Agenda of Infrastructure Committee - Wednesday, 2 December 2020

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Infrastructure Committee MEETING

2 December 2020

Order of Business

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

- Infrastructure Committee

- Economic Development Committee

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

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

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

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

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

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

4. Public Comment

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

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

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the Infrastructure Committee meeting of 4 November 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Options to Complete - Manawatu River Pathway - Ashhurst to Palmerston North Page 13

Report, presented by Robert van Bentum; Manager - Transport and Infrastructure.

7. Outcome of Consultation on Summerhill Cycleway Upgrade Options for Segment 5 Page 27

Memorandum, presented by Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure.

8. Papaioea Place Redevelopment 6-Monthly Update Page 57

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property.

9. Tamakuku Terrace Residential Subdivision 6-Monthly Update Page 65

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property.

10. Arena Redevelopment Quarterly Update Page 71

Memorandum, presented by Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property.

11. Streets for People - Square East Stage 2 Final Report Page 79

Memorandum, presented by Geoffrey Snedden, Manager Project Management Office.

12. Committee Work Schedule Page 83

13. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
14.	Negotiations - Manawatu River Pathway	Negotiations	s7(2)(i)

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 Infrastructure Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 04 November 2020, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison (in the Chair), Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Lew Findlay QSM, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and Aleisha Rutherford.

Non Members:

Councillors Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta and Lorna Johnson.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (late arrival and early departure on Council Business), Councillors Zulfiqar Butt (early departure), Lew Findlay QSM (early departure), Leonie Hapeta (early departure on Council Business) and Bruno Petrenas (late arrival).

The Mayor (Grant Smith) was present when the meeting resumed at 11.03am. He was not present for clause 37. He was not present when the meeting resumed at 2.00pm. He entered the meeting again at 2.11pm during consideration of clause 43. He was not present for clause 42.

Councillor Bruno Petrenas was present when the meeting resumed at 11.03am. He was not present for clause 37.

Councillor Brent Barrett was not present when the meeting resumed at 2.00pm. He entered the meeting again at 2.12pm during consideration of clause 43. He was not present for clause 42.

Councillors Zulfiqar Butt, Lew Findlay QSM and Leonie Hapeta were not present when the meeting resumed at 2.00pm. They were not present for clauses 42 to 44 inclusive.

37-20

Apologies

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 37-20 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and Aleisha Rutherford.

The meeting adjourned at 9.02am.

The meeting resumed at 11.03am.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Bruno Petrenas were present when the meeting resumed.

38-20

Presentation - Countdown

Mr Matthew Grainger, Acting General Manager Format, Development and Property of Woolworths New Zealand Limited, made a presentation regarding the two latest Countdown projects in Palmerston North.

The Palmerston North Regional Distribution Centre on Alderson Drive (North East Industrial Park), currently under construction, will replace the current centre at Mako Mako Road, being more than three times its size. More than 100 employees have been hired for the construction stage and it was expected that 50 additional roles will be created for the centre’s operation. The opening is planned for August 2021.

The new supermarket on Pioneer Highway, Awapuni, will include a retail block. Construction is planned to start in late November and the opening is expected for August 2021. This project will result in an increase of 80 employees in the Countdown team and the generation of approximately 50 construction jobs.

Mr Grainger acknowledged the collaborative approach from the City Council during the consenting process for both projects.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Infrastructure Committee receive the presentation for information.

Clause 38-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

39-20	Public Comment
	Mrs Maxine Johnson and Mr Vince Lockwood made public comment about the Summerhill Drive Cycleway project, particularly the recent consultation carried out by the Council. Mr Lockwood expressed that, as residents of the affected area, they would have expected to have been contacted directly and during the earlier planning stages. In their opinion, the consultation was insufficient as the consultation material asked for submitters’ opinions on only two options and did not give participants the chance to suggest other alternatives. Mrs Johnson and Mr Lockwood considered that the options proposed by the City Council would have negative effects on Summerhill Drive residents, noting loss of parking spaces and impact on traffic flow. They asked that the project be postponed until there was another consultation with residents from Summerhill Drive and surrounding roads.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the public comment from Mrs Maxine Johnson and Mr Vince Lockwood be received for information.
	Clause 39-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

40-20	Public Comment
	Mr Jaco Broodryk, Principal of Whakarongo School, made public comment regarding the request for installing a zebra crossing on James Line, considered in clause 43-20 below. Mr Broodryk outlined the concerns the community and the school had regarding pedestrian safety on that road, especially for school students, many of whom are between 5 and 8 years old. Mr Broodryk mentioned that, from previous conversations with Council officers, the school had understood that there would be a zebra crossing. However, only refuge islands were installed.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the public comment from Mr Jaco Broodryk, Principal of Whakarongo School, be received for information.
	Clause 40-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Lew Findlay QSM, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

41-20

Presentation - NZTA

Mr Lonnie Dalzell, Owner Interface Manager, and Dr Mark Long, People, Safety and Culture Manager, from Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, provided an update on the Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway.

The presenters mentioned that the project had proceeded as planned, and is currently waiting for the relevant resource consent, which was still sitting with the Environment Court. The enabling work had started.

Mr Dalzell and Dr Long pointed out that the social impacts of the project had been analysed, including Iwi input at the design phase, considerations for housing, and the decision to hire and upskill a local workforce.

More than 700 applications were received for the jobs and training open day. Some workers had already been hired and communication was being maintained with potential employees since the project was expected to ramp up in the following 12 months.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Infrastructure Committee receive the presentation for information.

Clause 41-20 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 12.14pm.

The meeting resumed at 2.00pm.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Zulfiqar Butt, Lew Findlay QSM and Leonie Hapeta were not present when the meeting resumed.

42-20

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Infrastructure Committee meeting of 7 October 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 42-20 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

43-20	Notice of Motion - Zebra crossing on James Line The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting again at 2.11pm. Councillor Brent Barrett entered the meeting again at 2.12pm. After discussion, a substitute motion was proposed.
	Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Rachel Bowen. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That the Chief Executive consults with Whakarongo School and reports back on options to further improve safety of the pedestrian crossing on James Line.
	Clause 43.1 above was carried 11 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Abstained: Councillor Brent Barrett.
	Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Aleisha Rutherford. 2. That the report entitled “Notice of Motion – Pedestrian Crossing – James Line – Officer Advice” and reported to the November 2020 meeting of the Infrastructure Committee be received.
	Clause 43.2 above was carried 11 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford. Abstained: Councillor Brent Barrett. Note:
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Vaughan Dennison. The Notice of Motion ‘that the Chief Executive install a zebra crossing on James Line, next to the railway crossing’, was moved by Councillor Aleisha Rutherford as per Councillor Leonie Hapeta’s authorisation according to section 2.7.5 of the Standing Orders.
	The motion was lost 1 votes to 10, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows: For: Councillor Aleisha Rutherford. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas. Abstained: Councillor Brent Barrett.

44-20

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Infrastructure Committee receive its Work Schedule dated November 2020.

