Agenda of Strategy & Finance Committee - Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Strategy & Finance Committee MEETING

26 February 2025

Order of Business

2. Apologies

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.

4. 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.

5. Public Comment

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

6. Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification - Hearing of Submissions Page 7

7. Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw - Hearing of Submissions Page 15

8. Presentation - Kia Toa Rugby Football Club Incorporated Page 65

9. Confirmation of Minutes Page 67

That the minutes of the Strategy & Finance Committee meeting of 13 November 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

10. Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification - Summary of Submissions Page 75

Memorandum, presented by Aaron Phillips, Activities Manager - Parks.

11. Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2025 - Summary of Submissions Page 79

Memorandum, presented by Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst.

12. Bill Brown Park - Proposal to support Kia Toa Rugby Football Club Incorporated by notifying the intention to grant community occupancy via a lease of Council land Page 99

Report, presented by Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager Parks and Reserves and Aaron Phillips, Activities Manager - Parks.

13. Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 December 2024 Page 123

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance and John Aitken, Manager - Project Management Office.

14. Treasury Report - Six months ending 31 December 2024 Page 199

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

15. Classification of Council Reserves Page 211

Report, presented by Aaron Philips, Activities Manager - Parks.

16. Speed Limit Reversals Page 281

Memorandum, presented by Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst and James Miguel, Senior Transport Planner.

17. Committee Work Schedule Page 297

18. Karakia Whakamutunga

19. Exclusion of Public

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

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

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

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

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Strategy & Finance Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 13 November 2024, commencing at 9.03am

Members

Present:

Vaughan Dennison (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Karen Naylor, Mark Arnott, Brent Barrett, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Orphée Mickalad, William Wood and Kaydee Zabelin.

Non Members:

Councillor Rachel Bowen, Councillor Roly Fitzgerald, Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb and Councillor Billy Meehan.

Apologies:

Councillor Lew Findlay, and Councillors Lorna Johnson (late arrival) and Leonie Hapeta (early departure).

Councillor Lorna Johnson entered the meeting at 9.18am during consideration of clause 48. She was not present for clauses 46 and 47.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 11.00am during consideration of clause 51. She entered the meeting again at 11.31am during consideration of clause 51.

Councillor Patrick Handcock left the meeting at 12.10pm during consideration of clause 53. He entered the meeting again at 12.15pm during consideration of clause 54. He was not present for clause 53.

	Karakia Timatanga
	Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb opened the meeting with karakia.

46-24

Apologies

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 46-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

47-24

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Strategy & Finance Committee meeting of 14 August 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 47-24 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

Councillor Patrick Handcock.

48-24

Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 30 September 2024

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance and John Aitken, Manager - Project Management Office.

Officers noted the Quarterly Report was missing one page from the attachments. This funding section was referenced in the memorandum. It was tabled and is attached to the minutes.

Councillor Lorna Johnson entered the meeting at 9.18am.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Quarterly Performance and Financial Report – period ending 30 September 2024’, and related attachments, presented to the Strategy & Finance Committee on 13 November 2024.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

2. That Council approve the adjustments to activities due to an internal realignment per Attachment 4 - Realignment Budget Variations.

Clause 48-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

49-24

Treasury Report - quarter ending 30 September 2024

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

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee note the performance of Council’s treasury activity for the quarter ending 30 September 2024.

Clause 49-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

50-24

Local Water Done Well Funding Reallocation

Report, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance and Julie Keane, Transition Manager.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council approve the reallocation of $928,503 Department of Internal Affairs funding for Better Off Funding from Programme 1054 – Ashhurst Water Quality Improvements to Local Water Done Well Transition Support in the Wastewater operating budget, subject to DIA approval.

2. That Council note that the capital expenditure budget for programme 1054 was reduced at the Council meeting on 6 November 2024.

3. That Council increase the Wastewater operating budget for both revenue and expenditure by $306,672 in the 2024/25 Financial Year for Transition Support.

4. That Council refer to the Annual Budget process a revenue and expenditure budget of $621,831 for Transition Support for the 2025/26 Financial Year.

5. That Council agree that $928,503 will be spent across the 2024/25 and 2025/26 Financial Years and that any unspent funding in 2024/25 will be adjusted via carry forwards at 30 June 2025.

Clause 50-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting adjourned at 10.08am.

The meeting resumed at 10.26am.

51-24

Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change I - Increasing Housing Supply and Choice

Memorandum, presented by Jono Ferguson-Pye, City Planning Manager, Sarah Jenkin, Consultant Planner and Dave Charnley, Senior Urban Designer.

Councillor Rachel Bowen left the meeting at 11.00am and entered the meeting again at 11.31am.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee approve for public consultation Palmerston North City District Plan: Proposed Plan Change I – Increasing Housing Supply and Choice (Attachment 4), under clause 5, schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Clause 51-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

52-24

Elected Member Expenditure 2023/24

Memorandum, presented by Scott Mancer, Manager - Finance.

After discussion, Elected Members requested more regular reporting.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Elected Member Expenditure 2023/2024’, presented to the Strategy & Finance Committee on 13 November 2024.

2. That Elected Member expenses, including Mayor and Deputy Mayor expenses, be reported quarterly to the Strategy & Finance Committee or equivalent.

Clause 52-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

53-24

Deliberations - Draft Dangerous, Affected, and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2024

Report, presented by Lili Kato, Policy Analyst.

Councillor Patrick Handcock left the meeting at 12.10pm.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the submissions relating to the Draft Dangerous, Affected, and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2024 (Attachment 3).

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

2. That Council adopt the Dangerous, Affected, and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2024 (Attachment 1).

3. That Council rescind the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006.

Clause 53-24 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

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

54-24

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw - approval for consultation

Report, presented by Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst.

Councillor Patrick Handcock entered the meeting again at 12.15pm.

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee agree for public consultation the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw and Administration Manual (as shown in Attachment 1).

Clause 54-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

55-24

Policy and bylaw work programme 2024-2027

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

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the report titled ‘Policy and bylaw work programme 2024-2027’, presented to the Strategy & Finance Committee on 13 November 2024.

Clause 55-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Chair deferred the following report to the next Strategy & Finance Committee meeting on 26 February 2025:

· Small vehicle fleet ownership and long-term lease investigation results

56-24

Public Notification of a Community Occupancy Lease to Manawatū Racing Pigeon Club Incorporated

Public Notification of a Community Occupancy Lease to Manawatū Woodworkers Guild Incorporated

Reports presented by Bill Carswell, Manager Property and Resource Recovery (Items 16 and 17 were taken together).

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee continue to support Manawatū Racing Pigeon Club Incorporated by notifying the public of its intention to grant community occupancy of Council land at 53 Totara Road, Palmerston North in accordance with the Support and Funding Policy 2022.

2. That the Committee note the land affected by the community occupancy of Manawatū Racing Pigeon Club Incorporated is described as Part Lot 2 DP 2003.

1. That the Committee continue to support Manawatū Woodworkers Guild Incorporated by notifying the public of its intention to grant community occupancy of Council Land at 38 Featherston Street, Palmerston North in accordance with the Support and Funding Policy 2022 and Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2. That the Committee note the land affected by the community occupancy of Manawatū Woodworkers Guild Incorporated is described as Part Lot 13 DP2938 and Lot 2 DP605123.

Clause 56-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

57-24

916 Tremaine Avenue (part of Vautier Park) - Proposal to grant lease of Council land to Red Sox Sports Club Incorporated

65 Totara Road - Proposal to grant lease of Council land to Manawatū Amateur Radio Society Branch 20 NZ Art Incorporated

Memorandums presented by Bill Carswell, Manager Property and Resource Recovery (Items 18 and 19 were taken together).

