.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

4.14 In respect of community engagement, the overarching element of recommendations to Council relate to using the 2024-34 LTP process as the vehicle to facilitate consultation with the community on the merits of the three options. Consultation with the community on the future of the CCPMP project through the 2024-34 LTP is viewed as the most open and transparent engagement pathway available to Council.

4.15 Option 1: If this option was preferred post the 2024-34 LTP the CCPMP project would cease and no further community engagement would be required.

4.16 Option 2: The nature of the project scope and contractual arrangements underpinning the 2022 CCPMP work meant a sound approach to building relationships and trust with the key stakeholders was not achieved. Feedback from Council at the May and August 2022 workshops also raised concerns about the adequacy of stakeholder engagement. If this option is preferred, it does not sit on a firm foundation of stakeholder engagement to the extent required of a project of this scale and complexity.

4.17 For the CCPMP to be successful the project needs to build a strong sense of commitment with mana whenua, key city partners, business interests and stakeholders. At this point the 2022 CCPMP has not achieved that outcome.

4.18 Option 3: Any programme developed for the 2024-34 LTP to facilitate engagement in the CCPMP needs to be responsive to the needs of a diverse range of stakeholders and appropriately resourced. This programme is likely to be a 12-month piece of work involving people resource solely focused on rebuilding trust in the project and establishing relationships in a meaningful way.

4.19 The amount of time and resource required for the people element of the project should not be underestimated. The project does not sit in isolation to other relationships Council has with these same stakeholders in other areas. In this respect, engagement needs to look past the planning phase of the project and be set up to link into maintaining relationships into the implementation phase of the project.

Achieving Desired Outcomes

4.20 Option 1: Existing civic and cultural facilities will meet seismic performance requirements of the Building Code. Little or no increase in any spatial efficiency or functional improvement of existing buildings and their relationship to the wider Civic and Cultural Precinct and City Centre.

4.21 Option 2: Facilities meet seismic performance requirements of the Building Code. Enhanced spatial efficiency and functional improvement of some individual buildings. Potential for reduced spatial efficiency and functional improvement between facilities across the wider Civic and Cultural Precinct. Potential for minimal improvement of urban form (structure, grain, density and mix) of the Civic and Cultural Precinct and wider City Centre. Moderate enhancement of City Centre townscape. Potential for minimal contribution to active ‘city life.’

4.22 The 2022 CCPMP contained changes to the streetscape, e.g. Main Street, that were not anticipated or supported by Elected Members.

4.23 Option 3: Facilities meet seismic performance of the Building Code. Optimised spatial efficiency and functional improvement of individual buildings. Optimised spatial efficiency and functional improvement between facilities across the wider Civic and Cultural Precinct. Improved urban form (structure, grain, density and mix) of the Civic and Cultural Precinct and wider City Centre. Enhanced City Centre townscape and active ‘city life.’

Required Structure Post Adoption of Master Plan

4.24 Options 2 and 3: Any decision regarding the future of the CCPMP needs to consider the needs of the project post the completion of the Master Plan. It is envisaged that the CCPMP Steering Group would have oversight of the implementation phase of the project and may need to consider how other territorial authorities have managed this phase of similar master plan projects.

4.25 Tauranga City Council (TCC) provides a useful example of the extent to which master plan processes need a supporting structure to deliver on large-scale projects. TCC is in the process of setting up a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to facilitate the delivery of the physical aspects of their Civic Precinct Development Plan. This structure provides Council Commissioners a level of assurance and risk management that the right expertise will be around the table. It is envisaged that the CCO board will draw on a wide range of industry and commercial expertise, which would enhance the delivery of the master plan.

4.26 The estimated cost of setting up the CCO is $100,000, with an ongoing operational cost of around $600,000 a year. TCC view this as a relatively small amount to pay relative to the project cost and the value the CCO will deliver in terms of confidence to potential funders.

4.27 The TCC CCO model is provided as an example of how to deliver such projects, it is not a recommendation within this report.

4.28 The structure required to support the CCPMP post adoption of the master plan may be an issue the Steering Group wish to consider when 2024-34 LTP programmes are developed for option 3, or as an addition to the existing project scope for option 2. Currently, TCC have a team of 30 staff working on the implementation phase of their master plan.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The recommendation is to:

- Approve a preferred option, being option 3 to take the 2019 CCPMP to inform the preparation of a set of programmes to finalise the CCPMP to be considered by Council for inclusion in the 2024-34 LTP that gives effect to the 29 April 2019 Council resolution 41-19.