Clause 44-20 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison, Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Billy Meehan, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

The meeting finished at 2.52pm

Confirmed 2 December 2020

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Infrastructure Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 December 2020

TITLE: Options to Complete - Manawatu River Pathway - Ashhurst to Palmerston North

PRESENTED BY: Robert van Bentum; Manager - Transport and Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

David Murphy, Acting General Manager - Strategy and Planning

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That the Council approves the Chief Executive progressing with a more detailed consideration of legal avenues to secure the preferred Manawatū River Pathway alignment as set out in Option 3 of the report titled ‘Options to Complete - Manawatū River Pathway – Ashhurst to Palmerston North’, presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Council has been constructing a shared river path on the western side of the Manawatū River extending from the Mangaone Stream confluence to the Ashhurst road bridge as a premier city and regional recreational and commuter facility. The section of pathway from Paneiri Park to Riverside Drive has been completed. Negotiations have been on-going with landowners to secure easements for construction of the remaining sections of the pathway. These negotiations have reached a stalemate and Officers are now seeking direction from Council on how best to proceed to achieve the completion of the project.
OPTION 1:	Continue Landowner Negotiations
Community Views	The community considers the current approach to be too slow and uncertain. There is significant dissatisfaction with the lack of progress with completing the pathway.
Benefits	Negotiating with landowners will be the least adversarial approach and is likely to be the least costly option, as it depends on reaching agreement on the means of securing access (easement or land purchase) as well as the scope and timing of any construction work.
Risks	The project becomes unlikely to be completable in the foreseeable future. The process requires the approval of the landowners. The outcome of not completing the pathway will be no continuous river pathway connection from the Palmerston North City urban area to link with the Ashhurst urban area and Te Ahu a Turanga shared pathway.
Financial	The estimated cost of completing the remaining 11.9km of pathway from the Mangaone Stream to Raukawa Road along the river is $2 million. A programme to fund this work is included in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.
OPTION 2:	Alternative On-Road Pathway via Te Matai Rd and Napier Rd
Community Views	Specific community feedback on this option has not been sought. The concept has been raised with some members of the public and with signatories of a petition recently presented to Council who expressed dissatisfaction with the plan.
Benefits	There would be a greater certainty of delivery, given that most of the alignment would be in the existing road corridor, however the Mangaone and loop sections would still cross private land.
Risks	The pathway would likely be less well used due to lower amenity and higher safety risks with accessway conflicts and proximity to state highway corridor. There are heightened health and safety issues with a pathway adjacent to a road being used by heavy vehicles. Higher cost due to longer alignment and more complex engineering and construction requirements. This option may not achieve same level of NZTA funding as for options with a river alignment.
Financial	Rough order cost of $2.5 million due to longer alignment, some land purchase and more complex engineering.
OPTION 3:	Securing pathway alignment through legal means, including consideration of accretion land
Community Views	Community feedback on this option has not been specifically sought. The option has been raised with members of the public in various forums with general support for the approach.
Benefits	Provides greater certainty that the pathway could be completed in the foreseeable future. River alignment will attract NZTA subsidy.
Risks	Land purchase and compensation will increase the cost to deliver. Risk that landowners will object, increasing the costs and extending the time required to complete the project. Future financial risk for Council as land owner should the pathway be damaged during high river flows. There is a potentially expanded delay if the alignment crosses accretion land, which will need to be identified.
Financial	Estimated cost to construct pathway is $2 million, excluding legal costs and any land purchase and/or compensation. The current LTP proposes a $2.5 million budget.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council has been actively working with landowners on both sides of the Manawatū River to construct a network of shared pathways for walking and cycling to connect Linton, Longburn and Ashhurst with a premier city and regional recreational and commuting facility. This work has been a centrepiece of the Manawatū River Framework and the desire to reinvigorate the community’s engagement with the awa. Once completed, in combination with the shared pathway alongside Te Ahu a Turanga, this will be the longest contiguous shared pathway in New Zealand.

1.2 Council has been focused on improving the pathway on the city-side of the Manawatū River extending from Paneiri Park to Riverside Drive. Council continues to invest in sealing and widening the sections as required. The northern end of this pathway will connect via Riverside Drive and Roberts Line to the path along the Mangaone Stream providing a circular cycling route around the city (refer Attachment 1 – Existing Pathway).

1.3 More recently, Council has completed the section of pathway on the eastern side of the river connecting the Fitzherbert Bridge with the new He Ara Kotahi pedestrian and cycling bridge to Linton. This work included a more direct link to Massey University across Massey farmland. These pathways have been completed through negotiation and by voluntary agreement with the landowners. In each case, the pathway has been secured as an esplanade strip or easement, in favour of Council.

1.4 Throughout this time, Council Officers have continued to engage, on both an informal and formal basis, with the landowners on the remaining sections to link the entire alignment.

1.5 The remaining sections of the river pathway still to be completed on the city side comprise three separate sections totalling 11.9km (refer Attachment 4 – Option 3). Once completed, in combination with areas Council have existing access rights over, the pathway would extend from Ashhurst to the Mangaone Stream confluence on the south boundary of Palmerston North. The three outstanding sections comprise:

· Riverside Drive to Te Matai Road (Organic Farming Company Ltd) – A 4.7km length of pathway alignment along the bank of a river loop.

· Te Matai Road to Raukawa Road (Hifarm Holdings Ltd) – A 6.6km length of pathway alignment passing almost entirely through land owned by one entity.

· Southern end of the pathway to the Mangaone Stream confluence not in Council ownership (Dunne / Legg Block) - A 0.6 km section alongside the river.

1.6 Officers consider that informal negotiations with these landowners have stagnated. Given the presentation of the recent petition imploring Council to link the river pathway alignment to Ashurst, Officers are now seeking direction from Council on how to progress the project, and where the pathway should be constructed.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council has approved a programme of work over the last two Long Term Plan budgets to give effect to the desire for a continuous pathway, proposed to be aligned with the Manawatū River. The programmes and budgets included:

· Programme 235 - Manawatū River (Ashhurst to Riverside Drive) - Cycle/Pedestrian Pathway – FY – 2014-15 – Approved Funding $699,049.

· Programme 235 - Manawatū River (Ashhurst to Riverside Drive) - Cycle/Pedestrian Pathway – FY – 2020/21 – Approved Funding $655,766.

2.2 The funding provided for FY 2020/21 was reduced to approximately half of that originally allocated when Higgins Family Holdings Ltd advised they would not be allowing construction to occur around their property in that financial year. The amount was reduced further when the remaining piece of land where construction was intended to take place was sold back to the Higgins Family and they again advised they would not allow any construction to go ahead.

2.3 The remaining funds not expensed on the design of the project in the current year will be available to be carried forward to meet a portion of the future costs of the project.

3. Description of options

3.1 Option 1. Continue Landowner Negotiations along the River

3.2 This option is to continue the current approach. This would involve Officers engaging with the specific landowners, to further previous informal attempts to reach agreement on how the pathway could be completed across their land but close to the river.

3.3 It is uncertain as to whether this option will result in a river aligned pathway as we cannot predict what conditions may be required by landowners through negotiation. Attachment 1 provides a schematic view of the current pathway alignment while Attachment 2 details the full extent of Option 1.

3.4 Officers are unable to comment on the likelihood of success with respect to this approach, given the lack of a positive outcome from engagement undertaken to date.

3.5 Option 2. Alternative On-Road Pathway

3.6 This option would abandon the option of a riverside path for the third and longest section of the pathway yet to be completed, and instead build an on-road shared path (refer Attachment 2). The pathway would be constructed alongside, but separated from, the road along the full extent of Te Matai Road to Napier Road - State Highway 3, along the State Highway to Raukawa Road. The pathway would then turn down Raukawa Road and continue to join up with the existing upstream section of river pathway to meet the Ashhurst Bridge.

3.7 This option would require land to be acquired to make space for the shared path to be constructed off the road, and particularly along the section on Napier Road (SH3) to ensure adequate separation from fast moving traffic. This approach would be similar to the design for the Longburn pathway.

3.8 In addition, the pathway would need to accommodate alterations to approximately 45 private accessways, to ensure adequate visibility and mitigate privacy and security concerns of the property owners. The cycleway would also cross the entrance to numerous farms and commercial businesses and a major active quarry. The current estimate of traffic into and out of the Te Matai Road quarry is approximately 200 heavy vehicle crossings per day.

3.9 This option does not include any provision to complete the two southerly sections of the pathway.

3.10 Option 3. Securing Riverside Pathway through Legal Means, including consideration of accretion land

3.11 This option would look to utilise legislative avenues to secure the pathway. This could include utilising the powers provided for in the Public Works Act. This formal legal process provides opportunity for the property owners to object, and to appeal to the Environment Court. As part of this process, Council needs to demonstrate that there have been reasonable attempts to reach agreement through the Act’s negotiation process and beyond what has been attempted informally up to this point, mitigate the concerns of the landowners and determine that alternative options are not viable.

3.12 Option 3 comprises the longest proposed pathway as it would incorporate all of the river-adjacent sections of land to create a single contiguous connection on the city side of the river from the Mangaone Stream to the Ashhurst Bridge.