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Strategy and Finance Committee grant a lease for the land at 916 Tremaine Avenue (part of Vautier Park) Palmerston North described as Part Section 249 TN of Palmerston North to Red Sox Sports Club Incorporated, in accordance with section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977 and Council’s Support and Funding Policy.

1. That the Strategy and Finance Committee grant a lease for the land at 65 Totara Road, Palmerston North described as Lot DP 26198 to Manawatū Amateur Radio Society Branch 20 NZ Art Incorporated, in accordance with Council’s Support and Funding Policy.

Clause 57-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

58-24

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Strategy & Finance Committee receive its Work Schedule dated November 2024.

Clause 58-24 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

	Karakia Whakamutunga
	Councillor Debi Marshall-Lobb closed the meeting with karakia.

The meeting finished at 12.41pm.

Confirmed 26 February 2025

Chair

Memorandum

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification - Summary of Submissions

Presented By: Aaron Phillips, Activities Manager - Parks

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION TO Strategy & Finance Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification - Summary of Submissions’ presented to the Strategy & Finance Committee on 26 February 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council has consulted on classifying the accessway portion of Part Lot 2 DP 60866 as road reserve and the bulk of the parcel, on and over the Manawatū River stopbank as recreation reserve.

1.2 Two submissions have been received. This memorandum summarises the consultation and submissions received on the land classification proposal.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Council is currently progressing two pieces of work at Roxburgh Crescent:

a) a District Plan change to re-zone the current industrially zoned land to Residential (Resource Management Act 1991)

b) classification of Council owned parcel of land, (Part Lot 2 DP 60866) to a road and recreational reserve (Reserves Act 1977)

While the two pieces of work are closely aligned, this report considers the submissions received from the consultation on the land classification (b above).

2.2 Council has been preparing a plan change for the industrially zoned land at Roxburgh Crescent, to rezone it to Residential. Within and adjacent to the plan change area Council owns a parcel of land, Part Lot 2 DP 60866, that has not had a purpose classified. This is the matter under consideration at today’s meeting.

2.3 Council received a report to notify the proposed Plan Change E: Roxburgh and this proposal to classify the Council owned Part Lot 2 DP 60866 at the 14 August 2024 Strategy and Finance Committee meeting.

3. Consultation

3.1 The consultation period was from 18 October to 19 November 2024.

3.2 A webpage including an online submission form was published on the Council website. Links to the consultation page were provided from the Plan Change webpage as well.

3.3 A public notice was published in the Manawatū Standard on 18 October 2024.

3.4 The proposed classification was included in a letter sent out in October 20024 that also covered the Plan Change. The letter was sent to properties the area bounded by Albert St to Ruahine Street and Ferguson Street to the River as shown in Figure 1. The letter also went to parties that submitted as part of the Plan Change consultation – which included other councils, government ministries and Iwi.

Figure 1: Letter drop catchment

4. SumMAry of submissions

4.1 Two submissions were received on the land classification proposal.

1. Submission 1 supported the classification but requested it be postponed until after the plan change in order to manage operational and health and safety risk for the surrounding property holder.

Council Comment:

Officers note that for the certainty and clarity for the Plan Change process, Council needs to decide on the land classification before the Plan Change is heard by independent commissioners.

The submitter’s requests can be met by making the implementation of a classification (if approved) subject to/conditional on the Plan Change approval and subdivision occurring in a manner that ensures the road portion of the proposed classification is contiguous with a vested road reserve at the time of subdivision.

2. Submission 2 makes points that relate to the Plan Change matters and as such was referred on to that process. The submission did not directly comment on the proposed reserve classification, but the submitter has also requested to be heard here.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Report to Council for a decision on the proposed classification after considering points raised in the hearings alongside the written submissions, through a deliberations report on the matter.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 1: He tāone auaha, he tāone tiputipu Goal 1: An innovative and growing city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 15. Mahere whare 15. Housing Plan The objective is: • Implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity • Rezone Roxburgh Crescent
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Proposed Plan Change E, and in conjunction with that, classifying this parcel of land as road and recreational reserve, will assist Council in meeting its obligations to ensure there is sufficient development capacity to meet projected demand, which will assist with improving housing affordability and being responsive to growth.

Attachments

Nil

Memorandum

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2025 - Summary of Submissions

Presented By: Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION TO Strategy & Finance Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Summary of Submissions: Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2025’ presented to the Strategy & Finance Committee on 26 February 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Council received 20 submissions on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw. Three submitters indicated they wish to make an oral submission.

1.2 This memorandum provides an initial summary of the key issues raised in the written submissions. A full analysis of the written and oral submissions will be provided to the Committee in May 2025.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 13 November 2024, the Committee approved ^{^[1]} the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw for public consultation. The written submission period was open from 30 November 2024 until 24 January 2025. The Council received 20 written submissions during this time. The submissions are included with this Committee’s agenda.

2.2 The consultation webpage ^{^[2]} outlined the significant proposed changes to the Bylaw. An online form gave submitters the opportunity to indicate if they supported, opposed, or were not sure about these proposed changes, with space to provide comments about those proposed changes. The form also invited submitters to provide general comments about any other proposed changes to the Bylaw.

3. Summary of submissions

3.1 Of the 20 submissions we received, two were received from organisations, with the remainder submitted by individuals.

3.2 Seventeen submitters used the online form, and three submitters sent “freeform” submissions.

3.3 The following is a high-level summary of the views expressed by submitters in their written submissions.

Changes to the provisions for licensing commercial waste collectors

3.4 We proposed strengthening the existing licensing provisions, including conditions about the type and size of container that a commercial waste collector could use, and the days/times they may be licensed to operate.

3.5 Ten submitters indicated support for this proposal, though some expressed that support as conditional on further changes or amendments to the proposal. These potential changes included the hours of operation for waste collection, the weight threshold for when a licence is required, and limiting the regulation of bin sizes to residential households only. One submitter also proposed imposing additional conditions on commercial waste collectors; for instance, assigning licences to operators for designated parts of the city, and requiring them to adhere to Council’s own rules for approved and prohibited waste and diverted materials.

3.6 Six submitters indicated they did not support this proposal. They expressed concern about the potential for compliance costs to be passed on to consumers, and the overall burden of additional compliance for waste collectors. Some submitters suggested that getting rid of waste should be as easy as possible and cost-effective. Another submitter was concerned that the definition of waste types should be aligned to industry standards. They were also concerned that allowing bin sizes and types to be regulated via a licence could give one operator an advantage over another.

3.7 Four submitters indicated that they “didn’t know/no opinion” on this issue.

Introducing a new requirement for waste management and minimisation plans for construction and demolition waste

3.8 We proposed a new provision in the draft Bylaw that would allow the Council to pass a resolution requiring site waste management and minimisation plans to be submitted alongside a consent for building work over a given value. The purpose of this provision is to provide Council with the ability to directly promote and encourage diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfill.

3.9 Fifteen submitters supported this proposal. Some submitters suggested improvements or variations to the existing proposal. For instance, setting the threshold based on estimated volume of waste, rather than the monetary value of the project, or both. Including a volume estimate would ensure that demolition projects were captured, which often did not require consent or had a lower monetary value but a higher volume of waste. One submitter suggested additional requirements that went beyond the scope of the initial proposal, such as imposing requirements to do with on-site sorting, where the waste should be processed, and requiring regular reporting. Another submitter emphasised the value of education to improve understanding about waste minimisation on building sites, and the provision of templated plans to make compliance more straightforward.