- Consult with the community on the three options described in this report as part of the 2024-34 LTP consultation process.

- Establish a Civic and Cultural Precinct Steering Group and prepare a terms of reference to be approved by the Council.

- To approve the repurposing of programme 1949, CCPMP, to assist with advancing the urban growth District Plan programme for the 2022-2023 financial year.

5.2 There is scope for Council to modify options or decide to endorse an option but not consult on all three options as part of the 2024-34 LTP process. The nature of recommendations have been shaped by lessons learnt from the 2019 and 2022 master plan work, feedback from Council and Rangitāne over the last 18 months and consideration of the needs of the project factoring in the size of the capital investment being enable by the Master Plan.

6. Next actions

6.1 If Council approves the suite of recommendations, then the Chief Executive can progress work to prepare a terms of reference for the CCPMP Steering Group, and initiate work developing LTP programmes to support option 3.

6.2 It is noted that officers will report to Council later in the year on the proposed prioritisation of Council’s earthquake prone building programme (programme 902).

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 If the Council endorses the report recommendations, Council will consult with the community on the three options as part of the 2024-34 LTP process.

Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		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 Our goal is for Palmerston North to be a creative and exciting place to live. The CCPMP provides an opportunity to enhance the civic and cultural elements and experiences within the precinct area over time.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in City Shaping The action is: to finalise the CCPMP 2022/23.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	One of the priorities of the Creative and Liveable City Strategy is to create a city that has great places for all people. The Strategy acknowledges that city making provides many opportunities to develop a more creative and liveable city. The CCPMP provides a city making opportunity to plan in a way that provides better outcomes for our community and connects local groups and sectors to maximise the collective impact of both private and public projects within the precinct.

Attachments

1.	2019 Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan ⇩
2.	CCPMP Workshop Presentation 11 May 2022 ⇩

REPORT

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 March 2023

TITLE: Draft Interim Speed Management Plan - Approval for Public Consultation

PRESENTED BY: Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, Chief Planning Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That Council approve the draft interim Speed Management Plan (as shown in attachment one) for public consultation.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	All road controlling authorities are required to introduce slower speed limits around schools, with 40% of schools to be covered by a slower speed limit by June 2024, and 100% by 2027. We are using funding from Waka Kotahi to reduce the speed limits for all schools through an interim Speed Management Plan.
OPTION 1:	Approve the interim Speed Management Plan for public consultation
Community Views	Community views have not yet been sought on the interim Speed Management Plan but there is a reasonable expectation that Council will seek community views about any changes to speed limits.
Benefits	Consulting with the community about the interim Speed Management Plan will provide the Council with feedback about the proposals, which will help us to make refinements to improve the proposals. A second benefit is promoting awareness and understanding of the process for setting speed limits, ahead of consultation on the next Speed Management Plan later this year.
Risks	There are no identified risks within this option.
Financial	The costs of consultation will be met from within existing budgets. The cost of implementation – new or changed signage for school speed limits – will be met from existing budgets, along with funding from Waka Kotahi.
OPTION 2:	Do not approve the interim Speed Management Plan for public consultation
Community Views	If this option is chosen, then there will be no opportunity to seek community views on the interim Speed Management Plan.
Benefits	There are no identified benefits to this option.
Risks	Council cannot set a speed limit for any road unless the Speed Management Plan has been certified by the Director of Land Transport at Waka Kotahi. Certification will not be given unless the consultation requirements have been met. Therefore, if consultation is not undertaken, the interim Speed Management Plan cannot be certified, and we cannot change the speed limits for roads around schools, and we will not meet the government’s target for setting speed limits around schools.
Financial	Waka Kotahi have provided 51% funding for the implementation of slower speed limits around schools (new or changed signage). However, if the Council defers consultation on slower speed limits around schools to a later time, then this funding from Waka Kotahi may not be available. This would have the effect of increasing the cost for Council to meet the full cost of new or changed signage.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Council, as a road controlling authority, is responsible for setting speed limits on roads under its control. Previously, speed limits were set by the Council making a bylaw under the Land Transport Act 1998. The method of setting speed limits changed in May 2022 when the new Speed Limits Setting Rule came into force in May 2022. This Rule sets a new process for creating and changing speed limits by making a Speed Management Plan, which must be certified by the Director of Land Transport at Waka Kotahi. The Council is required to use this new process to develop a speed management plan for the roads in our network.