3.13 The costs to construct the river alignment in this manner is estimated at $2 million, excluding legal fees and the market value cost of purchasing the land at the culmination of the Public Works Act process. A budget allowance of $2.5 million has been made in the LTP.

3.14 With respect to a consideration of accretion land, Council’s proposed alignment as set out in Option 3 appears to partially run through accretion land (land previously covered by the Manawatū river, but due to natural re-alignment of the river, is now largely dry land). Accretion land is usually vested in the Crown but can be claimed by an adjacent landowner. Accretion land claims first require a status report from a LINZ accredited supplier to determine if the land is accretion land, and whether it is vested in the Crown. Further detail is set out in the legal advice attached to the Confidential Memorandum.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 Option 1. Continue Landowner Negotiations

4.1.1 Council Officers have been actively engaging and negotiating where possible with all parties since 2012. Further details of the engagement which has taken place is summarised for each of the landowners concerned in the Confidential Memorandum presented in Part 2 of this Committee meeting.

4.2 Option 2. Alternative On-Road Pathway via Te Matai Road and Napier Road (SH3)

4.2.1 This option will involve construction of a new separated shared path along Te Matai, Napier and Raukawa Roads to link the currently completed sections of the on-river pathway. This option does not address the sections of pathway across the Organic Farming Company Ltd. and Dunne properties as it is solely a bypass of the HFHL quarry and farmland.

4.2.2 Preliminary scoping of this option has been completed and confirm the key features include:

· total length of the road alignment is 7.3 km (compared to 6.6 km for a river pathway connecting the same two points.

· road width is insufficient for a separated pathway along several sections of the route, which is likely to mean land will need to be acquired from at least one property.

· there are 45 accessways that need to be crossed, of which 40 are residential and could require decorative planting and boundary walls.

· in two locations culverts will need to be extended or small bridges constructed to allow pedestrians and cyclists to pass.

4.3 Option 3. Securing Riverside Pathway Through Legal Means, including consideration of accretion land

4.3.1 A local authority has access to several legal tools to secure land for a public purpose where negotiations have failed to obtain a resolution. This includes powers under the Public Works Act 1981.

4.3.2 To progress with this option, Council needs to have established that negotiations have been unsuccessful, and alternative options are not viable. To initiate the process, a notice is served on the landowners inviting them to sell following a suitable valuation. The process then follows the steps set out in the legislation. Specific details of the process are included in the legal advice attached to the Confidential Memorandum included in the Part 2 Report to this Committee.

4.3.3 Officers recommend commissioning a status report to determine how the accretion land may be utilised if possible, and what impact it might have on the use of other legal tools. Depending on the findings of that status report, Council will need to decide how to deal with any accretion land identified. A discussion of some potential options is also set out in the legal advice attached to the Confidential Memorandum.

4.3.4 The costs of this process will include commissioning the report and liaising with LINZ to make a finding on accretion land, associated legal fees, and the cost of the land acquired which Council must fully compensate the owner for. Legal fees will depend on whether objections are raised and if the matter is heard in the Environment Court. Other options such as an independently mediated process are also available.

5. summary

5.1 Officers have investigated the range of options available to complete the remaining sections of the riverside pathway to deliver on the goal of an off-road pathway from the Mangaone Stream confluence in the south of the city to Ashhurst. Three options for completing all or most of the alignment have been identified and scope in general terms.

5.2 Option 1 provides for a continuation of the current approach and based on the outcomes of engagement to-date provides little certainty that the pathway will be completed.

5.3 Option 2 provides an alternative on-road alignment for the pathway from the current northern extent on Te Matai Road to the Raukawa end of the pathway. It does not address how to complete the other two sections of the pathway.

5.4 Option 3 outlines the use of the Public Works Act to purchase land to complete all three of the outstanding sections of the pathway.

6. Next actions

6.1 Officers will advance work on the pathway in line with the specific resolution of Council. If Option 3 is selected, Officers will re-engage with each of the property owners and seek to achieve agreement on a way forward.

6.2 If there is still no progress, then Officers will proceed with initiating the legal processes.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 No formal engagement on the options has been undertaken at this stage, although informal feedback has been received through engagement with interested members of the public and recent petitioners to Council seeking increased focus by Council on completing the pathway.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan The action is: · There is a resilient shared pathway around the city linking to Ashhurst, Railway Road to Bunnythorpe-Feilding, Linton and Longburn with interconnections to the road network · Complete development of the Ashhurst to Palmerston shared path link
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The report outlines options for completing the pathway from Palmerston North to Ashhurst including completing the final link to the Mangaone Stream confluence. The report outlines the Officer recommendation that the only practical option to complete the pathway is for Council to exercise its legislative powers to acquire land for a public facility, where all other options to secure the pathway by agreement with landowners have been exhausted. Option 3.

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Plan of Existing Pathway ⇩
2.	Attachment 2 - Option 1 - Concept Plan ⇩
3.	Attachment 3 - Option 2 Concept Plan ⇩
4.	Attachment 4 - Option 3 Concept Plan ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Infrastructure Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 December 2020

TITLE: Outcome of Consultation on Summerhill Cycleway Upgrade Options for Segment 5

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

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council approves the implementation of Modified Option A of the report titled ‘Outcome of Consultation on Summerhill Cycleway Upgrade Options for Segment 5’ presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020, comprising of 540m of buffered cycle lanes with indented parking and bus bays.

2. That the Council approves an unbudgeted Capital New Programme entitled “Summerhill Drive - On-Street Parking Infrastructure” with a budget of $234k to fund the parking mitigation works required to implement the Summerhill Drive Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements Project.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council has approved project works as outlined in the Summerhill Cycling Plan and the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan, funded through the Summerhill Drive - Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements programme to improve safety for all road users. The primary focus of the project is improving safety for:

· people on bikes, by providing separated cycle lanes and removing conflicts with parked cars

· bus passengers, by the installation of bus bays

· for pedestrians, by providing two additional crossing points

· drivers, by providing a flush median for turning

1.2 Council adopted the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan 2019 following extensive consultation and engagement with road users and the community. The masterplan identifies a priority list of around 25 cycleway routes recommended to develop an integrated urban cycle commuter network for the city. Summerhill Drive is a key initial part of this network, as well as being a major public transport corridor.

1.3 Funding for design and consultation on the Summerhill Drive project has been drawn from Programme 732 - Summerhill Drive - Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements. Work proposed to be undertaken in the 2020-21 financial year will also be funded from this programme.

1.4 The design process for the project has sought to balance the needs of road users while mitigating the impact on on-street parking. The programme, from Tennent Drive to Pacific Drive (2.4km) has been divided into eight segments as indicated below. This project focuses on segment 5, which is the section that is most constricted and likely to see most changes to the street configuration.

· Segment 1. Tennent Drive between bridge underpass ramp and Cliff Road (280m)

· Segment 2. Summerhill Drive between Cliff Road and Ruapehu Drive (450m)

· Segment 3. Summerhill Drive between Ruapehu Drive and Williams Terrace at Summerhill Reserve (250m)

· Segment 4. Summerhill Drive from Williams Terrace along Summerhill Reserve near Jasmine Place (290m)

· Segment 5. Summerhill Reserve near Jasmine Place and 150 Summerhill Drive (540m)

· Segment 6. Aokautere Drive between Old West Road and IPU Main Entrance (210m)

· Segment 7. Aokautere Drive between IPU Main Entrance and Pacific Drive (250m)

· Segment 8. Summerhill Drive/Tennent Drive Interchange (200m)

1.5 Segment 5 has existing footpaths on both sides of the road, however the cycle lanes are not formalised and bike riders either use the road shoulder shared with parking or ride in the general traffic. Due to the existing configuration of the road, in order to provide separated cycle lanes, on-street car parking will need to be reduced.

1.6 The engagement and consultation with the community has highlighted the significant concern around the loss of on-street parking. The proposed project will inevitably result in a significant reduction in the level and location of the available on-street parking. To assist with deciding on how best to mitigate this concern, Officers have sought to identify the actual level of regular and frequent parking use and demand.