3.10 Five submitters indicated they did not support this proposal. They expressed concerns about additional regulation for the building industry, the costs this might generate, and that those costs would land with the homeowner in the form of increased house prices.

Strengthening the requirements for events waste management

3.11 We proposed stronger language in the Administration Manual about the requirements for waste minimisation by event managers.

3.12 Fifteen submitters supported this proposal, with some suggestions for additional improvements or changes. Many submitters noted that waste minimisation added a burden for event managers and suggested there needed to be a balanced approach. The importance of education was also noted by some submitters, to ensure that waste is properly sorted. One submitter set out comprehensive additional proposals for events waste management to meet higher expectations for waste diversion, such as a tiered structure for events with mandatory enforcement and penalties for non-compliance for large events.

3.13 One submitter did not support this proposal, with four submitters indicated that they didn’t know/no opinion on this issue. The submitter expressed concern about the additional compliance requirement for event managers, which would lead to fewer events and increased costs for ratepayers.

Other matters

3.14 In addition to the three main proposals highlighted in the consultation document, submitters also made comments or suggestions on other parts of the draft Bylaw:

· The issue of recycling bin contamination, and whether the changes to the “three strikes” system would improve or worsen the situation.

· Introduce fines for people who overfill public rubbish bins.

· Create a new bylaw specifically for commercial waste management and minimisation.

· Include “approved diverted materials” in the list of “prohibited waste” to ensure that recyclable material is not placed in rubbish bags.

· Specify “lithium batteries” in the prohibited waste category because of their explosion and fire risk.

4. Engagement

4.1 Throughout the consultation period the proposal was promoted through Council’s communication channels. In addition to the consultation page on the Council website, the consultation document was made available at the Council’s Customer Service Centre and at each of its libraries. It was also directly provided to identified key stakeholders.

· The consultation process was promoted on social media platforms.

· Two engagement sessions were provided. The first was facilitated by Environment Network Manawatū for its member groups, held in December 2024. The second was organised as part of the Awapuni Resource Recovery Centre open day in January 2025.

· Staff also extended the opportunity for any stakeholder group to arrange a separate engagement meeting if desired.

Social media

4.2 Figure 1 (below) shows the post that appeared on Facebook on 2 December 2024. We received 48 comments, which are included as Attachment 1.

4.3 Throughout the consultation period we also placed two ads on Facebook promoting the consultation on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw.

Figure 1 - Facebook post appearing on 2 December 2024

5. Next steps

5.1 Officers will provide analysis of all the issues raised in the written and oral submissions and provide advice and recommendations to the Committee in May 2025 for deliberations.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 12. Mahere taumanu para 12. Resource Recovery Plan The objective is: Provide waste collection services, including kerbside collection, the Ashhurst Transfer Station, and public space rubbish bins; provide recycling collection services, including kerbside recycling, drop-off centres and public space recycling bins; promote waste reduction; divert waste from landfill.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw supports almost all of the objectives of Mahere taumanu para/Resource Recovery Plan. It provides the regulatory basis for implementing the range of waste management and minimisation activities that Council delivers. Revisions that bring improvements to the Bylaw and Administration Manual help Council to achieve its objectives in the resource recovery activity.

Attachments

Screenshots of comments on Facebook post 2 December 2024 ⇩

Report

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Bill Brown Park - Proposal to support Kia Toa Rugby Football Club Incorporated by notifying the intention to grant community occupancy via a lease of Council land

PRESENTED BY: Kathy Dever-Tod, Manager Parks and Reserves and Aaron Phillips, Activities Manager - Parks

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Strategy & Finance Committee

1. That the Committee support Kia Toa Rugby Football Club Incorporated by notifying a proposal to grant community lease at 21 Havelock Avenue, part of Bill Brown Park, Palmerston North, in accordance with the Support and Funding Policy 2022 and Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2. That the Committee note the land affected by the proposed community lease to Kia Toa Rugby Football Club Incorporated is Lot 1 DP40097 and Lot 442 DP44423.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Kia Toa Rugby Football Club Incorporated (Kia Toa) have requested support from Council by granting a community occupancy lease at 21 Havelock Avenue, part of Bill Brown Park. Kia Toa proposes to build clubrooms at the site. This report seeks Council’s approval to commence the public notification process in accordance with the Support and Funding Policy 2022 and Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.
OPTION 1:	Notify the public of Council’s proposal to support Kia Toa by granting a new lease at 21 Havelock Avenue, part of Bill Brown Park.
Community Views	Community views will be sought during the public notification period.
Benefits	The community views will be understood, and any objections considered as required by the Reserves Act 1977.
Risks	No risks are identified.
Financial	The cost of public notification will be modest. There will be some advertising costs, signage costs, and staff time.
OPTION 2:	Decline the proposal for the land lease for Kia Toa clubrooms at Bill Brown Park.
Community Views	Community views would not be sought.
Benefits	No further work required.
Risks	The community may have some expectation that their views will be sought, so declining the proposal presents the risk of community dissatisfaction from those that support the proposal.
Financial	No further costs will be incurred.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Kia Toa have requested a land lease at Bill Brown Park, with the view to erect clubrooms on their ‘home ground’.

1.2 Under the Council’s Support and Funding Policy, if a for-purpose organisation requests a new lease for the occupancy of Council land the proposal is to be publicly advertised to seek feedback from the public.

1.3 This report assesses the proposal against the Support and Funding Policy 2022 and in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977 and seeks a Council resolution on whether to proceed to consultation on the proposed lease or decline the request.

1.4 The final decision on whether to lease to the club will be brought to the Strategy & Finance Committee in a subsequent report based on responses from the consultation process.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council was approached by Kia Toa in July 2023 regarding their investigations into establishing clubrooms at Bill Brown Park.

2.2 This led to the club being involved with a Council study to review the needs of Papaioea Pasifika Community Trust (PPCT) in the use of the current Bill Brown Park hall facilities.

2.3 An option was explored to build clubrooms above the existing changing rooms structure, in conjunction with expanding the hall facilities for PPCT. After some consideration, it was considered best to treat the clubrooms development as a stand-alone project.

2.4 The rationale for the separation was that Pasifika project was at risk of becoming complicated, an additional storey would have been required on the building, and operational integration would have been intricate. Some separation of the community facility and the sports clubrooms was considered useful.

3. strategic fit

The Policy for the Use of Public Space:

3.1 The Policy for the Use of Public Space (page 6) contains several criteria for assessing applications to use public space.

“In considering an application to use public space, and particularly where there are competing applications for the use of public space or high demand for a public space, the Council will consider whether the event or activity”:

Criteria	Assessment
Supports the achievement of the Council’s goals	Sporting activities are consistent with goals two and three of Council’s strategic direction.
Is accessible to the wider community	The club seeks and supports community membership and are active in the community. The clubrooms will be available for other groups and activities use too.
Adds to the variety of events available in Palmerston North	The club runs and supports events in the community. It could provide further events and activities with a long-term clubroom venue.
Enhances any precinct identities (eg. Broadway as a hospitality precinct)	The clubrooms would enhance the community amenities at Bill Brown Park.
Provides an experience (rather than a simple commercial exchange)	The club fosters and administers the sports of rugby and netball and provides a ‘full experience’ including off field activities. They are not a commercial activity.
Does not significantly limit the availability of space for general community use	Bill Brown Park is 9.6 hectares in size. The proposed lease area is 742 square metres. Staff are comfortable that the combined effect of the Pasifika project and the Kia Toa proposal is acceptable. The club has been proactive in considering the effect on junior playing fields and proposed acceptable alternative layouts.