1.2 The NZ road safety strategy Road to Zero has set a target of 40% of all schools to be covered by a slower speed limit by June 2024. In this context, a slower speed limit is a variable or permanent speed limit of 30 km/h. In some cases, a slightly higher speed limit of 40 km/h can be proposed. For schools which are designated category 2 (principally, schools which have limited crossing movement of pedestrians or a separate access for students) a permanent or variable speed limit of 60 km/h can apply.

1.3 To meet the target, we are proposing to consult on an interim speed management plan that reduces speed limits for roads around all schools within our district. Waka Kotahi has provided 51% funding for the implementation of this plan, which will pay for the signage and infrastructure required to give effect to these speed limit changes.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 In 2021, the Council completed the first stage of the Speed Limits Review by adopting the Speed Limits Bylaw 2020. That Bylaw made changes to some speed limits within the district. A second stage of the Speed Limits Review was planned to begin in 2022, but it was instead superseded by changes to the Speed Limits Rule and the new requirement to develop a speed management plan.

2.2 Officers adopted a two-stage approach to complying with the new Setting of Speed Limits Rule. The first stage – preparing an interim Speed Management Plan – allows the Council to meet its obligations to introduce slower speed limits around schools, and to access funding provided by Waka Kotahi for signage for school speed limits. The second stage – a full speed management plan – is still in development and will be presented to the Council later in the year for approval for public consultation.

3. Description of options

Overview of the proposal

3.1 We propose to consult the community on reducing speed limits on roads around schools. There are 45 schools included in this proposal (100% of the schools in our district), with 146 roads affected by the proposed speed limit changes – a total of 75km of roads will have a slower speed limit applied. Most schools will be designated category 1 – this means a permanent or variable speed limit of 30km/h. Some schools have an existing 40 km/h variable speed limit, set through the 2013 Speed Limits Bylaw – these are proposed to be reduced to 30km/h in line with the new Setting of Speed Limits Rule.

3.2 Six schools are proposed to be designated category 2 schools. A category 2 school can have a permanent or variable speed limit of 60km/h and is recommended where there is limited crossing movement of pedestrians, or a separate access for school students is provided. These are primarily schools situated adjacent to rural roads which already have a speed limit of 70km/h or higher.

3.3 In general, a permanent speed limit is proposed where the road is typically a ‘place’ street, rather than a ‘movement’ street. For example, for Palmerston North Girls’ High School, we propose to reduce the current 40km/h variable speed limit along Fitzherbert Ave to 30km/h and create a permanent 30km/h speed limit for the side streets of Huia Street, Manawaroa Street, and Graham Street.

3.4 In the consultation document, under the proposal for Longburn School, we have noted that Waka Kotahi is proposing a 30km/h variable speed limit for the section of SH56 in front of Longburn School. The Council has been urging Waka Kotahi to permanently reduce the speed limit along SH56 from Palmerston North to Longburn. A slower speed limit along this section of SH56 would make it a safer school environment. It would also support the urban growth planned for land between Palmerston North and Longburn.

Description of options

3.5 There are two principal options in this report. The first is to approve the draft interim Speed Management Plan for public consultation. If the Council chooses this option, then staff will proceed to consult the community on the proposals in the interim Plan.

3.6 This report does not provide an analysis of options considered by staff when developing the proposal. Some of those options (for instance, the scope of changes to include in the interim Plan) were limited by time and/or resources. A decision to limit the scope of the interim Plan solely to school speed limits enabled more time to be devoted to the more complex issues that will be dealt with in the full Speed Management Plan later in the year. Other options (for instance, whether to use a permanent or variable speed limit for a particular road) were guided by technical advice and the Speed Management Guide published by Waka Kotahi.

3.7 The second option is to not approve the draft interim Speed Management Plan for public consultation. If this option is chosen, we will not proceed with public consultation and will await further instructions from elected members.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option one – approving the interim Plan for public consultation – gives the Council the opportunity to test its proposals with the community. This allows us to identify any improvements that can be made to the proposal and understand the views of the wider community about school speed limits.

4.2 Consulting with the public on this proposal also demonstrates the Council’s commitment to safety and provides a practical plan for achieving slower speeds around schools.