1.7 It is acknowledged that special occasions and one-off events will result in much higher parking demand, however the approach taken is to arrive at a design that meets the needs of users most of the time.

1.8 To achieve this outcome a significant investment in indented parking is required to offset the parking loss. Officers are seeking approval of a specific capital new parking infrastructure budget to ensure the project can be delivered, as available programme funding is fully committed to implementing the high priority sections of the cycle network.

2. Parking Surveys

2.1 As part of the investigation work to develop the concept designs, and in response to concerns around the loss of parking, Officers undertook parking surveys in July 2019 and September 2020 to understand the potential effect of the project on parking availability. Summary information is provided in Figures 1, 2 and 3 while attachment 6 provides the full results.

Figure 1. Parking use along Summerhill Drive and side streets

Figure 2. Parking survey sites

Figure 3. Parking use by businesses – weekday morning

2.2 The surveys identified that:

· On average only 18% of available parking along Summerhill Drive (excluding side streets) is utilised at any one time during weekdays and 15% during weekends

· There is a total of 344 existing car parks in the area, including those on side streets. Option A would reduce this by 34% and Option B by 19%

· A modified version of Option A would install nine indented parking spaces outside businesses and there would be capacity for 12 parking spaces in the slip lane

· Option B would allow for three indented parking spaces providing 9 parking spaces by the businesses in Site A in addition to the 12 parking spaces in the slip lane

· Parking demand peaked at 9 vehicles in the vicinity of the businesses during any 15 minute period

2.3 Investigations indicated that most of the car parking on Summerhill Drive is under-utilised. The parking routinely occupied by customers of the businesses, peaks at 9 vehicles for both sides of the street. If local business staff parked down neighbouring side streets at a distance from the businesses, and some customers either parked on side streets within the existing off-street parking in the existing businesses, then Officers concluded there would be adequate parking available to accommodate peak demand.

3. engagement and Consultation Approach

3.1 Officers undertook the following engagement with business owners and residents directly impacted by the project:

· All Summerhill Drive residents received a consultation guide, as did all the residents of the side streets. Landowners were posted out consultation guides as our rates database showed that it was a heavily tenanted area.

· Customers with proposed indented parking in front of their homes or businesses as part of the options, received an information pack including a letter, consultation guide, the engineering drawings, and the offer to meet with them in person or talk over the phone.

· Drop-in sessions were held on Tuesday 22^nd September and Saturday 26^th September at the Aokautere New World, during which staff were in attendance to answer queries and clarify any of the material.

· 1 on 1 meetings between Officers and business owners were held on Monday 21^st September and Tuesday 29^th September.

3.2 In addition to the targeted engagement wider consultation was also undertaken with the community. The consultation period was open from 4^th September to 9^th October. Both written and electronic submissions were invited with a collection box located at the Coffee in a Box for collection of handwritten submissions. Specific elements of this included:

· Turitea and Aokautere schools were provided with project briefing material and posters to share with parents through their newsletters and information apps. Students at Girls High School, Boys High School, Awatapu and Intermediate Normal schools were also provided with project information.

· A significant web hub, where people were able to make online submissions, was promoted: www.pncc.govt.nz/summerhill

· City wide stakeholder groups such as Horizons Regional Council, Police, Sport Manawatu were contacted and provided with information to share with their stakeholder audiences and staff.

· Posters were erected around the Summerhill area, including the main shopping area by the New World.

· Project specific social media advertising, as well as newspaper ads, radio and newspaper news items, iSite billboard and Council email signatures were created.

· Additional information was provided on request to members of the public enquiring about the project through Elected Members and the local MPs office.

4. Specific options consulted on

4.1 Project engagement and consultation was undertaken using two broad options for how the separate cycle lanes could be provided. The key features of each options and their advantages and disadvantages are set out in sections 4.4 and 4.5.

4.2 The Summerhill Drive project has been designed to advance improved safety for a range of road users by looking to more efficiently allocate the road space between the existing kerbs and provide buses with the ability to pull off the active road lane by providing indented bus bays. The design process determined that given the limited road width, separated cycle lanes on both sides of the road could only be provided by removing some of the parking on this section of Summerhill Drive.

Figure 4: Existing Road Cross Section

4.3 Both options provide cycle lanes with a physical separation barrier along the stretch of Summerhill Drive. Separation barriers will be designed to ensure rubbish collection and street sweeping services are not impacted. Plans as well as visualisations for each of Options A and B are included as attachments to this report.

OPTION A - BUFFERED CYCLE LANES WITH INDENTED PARKING BAYS

4.4 This option provides cyclists with a straight line of site and as a result the safest of the two options for cyclists. As the option requires the removal of nearly all on-street parking, provision was made for installation of indented parking and bus stops. The option initially proposed the installation of 15 indented parking spaces, however through the consultation Officers were advised of a number of new vehicle crossings due to planned subdivisions, so the number has had to be reduced to 13 (refer attachment 3 for the revised plan). Note that officers also included an additional four indented parking spaces by the businesses.

Figure 5: Revised Road Cross Section with Buffer and Parking

Table 1: Pros and Cons of Option A with indented parking

Pros	Cons
Best design for safety of cyclists	Loss of up to 116 on-street car parks on Summerhill Drive
Cyclists no longer have to move into traffic to pass parked cars	High cost associated with constructing indenting parking and bus bays
Separated cycle lanes provide greater space for motor vehicles to pass cyclists and encourage motorists to slow down	Replacement of some on-street trees
Narrow traffic lanes can encourage motorists to slow down. This may reduce the likelihood and/or severity of crashes
A flush median allows motor vehicles to safely pull out of the live lane to turn right into side streets and driveways
The preferred option with 74% of submissions

OPTION B - BUFFERED CYCLE LANES

4.5 Option B provides for the retention of parking along the southern side of Summerhill Drive.

Figure 6: Revised Road Cross Section with Buffer Only

Table 2: Pros and Cons of Option B with Buffer Only

Pros	Cons
Cyclists no longer have to move into traffic to pass parked cars	Loss of up to 65 on-street car parks on Summerhill Drive
Separated cycle lanes provide greater space for traffic to pass cyclists and encourage motorists to slow down	No flush median for cars to pull off the live lane when turning right into driveways and side streets
Narrower traffic lanes can encourage motorists to slow down. This may reduce the likelihood and/or severity of crashes	Cyclists have to pull in and out around parked buses as no indented bus bays
Parking kept on one side of the street	Replacement of some on-street trees
Lower cost as fewer indented parking and bus bays

5. analysis of submissions

5.1 A total of 191 submissions were received comprising:

· 34 written submissions

· 157 submissions via Council’s Website

5.2 The key information asked of respondents included:

· Your interest group e.g. business owner, cyclist, motorist etc.

· What is your preferred option and why?

· Do you have any comments on the other option?

5.3 A summary of the submissions data on the preferred option is provided in Figure 7.

Figure 7. What is Your Preferred Option?

5.4 The submissions highlighted several key themes namely:

· A preference that parking reductions in the vicinity of Coffee in a Box be kept to a minimum

· Approximately 25 submissions (13%) raised concerns around the impact on parking

· Requests that the speed along Summerhill Drive be reduced to 50km/hr

· Request for improved safety for cyclists on the downhill section

· High level of support for the flush median in Option A

· Interest in a shared pathway option which removes cyclists off the road

5.5 The majority of submissions that did not support either option made recommendations that a shared pathway be constructed instead. Officers have previously considered this option and estimated the cost to install a shared path would be $680,000 compared to the current estimated cost of implementing modified Option A of $426,000. A shared path would also result in a significant loss of amenity due to having to remove all the street trees ($88k) and result in additional safety risk due to cyclists and pedestrians sharing a space located close to residential accessways. Officers also expect that many cyclists will continue to prefer to use the road voiding the benefits of a shared pathway.