Table One: Assessment against Policy for the Use of Public Space

4. the proposal

Kia Toa Proposal for Community Occupancy at Bill Brown Park

4.1 The proposal is for a land lease. Kia Toa would construct, own and operate clubrooms on the land.

4.2 The proposed area for the lease is up to 742m² and situated at Bill Brown Park as highlighted in Figure 1 below.

4.3 The building layout would contain an entry/exhibition area, dining hall, kitchen, bar, ablutions, and storage, as shown in Figure 2 below.

4.4 Kia Toa have considered the surrounding park and community, as evidenced in the submission attached (Attachment 1).

4.5 The proposed term would be ten (10) years, with two rights of renewal for a further ten (10) years - total 30 years.

Figure 1: Proposed lease area at Bill Brown Park

Figure 2: Proposed Kia Toa clubrooms layout

5. FIt with existing facilities

5.1 Officers, including Council’s Senior Urban Designer, have been involved with Kia Toa through the design process and considered the connections with the planned carpark extension, playing fields, the adjacent hardcourt facility, legibility and appearance from Havelock Avenue.

5.2 Kia Toa have engaged with the Pasifika Centre management and Council’s Project Manager for the upgrade and expansion of the Pasifika Centre. The SGL Group’s report to Council in December 2023 noted ‘PPCT and Niuvaka (PPCT’s partner), all agreed that Kia Toa’s adjacent presence was a good fit with the wider community hub, cultural, recreation, education and health positioning of the Pasifika Community Centre’.

5.3 The Pasifika Centre expansion project is well into the design phase. While there may be some synergies with the Kia Toa clubrooms proposal, they are separate and stand-alone projects.

5.4 Officers are satisfied the impacts of the Kia Toa proposal are at worst minor on Councils’ facilities.

6. Assessment of proposal under the support and funding policy

6.1 The Support and Funding Policy provides a framework for how Council will deliver support and funding to groups, organisations, and individuals to achieve the vision of the city. One form of support within the policy is to enable for-purpose groups to occupy Council-owned property at community rental rates.

6.2 All for-purpose groups expressing an interest in occupying Council-owned property, either for a new occupancy or renewal of an existing occupancy, must make an application. The application is then assessed by Council officers to ensure that they first meet the policy’s eligibility criteria before proceeding any further.

6.3 The application from Kia Toa, as part of a wider submission, is attached to the report as Attachment 1.

6.4 Further assessment considerations are outlined in the policy. In broad terms, the assessment covers three main areas:

a. The Policy for the Use of Public Space – guidelines relevant to the application.

b. Reserves Act 1977 – including consideration of the values and purpose of the reserve and the impacts on the public use of the reserve.

c. Impact on the locality and park operations.

6.5 In summary, following the assessment against the Policy, Council officers conclude that the club is providing community recreation benefits; and there is only some very minor impact on the locality and park operations in the area.

7. leasing powers under reserves act

7.1 In addition to the Support and Funding Policy requirements, as the land is a reserve held under the Reserves Act 1977, the leasing provisions also apply.

7.2 Section 54 (1) (b) of the Reserves Act 1977 allows for an administering body to: lease to any voluntary organisation part of the reserve for the erection of stands, pavilions, gymnasiums, and, subject to sections 44 and 45, other buildings and structures associated with and necessary for the use of the reserve for outdoor sports, games, or other recreational activities, … which lease shall be subject to the further provisions set out in Schedule 1 relating to leases of recreation reserves issued pursuant to this paragraph:

provided that a lease granted by the administering body may, with the prior consent of the Minister given on the ground that he or she considers it to be in the public interest, permit the erection of buildings and structures for sports, games, or public recreation not directly associated with outdoor recreation:

7.3 The lease proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Act.

8. land status

8.1 A summary of the land status information is:

Title

Reserve Status

Officer Comment

WN42A/61

Lot 442 DP 44423

Recreation Reserve

Bill Brown Park – Lease proposal is not on this particular parcel/title which is the western portion of the park.

WN13C/712

Lot 1 DP 40097

Recreation reserve

(under current classification process)

Bill Brown Park – lease proposal is on this parcel/title

9. giving effect to the principles of the treaty of waitangi

9.1 The Reserves Act 1977 is subject to Section 4 of the Conservation Act and requires that administering bodies under the Reserves Act 1977 give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

9.2 Rangitāne o Manawatū representatives have considered the proposal and are happy for it to proceed. Rangitāne have indicated a desire to be involved in the entrance space features and plantings.

10. description and analysis of options

Option 1: Notify the public of Council’s intention to support Kia Toa by granting occupancy via a new lease at 21 Havelock Avenue, part of Bill Brown Park.

10.1 Under this option Council would seek community input to inform its decision on the proposed lease. As required by the Reserves Act 1977, Council must give people the opportunity to make submissions and must consider all written and oral submissions before deciding on whether to grant the lease or not.

Option 2: Decline the proposal for the land lease for clubrooms at Bill Brown Park.

10.2 This option would mean that the opportunity to seek community feedback on Kia Toa’s occupancy of the site would not occur.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Support and Funding Policy and the Reserves Act.

11.2 The proposed occupancy will allow the club to build clubrooms at their home grounds, and support provision of recreation activities to the community.

11.3 Public notification on the proposal will provide opportunities for submissions and objections to be made before a decision is made, fulfilling the requirements of the Support and Funding Policy 2022 and Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

11.4 It is recommended the Committee proceed to community consultation.

12. next action

12.1 Publicly notify the proposal to grant the land lease.

12.2 Provide the opportunity for any submitters that wish to be heard to speak to Council.

12.3 Consider the objections and submissions and provide advice to Council on whether to accept, modify or decline the lease proposal.

13. Outline of community engagement process

13.1 The proposed consultation process meets the public notification requirements of the Support and Funding Policy 2022 and the Reserves Act 1977.

13.2 The public consultation will consist of:

· Public notice in the local newspaper

· Online advertisement on the Council website

· A social media post

· Letter drop to neighbours in the nearby vicinity

A billboard onsite

14. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do, they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in Active Communities The actions is: Carry out recreation and reserves planning functions under the Reserves Act 1977 and LGA including the preparation of Reserve Management and Development Plans and Master Plans.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being	The recommendation is in line with Council’s Support and Funding Policy which supports for-purpose groups to occupy, and operate out of, Council-owned property for sporting, and recreational purposes.

Attachments

Application ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Treasury Report - Six months ending 31 December 2024

Presented By: Steve Paterson, Manager - Financial Strategy

APPROVED BY: Cameron McKay, General Manager Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATION TO Strategy & Finance Committee

1. That the Committee note the performance of Council’s treasury activity for the six months ending 31 December 2024.

1. ISSUE

1.1 To provide an update on the Council’s treasury activity for the six months ending 31 December 2024.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council’s Long-term Plan 2024-34 forecast additional debt of $53.3m would need to be raised during the 2024/25 year to fund the $62.4m of new capital expenditure programmes (including assumed carry forwards from 2023/24). On 26 June 2024 Council authorised the Chief Executive to borrow up to an additional $54m for its purposes during 2024/25.

2.2 Council’s Financial Strategy (adopted 26 June 2024) contains the following ratios which the Council has determined to be prudent maxima:

· Net debt as a percentage of total assets not exceeding 20%

· Net debt as a percentage of total revenue not exceeding 250%

· Net interest as a percentage of total revenue not exceeding 15%

· Net interest as a percentage of annual rates income not exceeding 20%

2.3 The Treasury Policy (embracing the Liability Management and Investment Policy), an updated version of which was adopted by the Council on 14 February 2024, also contains a number of other criteria regarding debt management.