4.3 Consulting on the proposal to lower speed limits around schools, separate from other changes to speed limits, has additional benefits. It allows us to test our engagement approach and make improvements for the full Speed Management Plan later in the year. We can also use this interim Plan process as an opportunity to build awareness of the process among key stakeholders, so that they better understand how we will be approaching other speed limit changes later in the year.

4.4 Option two – not approving the interim Plan for consultation – would introduce a significant delay for reducing school speed limits. This would increase the likelihood that we do not meet the Government’s target of 40% of schools covered by a slower speed limit by 30 June 2024. The funding made available by Waka Kotahi to implement the slower speed limits may also be withdrawn if it is not accessed within the coming financial year.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Option one – approving the draft interim Speed Management Plan for public consultation – is the recommended option.

5.2 There are clear benefits to undertaking this consultation: giving the community an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal to lower speed limits around schools, and completing the process in a timely way so that implementation can occur within the timeframes set by the Government (and accessing funding from Waka Kotahi for implementation). It also serves as something of a “test case”, allowing us to improve our processes for the full Speed Management Plan later in the year.

5.3 There are no benefits to option two. Deferring consultation will increase the risk that we do not meet the Government target for school speed limits and will likely cost more if we are unable to access the funding available from Waka Kotahi.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the recommendation to consult is approved, we will start the public consultation process. See section 7 for details.

6.2 Hearing of submissions is scheduled for the May meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee. Deliberations on the written and oral submissions will be at the August meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee, with final adoption of the interim Speed Management Plan expected to occur at the Council meeting on 23 August.

6.3 Once the interim Plan has been adopted by Council, it will be submitted to the Director of Land Transport for certification. Once certification has been received, we will be able to implement the speed limit changes set out in the Plan.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 The timeline for the consultation period is as follows:

· 13 March – 14 April: written submission period

· 10 May: hearing of oral submissions

· 2 August: deliberations on submissions

· 23 August: adoption of interim Speed Management Plan

7.2 Consultation and engagement will include the following approaches:

· Direct contact with identified stakeholders;

· Supplying to schools information about the proposal suitable for inclusion in school newsletters;

· Public drop-in sessions using locations close to schools (such as school halls) wherever possible and at times convenient to parents and people in the neighbourhood;

· Further engagement with Rangitāne through Te Whiri Kōkō.

7.3 In addition to the above methods, a consultation page on the Council website will host details of the proposal, along with a submission form for people to provide feeback. The proposals and the opportunity to make a submission will be promoited via our social media channels. Printed copies of the consultation document and submission form will be available at the central and community libraries.

Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Transport The action is: progressively review speed limits throughout the City on a staged basis
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The reduction of speed limits around schools contributes to the improvement of safety on our transport network. Speed is a significant factor in the survivability of both drivers and pedestrians in the event of a collision. Slower speeds around schools therefore contributes to improved safety outcomes for our community.

Attachments

Palmerston North Interim Speed Management Plan 2023 Consultation Document ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 March 2023

TITLE: Adoption of CEDA Appointment of Directors Policy 2023 and Alteration to CEDA Constitution.

Presented By: Sarah Claridge, Democracy and Governance Advisor

APPROVED BY: Donna Baker, Acting Chief Executive Unit Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council adopt the Central Economic Development Agency Ltd - Appointment of Directors’ Policy 2023 (Attachment 1) to replace the Central Economic Development Agency Ltd - Appointment of Directors Policy 2016.

2. That Council amend the Central Economic Development Agency Constitution to read:

6.1 Number of Directors: - Subject to clause 6.6, the Board shall consist of a minimum of four (4) and a maximum of six (6) Directors.

3. That Council delegate authority to the Mayor to sign a Special Resolution to alter the Central Economic Development Agency Constitution (as stated in recommendation 2) on behalf of Palmerston North City Council, as shareholder.

4. That Council delegate authority to the Palmerston North City Council Chief Executive in consultation with the Manawatū District Council Chief Executive to make any minor amendments to the Central Economic Development Agency Ltd - Appointment of Directors’ Policy 2023.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Central Economic Development Agency Ltd (CEDA) - Appointment of Directors’ Policy (the Policy) outlines the process for how Palmerston North City and Manawatū District Councils will appoint directors to CEDA. It explains the expected skills or knowledge required and how the Board’s remuneration will be set; in accordance with s57 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

1.2 Following the changes in committee structure after the Council elections in 2022, the Policy requires updating.

1.3 An alteration of the CEDA Constitution will also be required, if members wish to amend the number of directors on the CEDA Board.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Central Economic Development Agency is a jointly owned Council-controlled Organisation (CCO) between Manawatū District Council and Palmerston North City Council (the Councils). Each council is a 50% shareholder.