6. Modifications to preferred option A

6.1 During consultation issues were identified with several of the proposed indented parking bays. Applications for subdivisions and associated new vehicle crossings reduced the effective parking provided in two locations. The design has been modified to avoid these conflicts.

6.2 As a result of the project, it is likely that the slip lane will be more heavily utilised for parking so it is proposed to install no parking lines along one side and new paint markings and signage to designate the slip lane as one way only. This should alleviate residents’ concerns around chaotic parking and being able to access their driveways.

6.3 The project team has also taken into consideration the impact of the project on parking availability around the businesses so have shifted the indented bus bay further south (back towards Summerhill) to allow for construction of a new four car indented parking bay. See attachment 3 for the revised plan detailing the modifications.

6.4 If Council considers the additional costs for parking provision to be excessive, one option to reduce the project cost would be to remove the two indented car parks outside the landscape yard for a saving $36k. This is the least useful of the indented parking bays given it provides for only two cars and is located between the existing and proposed new accessway to the landscape business.

7. Capital New Parking Infrastructure programme

7.1 The current estimate to complete Summerhill Drive Improvements without any of the indented parking provisions is $120k, which represents 60% of the available construction budget of $200k in Programme 732.

7.2 The additional mitigation proposed, including indented parking and bus bays is estimated to cost $306k for Option A ($234k for parks and $72k for bus bays) or $54k for Option B (parks only) on top of the $120k; see table below for break down. Note that Option B is still within the current available budget, excluding the requirement that funding of parking mitigation does not attract NZTA subsidy.

Table 3 Summary of Option Costs

Option A (modified)		Option B
Line removal and new marking	$84,000	Line removal and new marking	$84,000
Pedestrian crossing (2 x $18k)	$36,000	Pedestrian crossing (2 x $18k)	$36,000
Indented parking (13 x $18k)	$234,000	Indented parking (3 x $18k)	$54,000
Indented bus bay (2 x $36k)	$72,000	Indented bus bay	0
Total	$426,000	Total	$174,000

7.3 Waka Kotahi (NZTA) has indicated that the provision of on-street parking does not meet the organisation’s GPS (General Policy Statement), so would not be eligible for subsidy.

7.4 Officers therefore require approval from Council for a new Capital New Programme to fund any on-road parking mitigation as this will need to be 100% Council funded. The recommended budget for the programme to complete Option A is $226k.

8. Officer Feedback and summary

8.1 The submissions clearly highlight the difficulty of implementing a shift in mode priority where allocation of the road space needs to be changed and some modes are prioritised over others. The predominant objection is to the loss of on-street car parking on Summerhill Drive, especially close to ‘Coffee in a Box’.

8.2 There are several strongly held views which are not supported by evidence including:

8.3 On-street parking is owned by the properties or businesses adjacent to the road. This is incorrect as parking on roads is a public good, which is available to the community at large. There is no requirement for Council to provide parking on roads. Instead, as the Corridor Access Manager, Council can re-purpose road space for the benefit of the wider community to achieve other outcomes, including improved road safety and mode shift.

8.4 Parking availability along Summerhill Drive is constrained. Parking surveys confirm there is an excess of parking in the area, which could be re-prioritised for the use of other modes and the public rather than employees and business owners.

8.5 Loss of parking will mean loss of business. Business activity is linked to people and user numbers. While changes in parking convenience may lead to some users avoiding the area, promotion of access to users of other transport modes may attract new business. If provision of parking in the wider area meets demand, there is no reason to expect businesses will be negatively affected by the change.

8.6 It should be a shared pathway. The main concern with a shared pathway along this stretch of road is the safety implications. The mixing of cyclists with pedestrians and driveways would mean that cyclists could only travel at low speeds (i.e. 10-15km/h) to ensure a safe environment for all users. Vehicles exiting driveways may inadvertently hit cyclists travelling at higher speeds, particularly as visibility will be poor where there are high fences.

8.7 Option A is clearly preferred. There is little support for Option B, which Officers believe is because of the loss of the flush median. A small number of respondents rejected both options.

8.8 Council needs to consider approval of an additional dedicated budget for projects such as Summerhill Drive to pay for parking mitigation (indented parking bays), given that the provision does not contribute to safety and would not attract NZTA subsidy.

8.9 The implementation of a reduction in speed limits is outside the scope of the Summerhill Drive Upgrade. Feedback from the consultation will be passed on to NZTA and included in the Stage 2 Speed Limits Bylaw review. NZTA has previously reduced the speed in the State Highway section prior to Summerhill Drive so may be reluctant to consider further changes. Implementation would require additional consultation and engagement with the community to inform any policy changes.

9. what NEXT

9.1 If Council approves the recommended implementation approach and the additional capital budget, Officers will look to finalise the design of option A. Officers will then engage with directly affected residents to identify any minor amendments. Once finalised the various elements of the project will be implemented either through existing contract engagements (e.g. sealing and line marking by Higgins Contractors Ltd) or separately tendered (e.g. indented parking construction works) in the current financial year.

9.2 If Council does not approve the additional funding, Officers would look to defer any further work on the Summerhill Drive project and look to identify other priority routes within the Urban Cycle Network Masterplan which could be delivered within the available budget.

10. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active and Public Transport Plan The actions include: · Providing for the extension of public transport, cycling, and pedestrian facilities and services into residential and industrial growth areas, and the rural villages. · Upgrading, on a prioritised basis, cycle route interconnections and intersections.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	This programme contributes to delivery of a safer transport network by advancing the urban cycling network and reducing conflicts between various road users. This is achieved by delivering wider cycle lane width, reducing conflicts with stationary buses at bus stops and reducing conflicts between people on bikes and parked cars. The ultimate objective of delivering an improved and safer cycling route is to encourage more people to make more journeys by bicycle or active transport mode rather than by car.

Attachments

1.	Consultation plan for Option A ⇩
2.	Consultation plan for Option B ⇩
3.	Option A - Modifications required after consultation ⇩
4.	Visualisation - Option A ⇩
5.	Visualisation - Option B ⇩
6.	Parking Survey Results ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Infrastructure Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 December 2020

TITLE: Papaioea Place Redevelopment 6-Monthly Update

Presented By: Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Infrastructure Committee

1. That the memorandum titled `Papaioea Place Redevelopment 6-Monthly Update’ presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020 be received for information.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Stage 2 of the Papaioea Place Housing Redevelopment is funded through Programme 1219 – Social Housing – Papaioea Stage 2.

1.2 The Finance and Performance Committee Chairperson requested a quarterly update to be brought back to the Finance and Performance meeting for the duration of the construction period.

1.3 The terms of reference for the new Infrastructure Committee Meeting include scope for updates on the progress of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment. As such, this report is being presented to this Committee, and all future update reports for this programme will now be presented to the Infrastructure Committee as opposed to the Finance and Performance (now Finance and Audit) Committee.

1.4 In the December 2019 Infrastructure Committee Meeting it was agreed that the quarterly updates would change to 6-monthly updates moving forward.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Papaioea Place project form of contract is a design and build contract between Palmerston North City Council (Principal) and Latitude Homes (Contractor) of New Plymouth.

2.2 Papaioea Place Stage 1 was delivered through Programme 357. This saw the demolition of the 32 existing units and the construction of 50 new units in their place. Stage 1 was completed as planned on 28 February 2020 and within budget.

2.3 Papaioea Place Stage 2 sees the demolition of the remaining blocks of units on site and the old hall and the construction of an additional 28 new units. Once complete this will take the total number of new units on the site to 78.

2.4 The overall project management for both stages of the development is being provided by WT Partnership Advisory. The day-to-day project management is being carried out by Council Officers.

2.5 Site meetings and Project Control Group meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month. This report is a summary from a meeting held on 28 October 2020.

3. SUMMARY – PROJECT CONTROL GROUP REPORT FOR STAGE 2 – october 2020

Health and Safety

3.1 Latitude has provided an updated Site-Specific Safety Plan (SSSP) and COVID-19 Health and Safety Protocols for New Zealand Residential Construction Sites following lowering of the Alert Level to Alert Level 1.