3. PERFORMANCE

3.1 Following the annual review published on 7 May 2024 Council’s S&P Global Rating’s credit rating remained unchanged at AA / A-1.

3.2 Schedule 1 attached shows the details of Council’s debt as at 31 December 2024. Debt levels were within the policy parameters outlined in section 2 of this report.

3.3 The summarised term debt movements are shown in the following table:

LTP Budget for year #1 (2024/25)

$000

Actual – 3 months (2024/25)

$000

Actual – 6 months (2024/25)

$000

Debt balance at 1 July 2024:

· Core Council debt

· Debt on behalf of PNAL

Plus new debt #2

Less debt repayments #2

256.1

53.3

267.0

8.0

44.0

(10.8)

267.0

8.0

44.0

(10.8)

Closing gross debt balance

Comprising:

Bank advance (on call)

LGFA stock

309.4

308.2

Less:

Deposits held for debt repayment #3

Sum advanced to PN Airport Ltd

(18.0)

(8.0)

(18.0)

(8.0)

Net Council related term debt

$309.4

$282.2

#1 The Council’s LTP does not currently include the debt related to PNAL.

#2 A portion of the Council’s debt is drawn on a daily basis – daily drawdowns and repayments are not included in these figures but the net draw or repayment for the year to date is shown as part of new debt or debt repayment as appropriate.

#3 To ensure there were sufficient funds on hand to meet outgoings in a period of uncertain cashflows a term loan of $15m was raised in mid-August. As at 31 December $7.6m of this was held on on-call. If this was taken into account, then the net Council related debt was effectively $274.6m as at 31 December.

3.4 Gross debt at 31 December 2024 was $308.2m compared with $275m at 1 July 2024.

3.5 The debt raised in the six months to 31 December 2024 is explained further in the following table:

	Position as at 1 July 2024 $m	Position as at 31 December 2024 $m	Change YTD $m
Gross debt Less portion relating to PNAL	275.0 (8.0)	308.2 (8.0)	33.2 0
Gross debt relating to Council Less term deposit held to repay maturing debt	267.0 (6.0)	300.2 (18.0)	33.2 (12.0)
Net Council related debt	261.0	282.2	21.2

This shows net additional term debt of $33.2m was raised during the six months. This compares with the authorised total sum for the year of $54m mentioned in clause 2.1. $29m was raised on 8 July with $19m of this being to fund debt maturing in April 2025. $18m of this has been placed on term deposit in the meantime.

3.6 A 10-year history of the gross & net debt is shown in the following graph:

3.7 Actual finance costs incurred by the Council depend on the actual debt levels and the interest rate. During the six months gross finance costs (including interest, line fees and the effects of payments relating to swaps) amounted to $7.04m compared with the budget for the year of $14.52m.

3.8 $525k of this expense relates to $19m raised on 8 July 2024 to prefund debt maturing on 15 April 2025. This was offset by unbudgeted interest income of $556k received from the short-term investment of $18m. A further $186k of this expense relates to the $8m of loans raised on behalf of Palmerston North Airport Limited (PNAL) and this was offset by $198k received from PNAL for the advance.

3.9 Deducting interest income from the gross interest expense of $7.04m means a net interest expense for the six months of $6.03m compared with the annual budget of $14.16 m.

3.10 The effective weighted average interest rate for the year to date is 4.6% compared with the budgetary assumption of 5%.

3.11 The Council has entered financial instruments related to its debt portfolio utilising swap trading lines established with Westpac, ANZ and BNZ. The details of these are shown in Schedule 2 attached.

The value of these instruments is measured in terms of its ‘mark-to-market’, i.e. the difference between the value at which the interest rate was fixed and the current market value of the transaction. Each of these transactions was valued at the date they were fixed and again at the reporting date. Financial reporting standards require the movement in values to be recorded through the Council’s Statement of Comprehensive Income (Profit & Loss Account). They have been revalued as at 31 December 2024. The latest valuation is an asset of $1.78m compared with an asset of $9.35m as at 30 June 2024. The reduction in asset value of $7.57m is a consequence of reducing market interest rates.

3.12 The Council’s Treasury Policy contains guidelines regarding the measurement of treasury risk as follows:

· Funding and liquidity risk is managed by the Council maintaining a pre-set portion of its debt in a range of maturity periods, e.g. < 3 years, 3 - 7 years, 7 years +.

· Interest rate risk is managed by the Council maintaining the ratio of debt that is subject to floating versus fixed interest rates within pre-set limits.

3.13 The position compared to the policy is illustrated in the graphs in Schedule 3 attached.

3.14 The funding and liquidity risk position can be summarised as follows:

· Council’s liquid position complies with policy.

· Since 1 July 2024 $44m of term debt has been raised and $4.8m of bank debt and $6m of term debt has been repaid.

3.15 The interest rate risk position describes the portion of the overall forecast debt that is fixed versus floating and can be summarised as follows:

· There is significant uncertainty about forecast levels of future debt – this very much depends on a number of factors including future Council decisions on the proposed capital expenditure programme, the future structure for the provision of three waters and the extent of external funding able to be organised from other arrangements.

· Policy compliance at 31 December 2024 is based on the debt forecasts in the adopted Long-term Plan.

3.16 The Treasury Policy also contains requirements in relation to counterparty credit risk – this relates to investments and financial risk management instruments. A new $20m forward start swap agreement was entered on 12 July fixing interest rates for this sum at 3.695% from 2025 to 2030.

The position as at 31 December 2024 is shown in Schedule 4 attached.

3.17 Council’s credit lines with the banks include a $18m three-year credit facility with Westpac Bank (maturing 31 October 2025) and a revolving $25m three-year facility with ANZ Bank (maturing 31 March 2027).

4. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

4.1 Gross finance costs for the six months to 31 December (including interest, line fees and the effect of swaps) was $7.04m compared with budget for the year of $14.52m. The net finance cost (after considering the interest income from term investments and the advance to Palmerston North Airport Ltd) is $6.03m compared with the budget for the year of $14.16m.

4.2 In conjunction with Council’s treasury advisors hedging instruments are regularly reviewed in an effort to ensure the instruments are being utilised to best advantage as market conditions change. The level of hedging cover is also reviewed as the forecasts of future debt levels are revised.

4.3 Council’s borrowing strategy is continually reviewed, in conjunction with Council’s treasury advisors, to ensure best advantage is taken of Council’s quality credit rating.

4.4 A further performance report will be provided after the March 2025 quarter.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Managing the Council’s treasury activity is a fundamental component of day to day administration of the Council.

Attachments

Schedules 1 to 4 ⇩

Report

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Classification of Council Reserves

PRESENTED BY: Aaron Philips, Activities Manager - Parks

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATIONS TO Council

1. That Council declare all land parcels identified in Attachment 1 column 5 and column 6 to be reserves and classify them (as shown in column 3), pursuant with either Section 14 or 16 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2. That Council apply to the Minister of Conservation to re-classify the three land parcels of Pari Reserve (Lot 3 DP 33102, Sec 5 SO 37111 and Sec 6 SO 37111) from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose: Stormwater Reserve; as identified in Attachment 1 column 7 and pursuant to Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977,

3. That Council note that Council has fulfilled all legal obligations required by Sections 14, 16, 24 and engagement sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977, acting under delegation of the Minister of Conservation.