2.2 As a council-controlled organisation, CEDA is required by the LGA to regularly report to its shareholders (the Councils); and the shareholders are responsible for appointing directors to the CEDA Board.

2.3 To manage these requirements, previous Councils established a joint committee (consisting of both Manawatū District Council and Palmerston North City Council elected members) with the delegations to receive CEDA’s monitoring reports and to approve appointments to the board.

2.4 In September 2022, members of the Joint Committee reviewed the Terms of Reference of the committee and resolved:

“That following the October 2022 election, the mayors of Manawatū District Council and Palmerston North City Council [will]

a) Review the Joint Strategic Planning Committee noting the advice to the Committee on 8 September 2022 and in consultation with the Central Economic Development Agency Board.”

2.5 Following the 2022 election, the mayors decided not to reconstitute a joint committee and instead CEDA will report to both shareholders separately. This new structure needs to now be reflected in the Policy.

3. Review of Policy

3.1 Officers have revised the policy to reflect the current committee structure.

· All references to the Joint Committee have been replaced by ‘the Councils’

· An introduction has been added

· A definitions section has been added to aid understanding of some of the key terms

· Officers have added ‘Understanding of tikanga Māori and Māori business to the General Skills section – as this is a skill that has been highlighted as important by the current board and is consistent with Council’s expectations. The LGA s57(3)(revised in 2019, since the CEDA constitution was established) sets outs that when identifying the skills, knowledge and experience required of directors of a CCO, the local authority must consider whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of that CCO.

· Number of directors reduced from ‘a minimum of five / maximum of seven’ to ‘a minimum of four / maximum of six’ (see 3.2 below).

3.2 Reducing the number of Directors on the Board

The current Policy and CEDA’s constitution require the Board to consist of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven directors. This produces a relatively large board for a small organisation (see table 1 below).

Officers consider there is scope to reduce the number of directors to a minimum of four, maximum of six to provide the opportunity for a small saving without jeopardising the quality of oversight that the Board provides.

Reducing the number of directors could provide more operational funds for CEDA, as any savings in directors’ fees could be re-allocated into the CEDA operating budget. Please note that Directors fees for CEDA are due to be reviewed in the next six months, so officers are uncertain of the amount of savings (if any) that would be provided.

Table 1 compares CEDA with a selection of other CCOs/CCTOs in New Zealand against key indicators that measure the size of an organisation. To accurately reflect the size of a company - non-profits have been compared using their ‘total expenses less depreciation’ and profit-making companies shown with their ‘total revenue’ figure.

Table 1: Comparing CEDA with other CCOs/CCTOs in New Zealand.

Organisation	Type	Number of Directors	Number of employees	Total Expenses less depreciation (2022) (000)
CEDA	Joint CCO	5-7	11	$1,930
Tourism BOP^{^[1]}	Joint CCO	6	17	$3,615 (2021)
Nelson Regional Development Agency	CCO	6	18	$3,144

Organisation	Type	Number of Directors	Number of employees	Total Revenue (2022) (000)
PN Airport Ltd	CCTO	5	25-30	$9,485
Nelmac^{^[2]}	CCTO	5	>300	$43,269
Port Taranaki^{^[3]}	CCTO	6	115	51,463
Napier Port^{^[4]}	CCTO	7	>27,000	$114,523

There are currently six directors on the CEDA Board. The Chairperson of the CEDA Board has expressed to the Mayor a desire to maintain the current number of directors. The recommended amendment would provide Council with the opportunity to maintain six directors or reduce the number to four or five in the future.

4. Amendment to the Constitution

4.1 Changing the number of directors also requires an alteration of CEDA’s constitution to reflect this.

4.2 Section 106(1) of the Companies Act 1993 states that shareholders can alter the constitution by passing a special resolution which requires 75% of shareholders entitled to vote.

Because both PNCC and MDC are the two shareholders of CEDA, both Councils will have to agree (by a simple majority of each) for the constitution to be altered (refer to recommendation 2).