3.2 Latitude has confirmed protocols are in place and required protocols, when entering and on site, have been issued to their subcontractors.

3.3 Aside from this, there has been 1 incident reported to date.

Key Programme Dates

3.4 Stage 2 will be delivered in two portions:

· Portion 5A & 5B – due for completion 23 April 2021

· Portion 6 – due for completion 10 August 2021

Refer to Appendix 1: ‘Papaioea Stage 2 Site Layout’ for a layout of the site and to understand where Portions 5A, 5B and 6 are in respect to the entire development.

Programme Update

3.5 The demolition for Stage 2 is now completed.

3.6 The new partial boundary fence behind where the old hall and old units stood has been erected. For clarity, this is where Portion 6 is being built.

3.7 Construction of portions 5A & 5B continue to track to programme.

3.8 Grounds works are now underway for Portion 6, and overall Portion 6 continues to track to programme.

Design

3.9 Even though Stage 1 of the project was a success and has been well received by the residents; there were several further design improvements and learnings that have been considered for Stage 2. This will help to ensure the project continues to provide the best possible outcomes for the complex.

3.10 These design changes include:

· Alteration to end Units of 5A & 5B and 6 so they engage with the street frontage;

· Portion 5A moved to create larger Heretaunga Street frontage and Portion 5B to increase central rear courtyards;

· Proposed landscaping increased;

· Fencing to Heretaunga Street frontage; and

· Deletion of rain gardens to street frontage and increase to rear Cirtex Rainsmart system.

3.11 The above changes are reflected in the variation schedule in Clause 3.16 of this report under ‘Design Amendments – Portion 5’.

Regulatory

3.12 Resource Consent for Portions 5A, 5B and Portion 6 was approved on 17 April 2020.

3.13 Building Consent for Portions 5A and 5B was approved 8 June 2020. Building Consent for Portion 6 was approved 3 June 2020.

Financial

3.14 There is an approved Programme Budget for Stage 2 of $5,205,680.

3.15 There have been a small number of budget variations as the project has progressed.

3.16 Variation schedule to date:

Description	Amount ($)
Design Fees for Resource Consent Amendments	$56,197
Asbestos Removal	$56,748
Drainage Replacements	$27,774
Design Amendments – Portion 5	$214,301
Transformer Deletion	($130,000)
Stage Three Design Fee	$8,200
Variation Earthworks	$30,542
Total	$263,732

3.17 All the variations above have been accommodated within the project contingency.

3.18 An overview of the Project Budget Status is in the table below:

Description	Project Budget	Budget Variance	Final Forecast
Construction	$4,317,017	$263,732	$4,580,749
Council Procured Items	$109,000		$109,000
Professional Fees	$192,675		$192,675
Authorities Fees	$88,860		$88,860
Contingency	$498,308	($263,732)	$234,576
Total	$5,205,680	$0	$5,205,680

3.19 The Council Procured Items include:

· Curtains

· Landscaping Planting

· Chorus Connections

· Supply/ Install Heating

3.20 For clarity, in Stage 1 these were all treated as variations to the construction contract. For Stage 2 we have been able to plan these as part of the Programme.

3.21 Council was successful in obtaining approx. $4.7M of external funding from the Provincial Growth Fund as a contribution towards the delivery of Stage 2.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Continue the construction programme to complete Stage 2 as per the budget and timeline.

5. Compliance and administration

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

The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Social Housing Plan The action is: Upgrade the Papaioea housing complex.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Stage 2 of the Papaioea Place Redevelopment will: · Increase Council’s social housing to help meet the demand for this type of housing and reduce the housing waiting list; · Improve the housing condition of the complex by replacing the old units; and · Provide a complex that delivers on the Social Housing Plan.

Attachments

Papaioea Stage 2 - Site Layout ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Infrastructure Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 December 2020

TITLE: Tamakuku Terrace Residential Subdivision 6-Monthly Update

Presented By: Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE

1. That the memorandum titled ‘Tamakuku Terrace Residential Subdivision 6-Monthly Update’ presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020, be received for information.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Monthly project reports are provided to the project team in the last week of each month from Veros Property Services.

1.2 This report is providing a 6-Monthly update on the Tamakuku Terrace Residential Subdivision project and is a summary from the October 2020 report from Veros Property Services.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Palmerston North City Council owns an area of 9.63ha within the upper terrace of the Whakarongo residential growth area off James Line.

2.2 The land was acquired by Council for cemetery purposes but was no longer required. As obliged under the public works process the land was offered back to the previous owners to purchase, but no offer was received.

2.3 Given no offer was received, the parcel of land was subsequently rezoned for residential use.

2.4 The Long-Term Plan then anticipated that Council would develop this land and funding was allocated accordingly, beginning in the 2018/19 financial year through Programme 1485.

Professional Services

2.5 Council has engaged Veros Property Services as the lead development consultant to manage delivery of the programme on its behalf.

2.6 Calibre Group has been engaged as the Engineer to the Contract and on-site Engineer’s Representative.

2.7 4Sight Consulting and Land Development Engineering (LDE) were engaged for the overall design and civil and geotechnical design respectively. This work is now complete.

2.8 Black Sheep Design have also been engaged as specialist marketing, brand and design consultants, and are working closely with Council’s internal Marketing and Communications Unit.

Development Overview

2.9 The District Plan includes a specific Structure Plan and suite of planning provisions for the Whakarongo Residential Area that will direct the subdivision design and development. This extends guidance for providing different section sizes.

2.10 Tamakuku Terrace provides an opportunity to deliver a subdivision consistent with the requirements of the District Plan.

2.11 Once developed the subdivision will create 114 new residential sections. Sections will be of a variety of sizes to appeal to a wide variety of purchasers by giving options regarding design, build type and purchase price.

2.12 Section sizes will range from 275m² (a couple) through to 810m², with the average section size being 463m².

Overall Development Programme

2.13 The development of the site will be split into two stages:

· Stage 1 – 79 Sections; and

· Stage 2 – The balance of 35 sections.

2.14 Stage 2 is subject to the approval of the comprehensive discharge consent (CDC) for the entire Whakarongo Growth Area from Horizons Regional Council and is anticipated to closely follow, but remain distinct from, Stage 1.

2.15 Ideally, the timing of the CDC ties in with the completion of Stage 1 construction works to enable a seamlessly roll out from Stage 1 to 2 without further mobilisation and establishment of a contractor.

3. Development update – October 2020 veros report

Health and Safety

3.1 When construction commences the awarded contractor will issue a monthly health and safety report. As construction has not commenced there is nothing to report.

Regulatory

3.2 Horizon’s Regional Council has issued the resource consent in October 2020 to undertake large scale land disturbance, discharge of clean fill to land, the diversion of a waterway and the use of culverts to create the residential sections.

3.3 Palmerston North City Council has issued land-use and subdivision consents for Stage 1 in October 2020 as well.

3.4 Please note that all consents are for to Stage 1 only (79 sections) and further consents and approvals will be required for Stage 2 (balance of 35 sections).

3.5 The engineering approval package for Stage 1 is currently being assessed by the Palmerston North City Council engineering approval team.

Contractor Procurement

3.6 Following a comprehensive tender process for a head contractor to undertake the civil construction works, a confidential report was presented to Part II of the October 2020 Committee of Council meeting to award the contract to the preferred tenderer.

3.7 The final negotiations and signing of the contract are occurring in November 2020. Once signed, the confidential report will be released for public record, however, given the report is still confidential at the time of writing this report no further information can be provided at this time.

3.8 Once confirmed, the preferred contractor will mobilise and commence enabling works this side of Christmas.

Key Programme Dates

3.9 Below is a summary of the development programme for Stage 1:

Key Project Milestones	Programmed Date	Current Status
Consent Approval	October 2020	Complete
Engineering Approval	November 2020	In Progress
Execute Civil Contract	November 2020	In Progress
Stage 1 Presales	November 2020	On Hold – subject to affordable housing EOI process
Stage 1 Construction Commencement	December 2020	On Schedule – subject to engineering approval
Stage 1 Construction Competition	October 2021
Titles Issued	Late 2021

Sales and Marketing

3.10 Tamakuku Terrace has been agreed as the name of the development by the project team with support from Rangitāne o Manawatū.