4. That Council note all four Atawhai Park land parcels (Lot 1 DP 41653; Lot 2 DP 41653; Lot 11 DP 1880; Lot 1 DP 48076) have been removed from the current classifications process, as discussed in section 3 of this report.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	Under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) Council is required to declare all land acquired for the purpose of a reserve, as a reserve under the Act. Council is also required to classify the reserves “To ensure the control, management, development, use, maintenance, and preservation of reserves for their appropriate purposes”. Currently, Council has 113 reserves that are not classified, some of which have also not yet been declared to be a reserve. Council consulted with the community on the proposed reserve classifications and the community views are considered in this report. Council needs to make a final decision on the reserve declarations and classifications.
OPTION 1:	Declare and classify the reserves as described in Attachment I: Reserve Classifications
Community Views	10 submissions in support generally or in support of specific reserve classifications proposed. 4 submissions proposed alternative classifications, suggested that reserves had been missed, or noted that some reserves should not yet be classified. 1 submission related to the future maintenance of future reserves in Matangi (Whiskey Creek) plan change, outside the scope of this process.
Benefits	Aligns with the purpose, use and management of the reserves and enables Council to include all the parks and reserves it administers within a reserve management plan. Includes classifying some of the reserves submitted upon as scenic - taking a stronger focus on protection, which may facilitate faster and more effective growth in both native bush and biodiversity. This option gives certainty to residents on the intended future use of open spaces in their neighbourhood.
Risks	A small risk that the submitters who proposed alternative classifications, are not satisfied as only some of their suggested changes were adopted by Council.
Financial	Minor costs for applications and gazetting.
OPTION 2:	Make further alterations to the proposed classifications based on community feedback.
Community Views	10 submissions in support generally or in support of specific reserve classifications proposed. 4 submissions proposed alternative classifications, suggested that reserves had been missed, or noted that some reserves should not yet be classified. 1 submission related to the future maintenance of future reserves in Matangi (Whiskey Creek) plan change, outside the scope of this process.
Benefits	Includes more of the reserve classifications proposed by submitters in the final list.
Risks	The scenic classification for a reserve does not align with the primary purpose of the reserve, e.g. recreation, stormwater etc limiting activities and/or development in the future.
Financial	This option would come with some additional costs – in order to maintain a scenic classification in the remaining proposed sites, a higher level of pest management etc, would be required.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Under the Reserves Act 1977 (The Act), Council is required to declare all land acquired for the purpose of a park or reserve, as a reserve, under Sections 14 or 16 of the Act.

1.2 Council, when declaring the land as a reserve under the above sections, is also required to classify the reserves from the reserve classification types provided for in the Act. Classification describes a reserve’s purpose and guides how reserve will be managed and what constraints are appropriate.

1.3 Council is commencing the process of developing reserve management plans. Reserves must be declared and/or classified to be included in the reserve management planning process.

1.4 Council has many reserves that are not classified, some of which have also not yet been declared to be a reserve. There are 3 land parcels within Pari Reserve where a change to the classification is proposed to align with the primary purpose of the reserve.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 Council has delegation from the Minister of Conservation to classify reserves, following the consultation process set out in the Act.

2.2 A list of 114 reserves, with proposed classifications, was presented to the Strategy and Finance Committee on 14 August 2024. The list also included a proposal to reclassify one reserve. Council adopted the proposed classifications on 4 September 2024, for public consultation.

2.3 Council consulted with the community on proposed reserve classifications from mid-September to 23 October 2024.

Consultation

2.4 The classification process was notified in the newspaper, and Council’s website and social media. A drop-in session was held at Memorial Park. No- one showed up at the drop-in session specifically to discuss classifications, but three people completed a submission form.

2.5 Submitters were asked three questions in total. They were:

· Do they believe any proposed classifications should be different?

· If so, which ones?

· And, why?

2.6 15 people made a submission on the classifications process. Two others called in to discuss the proposal with officers but did not want to make a submission.

3. Consideration of submissions

3.1 Of the 15 submissions 7 were either in general support or specifically named reserves that they proposed a different classification for – submissions 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

3.2 Submission 5 related to the Matangi (Whiskey Creek) urban growth plan change area – commenting on the future maintenance requirements of future reserves in that area. This submission is out of scope of this reserve classification process.

3.3 Table 3 sets out the other reserve submissions, their points/proposed alternative classifications, and officer’s consideration of those proposals.

Table 1: Consideration of submissions

Reserve Name	Council proposed classification	Submission # and point	Officer response
Atawhai Park	Recreation	Sub. 9 Remove from classification Massey owned land and future growth planning	Part of land commonly understood to be part of Atawhai Park is actually owned by Massey University. An error was made at the time of vesting with Council 1981 and discussed again with Council officers in 2000. It was noted that the University had intended to retain ownership/rights over a narrow walkway section for access to their land. Officers of both Council and Massey agreed this would need to be corrected at some time in the future. Section 3 of this report provides an image and further discussion. Recommendation: Atawhai Park classification be put on hold until the Massey land access is corrected, and potential wider land exchanges and rezoning are understood.
Bledisloe Park	Recreation	Sub. 2 Make Scenic Reserve	On reflection, this reserve sits better with Scenic-B Reserve Classification. The primary purpose for holding the area is a combination of its ecological values, landscape with the Turitea Steam corridor and recreation walkways. Applying Scenic B, rather than Recreation classification, will not mean any significant change to Councils current management and budgeting regimes for the area. Recommendation: Adopt the submitters suggestion and classify Bledisloe Park as Scenic B.
Edwards Pit Park	Recreation	Sub. 2 Make Scenic Reserve	Edwards Pit Park is a combination of open space, restoration plantings and walkways. It sits in a wider hub of sportsfields and courts. It has a mix of values. In the past, the open space portion has been considered for some recreation development, such as open-air event facilities and a training field. Recommendation: On balance, officers recommend retaining the proposed recreation reserve classification is appropriate. Edwards Pit Park will be managed in the Reserve Management process as a special character reserve and the ecological restoration work of the Pit Park People appropriately recognised and protected.
Hokowhitu Lagoon	Recreation	Subs 7 & 8 Agree with Recreation Reserve To retain the ability for canoe polo to be played	Submissions agreed with the proposed recreation classification of recreation to support the canoe polo activities. Recommendation: Recreation classification be approved.
Manga-o-tane Reserve	Local Purpose - Stormwater	Sub 3 None made	Submitter makes comment on the Green Corridors planting impeding water flow. This is an operational matter and the reserves primary purpose is to convey stormwater as it contains a watercourse and ponds serving the Aokautere residential areas. Biodiversity and ecological restoration work needs to be managed within the constraints of the primary purpose, stormwater management. Recommendation: Local Purpose – Stormwater reserve classification be approved.
Massey Walkway		Sub 4 Make Scenic Reserve	Lot 1 DP 385545, labelled Massey Walkway, is a short section of narrow walkway from Springdale Grove connecting to, but not including, Barbers Bush. The adjacent watercourse/stormwater is within the private land, not the walkway parcel. The Recreation Reserve classification purpose includes “recreational tracks in the countryside”. Recommendation: Recreation classification be approved.
McCraes Bush	Recreation	Sub 2 Make Scenic Reserve	On reflection, reserve does sit better with Scenic-B Reserve Classification. The primary purpose for holding the area is a combination of its ecological values, landscape with the terrace landforms and recreation walkways and community orchard. Scenic-B Classification will not cause any significant change to Councils approach to management and budgeting budgetary requirements. Recommendation: Adopt the submitters suggestion and classify McCraes Bush as Scenic B.
Summerhill Reserve	Local Purpose: Stormwater	Sub 2 Make Scenic Reserve	While it includes amenity and ecological plantings and open space, Summerhill Reserve contains waterways feeding from Aokautere catchments. It is important that stormwater management is the primary purpose to allow modifications and management of those systems. The secondary purposes of walkways, amenity and ecological plantings, and open space can be managed well as secondary values. Recommendation: Local Purpose – Stormwater reserve classification be approved.
Te Motu o Poutoa – Anzac Park	Not applicable – not included in this classification process.	Sub 3	Council is classifying this reserve under a separate classification targeted process. This will occur as the planning of development project with Rangitāne o Manawatu is progresses and specific management arrangement are well developed. Recommendation: No classification is recommended under this current process. Te Motu o Poutoa will be classified separately.
Titoki Reserves	Local Purpose: Stormwater	Sub 2 Make Scenic Reserve	Titoki Reserves (upper and lower) contain important waterways that manage stormwater feeding from Aokautere catchments. It is important that stormwater management is the primary purpose to allow modifications and management of those systems. The purposes of walkways, amenity and ecological planting and open space can be managed well as secondary purposes as they have been to up until now. Recommendation: Local Purpose – Stormwater reserve classification be approved.