4.3 If both Councils agree, officers propose that the mayors sign a special resolution on behalf of the shareholders, and the companies register will be updated accordingly.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 If both Councils approve the Policy, the number of possible positions to fill will apply to the appointment process underway.

5.2 As stipulated in the policy, a report on the remuneration of CEDA directors will be presented to the Councils before June 2023.

6. Compliance and administration

Does Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 5: A Driven & Enabling Council
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Governance and Active Citizenship The action is: Ongoing review of governance systems and structures to support Council’s effectiveness and reputation.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The CEDA Appointment of Directors Policy sets out the process for appointments to the CEDA Board, as required by the Local Government Act. It ensures effective decision-makers are recruited to govern CEDA.

Attachments

Appointment of Directors' Policy - CEDA 2023 ⇩

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Council

MEETING DATE: 1 March 2023

TITLE: Council Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council receive its Work Schedule dated 1 March 2023.

COUNCIL WORK SCHEDULE FEBRUARY 2023
#	Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause number
1.	~~1 March 2023~~	~~Palmerston North Civic and Cultural Precinct Masterplan – Final Report~~	~~Chief Planning Officer~~		1 April 2019 Clause 16.1
2.	~~1 March 2023~~	~~Remits from PNCC for consideration~~	~~Assistant Chief Executive~~	No remits received from Elected Members	Council 24 June 2020 Clause 67-20
3.	~~1 March 2023~~	~~Annual Budget – Consideration of Draft Consultation Document and Supporting Information~~	~~Chief Financial Officer~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
4.	~~1 March 2023~~	~~Investigate the level of community demand for recreation and community use with a view to retaining Panako Park and the Girl Guide Hall for community use.~~	~~Chief Customer Officer~~		10 August 2022 Clause 36-22
5.	~~1 March 2023~~	~~Plan change J: Massey University Turitea Historic Area - Operative report.~~	~~Chief Planning Officer~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
6.	~~1 March~~ 15 March 2023	Local Governance Statement - Adopt	Assistant Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
7.	~~1 March 2023~~	~~CEDA - Appointment of Director's Policy - Adopt~~	~~Assistant Chief Executive~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
8.	15 March 2023	Annual Budget - Adopt Consultation Document and Supporting information	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
9.	15 March 2023	Fees and Charges Review	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
10.	15 March 2023	Appointment of CEDA Director	Assistant Chief Executive		Terms of Reference
11.	5 April 2023	Agree Terms of Reference and appoint to Steering Groups: • Civic and Cultural Master Plan • Streets for People and • Nature Calls Adaptive Management	Chief Planning Officer/ Chief Infrastructure Officer		30 November 2022 Clause X- 22
12.	5 April 2023	City Transportation Review Scope	Business Assurance Manager		Infrastructure 17 August 2022 Clause 14.3-22 Council 5 October 2022 Clause 123.2-22
13.	3 May 2023	Rating Valuation & District Valuation Roll Services - contract approval	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
14.	3 May 2023	Standing Orders - Managing conflicts of interests at meetings	Assistant Chief Executive		15 February 2023 Clause 7-23
15.	31 May - 1 June 2023	Annual Budget - Deliberations	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
16.	1 June 2023	Fees and Charges - Confirmation following public consultation	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
17.	1 June 2023	Remits received from other Territorial Authorities	Assistant Chief Executive		Council 24 June 2020 Clause 67-20
18.	14 June 2023	Annual Budget - Deliberations incorporated into document	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
19.	28 June 2023	Annual Budget - Adopt Final document	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference
20.	First half of 2023	Options to address the key challenges identified in the 2022 Residents' Survey	Chief Planning Officer		14 December 2022 Clause 197-22.3
21.	4 October 2023	Annual Report 2022/23 - Adopt	Chief Financial Officer		Terms of Reference

Attachments

Nil

[1] Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

Grant Smith (Mayor)
Debi Marshall-Lobb (Deputy Mayor)
Mark Arnott	Leonie Hapeta
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Rachel Bowen	Billy Meehan
Vaughan Dennison	Orphée Mickalad
Lew Findlay (QSM)	Karen Naylor
Roly Fitzgerald	William Wood
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Kaydee Zabelin

1.	PNCC Submission to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill ⇩
2.	LGNZ Draft Submission to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill ⇩