3.11 Black Sheep Design are working closely with the PNCC Marketing and Communications team to refine designs, develop collateral, create a subdivision website and future on-site signage.

Notice of Motion – Affordable Housing

3.12 The following Notice of Motion was approved by the Committee of Council in October 2020:

“That the Chief Executive be instructed to commence a process that seeks Expressions of Interest relating to potential partnerships and opportunities to enable affordable housing options. Such Expressions of Interest are for the purpose of utilising Council’s Whakarongo development to enable affordable housing and an increased supply of rental accommodation”.

3.13 This Notice of Motion has created a degree of uncertainty for the sales phase of the project. Specifically:

· How many sections will be considered for the above;

· Where and how these sections will be located within the subdivision i.e. clustered throughout, “pepper-potted”, clustered to one area etc.;

· The exact opportunities and how these will be delivered; and

· The timing of the above.

3.14 As a result of this uncertainty, the first sales release of sections is currently on hold while Council Officers work through this process.

Financial

3.15 Overall, the project is currently tracking to programme.

3.16 In line with Clause 3.7 of this report, no further financial information can be provided in this update due to the civil construction contract not being signed.

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 Continue the construction programme to complete the Tamakuku Terrace Residential Subdivision.

4.2 Undertake the affordable housing expression of interest process. Proposals received will then be assessed against the following criteria:

· financial consequences for the development;

· achievement of Council’s strategic goals; and

· the usual considerations of track record and capability.

4.3 The assessment of proposals against these criteria will be reported back to Council for further decision-making.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual - 167.2		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do, they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No

The recommendations contribute to Goal 1: An Innovative and Growing City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the City Development Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Housing and Future Development Plan The action is: Housing development is initiated at Whakarongo
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Progressing with the Tamakuku Terrace subdivision development within the Whakarongo Growth Area will: · Provide additional sections to the marketplace to help reduce the supply vs. demand shortfall; · Provide choice to purchasers through a variety of section sizes and provide them the freedom to choose their preferred house builder; · Provide a best practice example to the private development community showcasing the opportunities and benefits of working closely with local iwi, urban designers, territorial authorities and local experts to achieve excellent outcomes. · Support local contractors and the employment market.

Attachments

Nil

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Infrastructure Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 December 2020

TITLE: Arena Redevelopment Quarterly Update

Presented By: Bryce Hosking, Manager - Property

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO Infrastructure Committee

1. That the memorandum titled ‘Arena Redevelopment Quarterly Update’ presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020 be received for information.

1. ISSUE

1.1 As part of the redevelopment of the CET Arena there are three elements of the combined project which have physical works in the 2020/21 financial year – The Speedway Pits Relocation, the new Entrance Plaza, and the Embankment Redevelopment.

1.2 To ensure best outcomes, these projects are being delivered concurrently as one project through a single main contractor.

1.3 As such the budgets for the three Programmes below have now been consolidated into Programme 1534 in the 2020/21 Financial Year:

· 1082 – Central Energy Trust Arena Manawatu – Speedway Relocation & Artificial Pitch;

· 1083 – Central Energy Trust Arena Manawatu – Entrance Plaza; and

· 1534 – Central Energy Trust Arena Manawatu – Embankment Redevelopment

1.4 In the August 2020 Infrastructure Committee meeting it was requested by the Chair that update reports for the combined project increase from 6-monthly to quarterly updates.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The scope of the project is broadly outlined as:

· Speedway Pits – is a 17,000m² civil project. Involving the demolition of the existing fields, installation of limited underground services, roading, hardstands, fencing, footpaths and associated hard landscaping and soft landscaping. Relocation of existing Palm Trees is a specialist phase of work.

· Entrance Plaza – is a 900m² public plaza with an 8m wide pedestrian bridge spanning from the Public Plaza to the Stadiums south embankment. Involving the erection of new retaining and bridge structures to specialist designs with hard landscaping, lighting, furniture and planting.

· South Embankment – is the demolition/ replacement of a 1000m² section of the concourse. The construction of foundations for embankment and retaining/ support to the future South Grandstand. It will involve the erection of amenity spaces to service the south section of the Grandstand, the pits zones, western embankment and northern grandstand, as well as the completion of a hardstand for a temporary seating concourse. This will also include the construction of a link bridge between the embankment and the existing grandstand for use of the public during events.

· There is also a ticket office in the Cuba Street side of the Entrance Plaza and a canopy on the embankment side of the bridge.

2.2 The works detailed in Clause 2.1 above will be delivered in two stages:

· Stage 1 – The Speedway Pits relocation and supporting infrastructure will be delivered by the end of October 2020. Subject to there being no further COVID-19 interruptions.

· Stage 2 – The Entrance Plaza, South Embankment, the pedestrian entrance bridge and ticket booth will be delivered by April 2021.

2.3 The construction work is being delivered by PAK Holdings Limited t/a Humphries Construction as head contractor.

2.4 The report titled ‘Award of Tender – CET Arena Redevelopment’ presented to and approved by Council on 25 March 2020. This report was confidentially reported in Part 2 under s7(2)(h) Commercial Activities of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. However, it has since been released in August 2020.

2.5 Immediately after the resolution to award the contract was received a Letter of Award was issued to the contractor to allow subcontractors and materials to be secured.

2.6 Humphries Construction is based in Palmerston North and approximately 90 per cent of the subcontractors are also based within the Manawatu. The remaining 10 percent is due to those products or services not being available locally.

2.7 The project management of the development is being provided by WT Project Management Advisory along with Council Officers.

2.8 Site meetings with the contractors, Project Control Group and Project Steering Group meetings are held each month and will continue throughout the duration of the programme.

3. Progress SUMMARY – Project Control Group Meeting - October 2020

Health and Safety

3.1 Humphries Construction continue to follow their Site-Specific Safety Plan (SSSP) and reintroduced COVID-19 Health and Safety Protocols for the construction site following lowering the Governments uplift of alert status to Level 1.

3.2 A safety register is kept for the project worksite. There have been three near misses, one incident and 2 incidents with injuries to date.

3.3 Regarding the incidents with injury, both workers only received minor injuries, and were promptly medically cleared to return to work and did so.

3.4 All health and safety matters are being managed by the contractor and the project team as per the Health and Safety and Site-Specific Safety Plans.

Key Programme Dates

3.5 Humphries Construction took possession of the site on Tuesday, 5 May 2020.

3.6 The blessing and ‘breaking earth’ ceremony took place on Friday, 8 May 2020.

3.7 Stage 1 (Speedway Pits) handover was agreed to be postponed to 20 November 2020 to allow for the establishment of the grass seed.

3.8 Installation of the bridge connecting the entrance plaza to the embankment is due to begin in November 2020.

3.9 Stage 2 is scheduled to be completed in April 2021.

Programme Update

3.10 Key programme items undertaken in the quarter just completed;

· Concrete for the Pits Carparking is complete;

· Chip seal of the Pits Carriageway is complete;

· Boundary fence along Cuba Street is being installed;

· Foundations, installation of pre-cast panels, concrete floor and roof rib infills for the Ablution block have been completed;

· Foundations for the Bridge and the pier columns have been completed; and

· Excavations of base foundations for the Northern Grandstand link are underway.

3.11 All offsite fabrications are proceeding to programme.

Design

3.12 Whilst detailed design is complete, there continues to be a focus on the Culture and Heritage overlay elements which includes influences from Rangitāne, the Maori Battalion, A&P and several heritage groups. This is being undertaken in conjunction with the customer journey maps and strategy linkages with the City Centre.

3.13 The various elements of the cultural and heritage design proposal were presented to Council and was endorsed earlier in 2020.

3.14 The ‘hard’ elements of the cultural and heritage design are being physically integrated into the appropriate areas of the site as construction progresses.

3.15 The design of way-finding signage is currently underway.

Regulatory

3.16 There were two resource consents that were required for the combined project; one from Horizons Regional Council (HRC), and one from Palmerston North City Council (PNCC). Both these consents were approved and received.