Atawhai Park and Massey University land

4.1 Atawhai Reserve is made up of 4 land parcels, one of which includes a walkway that the Council obtained from Massey University in a land transaction. The council walkway separates Massey land parcels off Atawhai Road. This was noted as an error shortly after Massey vested the land with Council and in several land ownership discussions over the following decades.

4.2 Officers became aware of the mistake in the classification proposal soon after publication of the public notice and contacted the University.

4.3 Massey University has also indicated the potential sale of land adjacent to Atawhai Park. This might result in rezoning proposals. Council has ongoing land stability issues with some lengths of walkways in the area and any potential rezoning may present opportunities to resolve some of those issues. It would be pertinent to consider all these matters comprehensively at that time

4.4 While this has not been an issue to date, it now needs addressing as Council is proposing reserve classifications and the Massey University pursuing land sales.

4.5 The yellow box in the aerial in figure 1 below shows the location of the land in question.

Figure 1: Atawhai Park context

Figure 2: Massey owned land adjacent to Atawhai Park

5. Description of options

Option 1: Declare and classify the reserves as described in Attachment I: Reserve Classifications

5.1 Under this option there are 113 reserves listed in Attachment I: Reserve Classifications, Declarations and Reclassifications of this report. 112 reserves are proposed for either declaration and classification or classification. One Reserve is proposed for reclassification (Pari Reserve). Attachment I contains one reserve less than the original list that was adopted by Council for consultation on 4 September 2004, being Atawhai Park.

5.2 There are two reserves that are proposed to have the classification changed from the Recreation classification consulted upon, to the Scenic B reserve classification. These are:

· Bledisloe Park (next to Massey University)

· McCraes Bush (in Ashhurst)

5.3 Attachment 1 has been set out as a table with the following information:

· Column 1: Name of reserve

· Column 2: The type of PN City Council reserve it is – why it was taken by Council and for what purpose

· Column 3: The proposed classification – describes the primary purpose of the reserve

· Column 4: Classification status – classified yes or no

· Column 5: Land requires declaration as a reserve to be declared and classified under Section 14 of the Reserves Act

· Column 6: Declaration is not required BUT does require classification to be classified under Section 16 of the Reserves Act

· Column 7: Existing classification is proposed to be changed. Reclassification is proposed under Section 24 of the Reserves Act

· Column 8: The legal description of the land parcel to be declared, and/or classified, or reclassified

· Column 9: A photo and brief description of location of Council parks and reserves listed that may be more unfamiliar to the reader.

5.4 Officers would complete the application to the Minister of Conservation to have the reclassification of Pari Reserve approved.

5.5 The final step would be to have the newly classified, declared and reclassified reserves gazetted.

Option 2: Make further alterations to the classifications based on the consultation results.

5.6 Under this option Council could alter some of the reserve declarations and classifications proposed from those proposed in Option 1.

5.7 Officers would make the appropriate changes to the classifications list in Attachment I and complete the processes.

6. Analysis of options

Option 1: Declare and classify the reserves as described in Attachment I: Reserve Classifications

6.1 Scenic reserve was proposed as a classification by some submitters for some Council reserves.

6.2 There are two types of Scenic Reserve Classification – Scenic Reserve A and Scenic Reserve B.

· Scenic Reserve A is for natural landscapes and includes primary, secondary purposes as outlined in Table 4, which is an excerpt from the 2006 Reserves Act Guide:

Table 2: Reserves Act Guidance for Scenic Reserve A

· Scenic Reserve B is for is for modified landscapes and includes primary, secondary purposes as outlined in Table 5, an excerpt from the 2006 Reserves Act Guide:

Table 3: Reserves Act Guidance for Scenic Reserve B

6.3 A recreation reserve has a primary purpose of recreation and protecting “scenic, historic, archaeological, biological, geological, or other scientific features or indigenous flora or fauna or wildlife … present on the reserve … to the extent compatible with the principal or primary purpose of the reserve” as a secondary purpose.

6.4 Considering submissions, officers recommend that Bledisloe Park and McCrae’s Bush be changed from the recreation classification proposed during consultation to Scenic B classification. The rationale for Scenic B over Scenic A is that:

· Review of other Scenic A (Nature) reserves suggests they it is intended for large landscape or bigger “special” areas, in of the order of a Keebles Bush, for example, where meaningful predator control and other bio-diversity measures can occur due to the wider margins of the site. There is a stronger focus on the level of effort and resource put into exterminating exotic flora.

· McCraes Bush and Bledisloe Park include waterways that are modified to manage flood risk and in the case of McCrae’s Bush includes open space currently grazed and with community orchards on it.

· On evaluation of the proposed reserves for classification as scenic, McCraes Bush and Bledisloe Park most clearly two meet the description and criteria for Scenic B as described in the legislation.

· Council would complete a review of the management of the new Scenic B reserves as part of the reserve management planning.

6.5 Titoki Reserve has a primary stormwater purpose. Council should retain the ability to adapt in these areas for stormwater management work. For example, the Aokautere Plan change included swale and detention pond structures in the gully environments. Hence stormwater reserves are best left classified to their primary purpose.

6.6 Edwards Pit park is a modified landscape that includes a stronger recreation element than might be expected in a Scenic Reserve. The open space has had consideration for an event open space and training field in the past. On balance, officers recommend a recreation classification is most appropriate. The special character and values associated with its quarry history would still be captured in reserve management planning.

Option 2: Make further alterations to the proposed classifications based on community feedback.

6.7 Officers evaluated the classification for each reserve submitted upon, considering the classification definitions within the Act, and the current and future primary purpose of the reserve.

6.8 The proposed scenic classification is not considered the appropriate classification for some reserves, as outlined in Option 1.

6.9 Amending the list to classify one of more of the remaining reserves submitted upon ( Edward’s Pit Park, Summerhill Reserve, Titoki Reserve, Massey Walkway) as scenic, would not align with the primary purpose of the reserve, e.g. recreation, stormwater etc limiting activities and/or development in the future.

6.10 This option is not recommended.

7. Reserve Status

7.1 The options and analysis in this report are focused on decisions on reserve classifications. There was no submission in opposition to declaring land to be reserves.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Council has delegation from the Minister to classify reserves, including determining the classification.

8.2 The community consultation concluded with a relatively low level of community submissions.

8.3 Submitters generally support reserves being declared, and in some proposed alternative classifications.

8.4 Two of the changes proposed by submitters, have been included in the final classifications list. These changes are based on an assessment of alignment with classification definitions in the Act and the primary purpose of the reserve.