3.17 There have since been two amendments to the PNCC resource consent required:

· Layout and provisioning for the food truck area (Cuba/ Pascal Street corner); and

· The relocation of the Gate 3 pylon signage.

3.18 Both these amendments have been lodged and are currently pending.

Financial

3.19 The combined programme budget for The Speedway Pits Relocation, new Entrance Plaza and the Embankment Redevelopment is $17.1M.

3.20 To date, $9.8M has been spent.

3.21 Overall, the project is currently tracking to programme and is within budget.

4. project risk summary

4.1 There are several project risks that are currently being managed by the project team.

4.2 The key risks, along with the consequences and mitigation actions being taken, are detailed below.

Financial

4.3 Risk: Due to a reduced contingency, the project may exceed the total available budget once all project variations are considered.

4.4 Consequence: The project budget would be exceeded, and more budget would be required to complete the project.

4.5 Mitigation Actions: The project team continue to undertake value engineering to find alternative solutions and potential savings in all elements of the project.

Minor Scope Changes

4.6 Risk: There continue to be several design amendments and refinements within the project in response to addressing operational requirements, unexpected items and to address improvements to the original designs via value engineering.

4.7 Consequence: The project contingency continues to be used and is exceeded. More budget would be required to complete the project.

4.8 Mitigation Actions: The project team continue to undertake value engineering to find alternative solutions and potential savings in all elements of the project.

Reputational

4.9 Risk: The new ablutions block does not include any gender-neutral toilet facilities and there is no appropriate way to address this through the current design and budget.

4.10 Consequence: Concerns raised by the public about the lack of provision of gender-neutral toilet facilities within CET Arena.

4.11 Mitigation Actions: A separate gender-neutral toilet block could be considered in the future in an appropriate location within the CET Arena complex. This is currently outside of this project scope and unbudgeted.

Customer

4.12 Risk: The scale of the construction works can disrupt how events are undertaken within the complex and restrict the areas within CET Arena that can be used for events.

4.13 Consequence: Loss of income through some events not being able to be held within the areas of construction.

4.14 Mitigation Actions: The project team continues to work closely with stakeholders to ensure clear communication around operational needs and programme timelines. Should there be proposed programme adjustments the stakeholders are consulted prior to acceptance to allow for operational needs to be considered.

Timeframe

4.15 Risk: The project completion date is delayed due to delays in materials, minor changes to design, and weather.

4.16 Consequence: The project is not completed in April 2021 as planned.

4.17 Mitigation Actions: The project team continues to work with the contractor to manage any expected delays well in advance via an ‘early warning’ approach.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Continue the construction programme to complete the Arena Redevelopment Programme as per the budget and timeline.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual - 167.2		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do, they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan The action is: Central Energy Trust Arena is the city’s main multi-purpose hub for sport and recreation and serves as the region’s premier sporting and events hub.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The combined redevelopment project at CET Arena helps to ensure Palmerston North has fit-for-purpose facilities that meets the community’s sport and recreation needs and retains its ability to host major sporting events.

Attachments

NIL

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Infrastructure Committee

MEETING DATE: 2 December 2020

TITLE: Streets for People - Square East Stage 2 Final Report

Presented By: Geoffrey Snedden, Manager Project Management Office

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE

1. That the report titled ‘Streets for People - Square East Stage 2 Finish & Review’ presented to the Infrastructure Committee on 2 December 2020 be received for information.

1. ISSUE

1.1 To provide the Committee with a final report Square East Stage 2 streetscape upgrade.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The City Centre Plan supports Palmerston North becoming A creative and exciting city. The plan outlines the steps for making the city centre a vibrant place that locals are proud of and that leaves a lasting positive impression on visitors.

2.2 The Palmerston North City Centre Streetscape Plan (Streetscape Plan) was endorsed by Council in 2016 and set the level of service sought from the Streets for People streetscape upgrade. Square East Stage 2 has been designed to deliver the intent of the Streetscape Plan. The programme for delivering the Streetscape Plan in the city centre is called “Streets for People”.

2.3 The design for Square East Stage 2 closely followed the direction set out in the Streetscape Plan. Some precedents (such as the material palette) have been set as part of Stage 1. It is envisaged that this material palette is used throughout the future programme.

2.4 The extent of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 has been set such that they do not impact the intersections at either end of this section of the Square. The design of these intersections is to be addressed as part wider programme of works.

2.5 The design and tendering for Stage 2 was undertaken in 2019 and the Council awarded the construction contract to Higgins Contractors Limited on 18 December 2019.

3. Project Outcomes

3.1 Outlined below is a summary of the outcomes of the Project.

3.2 Project Benefits

· Public spaces that are pedestrian friendly, intimate, and that support social interaction.

· Improved pedestrian thoroughfare encourages more movement

· Increase the after-five economy in the city centre.

3.3 Programme

· The construction commenced on 28 January 2020 and was planned to take 22 weeks.

· The construction was impacted by the nationwide Covid-19 Alert Level 4 lockdown. A total of 6 weeks (29 days) “Extension of Time” were agreed over the course of the works.

· The contract was completed in 27 weeks.

3.4 Budget & Cost

· Programme 244 Square East has a budget of $6.3 million in the LTP. Programme 244 contains 4 Stages, with Stage 1 and Stage 2 now complete.

· The budget for Stage 2 was $3.69 million and expenditure on the Stage was $3.87 million.

· Higgins Contractors Limited was awarded the construction contract for the value of $2,116,404.30. There were 37 variation orders (VO) issued during construction to a total value of $252,218. The total cost of the construction is $2,368,622.30.

3.5 Key Lessons Learnt. As part of the project review feedback has been requested from the retailers on the project. The Project Team (PNCC, Contractor, Design Consultants and Project Managers) have also undertaken a Lesson Learnt review of the delivery of the project. Below is a summary of the key lessons learnt:

· Fortnightly meetings with the Retailers, in the morning prior to stores opening, works well for two-way communication between the Project Team and the Retailers. Establish these meetings early in the design process and locate on “neutral” ground.

· Establish consistent messaging prior to the consultation process. This messaging will need to cover not only the design/build but also broader issues such as buses, parking, beggars, skateboarders and smokers.

· Through the tendering process, enable tenderers to provide options for scheduling of work to minimise impacts on business (e.g. options to extended working hours, increase number of crews).

· Closing the street to vehicle traffic (both lanes) reduces the contract period and the cost compared with leaving one vehicle lane open (Stage 1).

· Socialising the design with the retailers early to enable any changes/additions to the design can be incorporated into the project and limited risk of delay. The retailers would like to at least share their ideas about what works and doesn’t work along the street – some have been here over 10 years.

· The design development was transactional and did not include storytelling and placemaking. Include stakeholders in the process such as Iwi, BID, The Sculpture Trust to intertwine storytelling and placemaking into the design.

· Approximately 50% of the pavers used on both stages appear to ‘picture frame’. As a result of the Lessons Learnt from Stage 1, it was decided to pre-seal the pavers before installation with the view to address this. The pavers therefore were sealed (top and sides) off site, however this has not resolved the issue. With pavers being laid on a sand base, water is being absorbed into the paver from underneath. Investigate in the design process alternative laying methods (e.g. laying pavers on a mortar base).

4. NEXT STEPS

4.1 The Street is now being managed by the Infrastructure & Transport Division, with a maintenance regime under development and the as-builts and warranties are now on file.

4.2 Issues identified during the defect period walkthrough are being rectified by the contractor.

4.3 A budget is being prepared for the ongoing maintenance of this asset which will result in a higher level of service being required for cleaning and maintenance of streetscape elements. This will flow through to the Long Term Plan.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 167.2	Yes
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Urban Design Plan

Attachments

Nil

Vaughan Dennison (Chairperson)
Susan Baty (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Billy Meehan
Rachel Bowen	Karen Naylor
Zulfiqar Butt	Bruno Petrenas
Lew Findlay QSM	Aleisha Rutherford