9. Next actions

9.1 Apply to the Department of Conservation for the re-classification of Pari Reserve.

9.2 Gazette the reserve declarations and classifications listed in Attachment I.

9.3 Continue discussions with Massey University on Atawhai Park and associated land holdings.

10. Outline of community engagement process

10.1 Council completed the following actions during consultation on classifications:

· public notice issued

· full information on proposal up on PNCC website

· drop-in session held at Memorial Park

· submission forms on website

11. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 2: He tāone whakaihiihi, tapatapahi ana Goal 3: A connected and safe community
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objective/objectives in: 7. Mahere tautāwhi hapori 6. Recreation and Play Plan The objective is: Develop Reserve Management plans to ensure Council reserves are well managed.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Ensures parks are well manged and have reserve management plans adopted.

Attachments

Reserve declaration and classifications ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Speed Limit Reversals

Presented By: Peter Ridge, Senior Policy Analyst and James Miguel, Senior Transport Planner

APPROVED BY: David Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council confirm the following speed limit reversals:

a. Change the speed limit for Tennent Drive, Bypass Road, Tennent On-Lane West Drive, Tennent Off-Lane East Drive, and the lower part of Summerhill Drive from 60km/h to 70km/h as shown in Attachment 2.

b. Change the speed limit for Railway Road from 60km/h to 70km/h and 100km/h as shown in Attachment 3.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Council is required by the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (the Rule) to reverse certain speed limit changes which were made after 1 January 2020.

1.2 Staff have identified that four roads meet the criteria set out in the Rule and need to have their speed limits reversed to their previous speed limits. These roads (shown in Attachment 2 and 3) are:

· Tennent Drive interchange (comprising Bypass Road, Tennent On Lane West Drive, Tennent Off Lane East Drive, and the lower part of Summerhill Drive)

· Tennent Drive (from Fitzherbert Bridge to Prendergast Road)

· Tennent Drive West (for the whole western side of the dual carriageway section)

· Railway Road (from the previous 50/70km/h transition to 150 metres north of the intersection with Roberts Line.

1.3 Other speed limit changes made since 1 January 2020 are not affected by the new Rule.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council last changed speed limits by consulting on the Speed Limits Bylaw in 2020. The Bylaw was adopted on 9 December 2020 and came into effect on 1 April 2021. The speed limits were set under the Speed Limits Rule 2017.

2.2 The Speed Limits Rule 2017 was replaced by the Speed Limits Rule 2022. This introduced a new method for setting speed limits. Instead of setting speed limits via a bylaw, the Rule required road controlling authorities, such as the Council, to develop and consult on a speed management plan. The Council developed its draft Speed Management Plan in 2022/2023. Although a draft was produced and consulted on, the Council suspended further work on the draft Speed Management Plan following the 2023 General Election. No further work on speed limits has been undertaken since 2023. No speed limits were changed under the Speed Limits Rule 2022.

2.3 The Minister of Transport signed a new Rule on 28 September 2024, replacing the Speed Limits Rule 2022. This new Rule modified the process for setting speed limits, removing the requirement for a regional approach to speed management. It also removed the statutory deadlines for introducing lower speed limits around schools. A speed management plan remains the primary method for setting speed limits, but there is no longer a statutory deadline for adopting a speed management plan.

2.4 The new Rule includes transitional provisions that makes mandatory the reversal of speed limit changes for some roads. Table 1 shows the classes of roads where speed limit reversals apply.

Table 1: Speed limit change reversals required by the Speed Limits Rule 2024

Class of street	Conditions	Applies to PNCC?
Local street (residential or neighbourhood streets).	The territorial authority set a permanent speed limit of 30km/h on or after 1 January 2020, and the reason for setting the speed limit was because there was a school in the area.	No - no local streets in Palmerston North were set with a permanent speed limit of 30km/h on or after 1 January 2020.
Urban connector (streets that provide for the movement of people and goods between different parts of urban areas, with low levels of interaction between the adjacent land use and the street).	The territorial authority set a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020, and the previous speed limit is higher.	Yes – these roads are listed in paragraph 1.2 of this memorandum.
Transit corridor (Urban motorways and corridors that provide for movement of people and goods within an urban environment).	The territorial authority set a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020, and the previous speed limit is higher.	No – no transit corridors in Palmerston North were set with a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020.
Interregional connector (Roads that provide for movement of people and goods between regions and strategic centres in a rural context).	The territorial authority set a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020, and the previous speed limit is higher.	No – no interregional connectors in Palmerston North were set with a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020.
Rural connector (Roads that provide a link between rural roads and interregional connectors).	The road controlling authority is the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and set a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020, and the previous speed limit is higher.	No – this only applies to rural connector roads where NZTA is the road controlling authorities.

2.5 Council officers have reviewed all of the roads where a speed limit change was made after 1 January 2020. Attachment 1 includes a table with all these roads listed, alongside the identified classification of these roads and whether a speed limit change reversal is required. Only four roads meet this classification:

· Tennent Drive interchange (comprising Bypass Road, Tennent On-Lane West Drive, Tennent Off-Lane East Drive, and the lower part of Summerhill Drive).

· Tennent Drive (from Fitzherbert Bridge to Prendergast Road)

· Tennent Drive West (for the whole western side of the dual carriageway section)

· Railway Road (from the previous 50/70km/h transition to 150 metres north of the intersection with Roberts Line.

3. Speed Limits Rule – Discussion of the transitional provisions

3.1 The Setting of Speed Limits Rule 11.2 requires the Council to reverse speed limits for specified roads:

The Council has very little discretion with regards to the mandatory reversal of speed limit changes. All the roads shown in attachment one must be identified according to the classification set out in schedule 3 of the Rule. If a road is classified as a “local street”, “urban connector” or “interregional connector” or “transit corridor” then the speed limit for that road must be returned to the speed limit that applied on 31 December 2019.

3.2 The Council must meet specific deadlines with respect of these reversals:

· By 1 March 2025, the Council must notify NZTA of each road which meets these requirements.

· By 1 May 2025, the Council must set in the National Speed Limits Register speed limits for roads classified as “urban connectors” as they were on 31 December 2019.

· By 1 July 2025, the Council must bring into force those reversed speed limits by changing the speed limit signs.

3.3 The only exemption to the mandatory speed limit reversals is “if it would be inappropriate to revert to the previous speed limit due to a significant change in the land use adjacent to the road (for example, where a new residential development has been built) since 31 December 2019.” This exemption does not apply to any of the roads which are classified as “urban connector.”

3.4 The Council does not have the ability to set a different speed limit before the 1 July 2025 reversal date (except to reinstate the previous speed limit). NZTA has confirmed that even if there is demonstrated community support, or if the previous speed limit is unsafe, the Council must still reverse the speed limit. This even applies if the previous speed limit does not comply with the new classification of roads and speed limits in schedule 3 of the Rule.

3.5 As Council does not have the discretion to make a different decision, no analysis of alternative options is included in this memorandum.

4. Discussion of impacts of reversed speed limits

Tennent Drive

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 - map showing the section of Tennent Drive where the speed limit will be reversed

4.1 Traffic entering Tennent Drive from the Fitzherbert Bridge will be travelling at 70km/h. This speed limit will apply for the length of Tennent Drive until Prendergast Road (where the speed limit will change to 80km/h). The 70km/h speed limit will also apply for the Tennent Drive interchange. Once traffic leaves the interchange and enters Summerhill Drive, the speed limit will fall to 60km/h. The speed limit for Summerhill Drive was changed to 60km/h in 2013 so is unaffected by the requirement to reverse speed limits. However, the lower section of Summerhill Drive adjacent to the Tennent Drive interchange was changed in April 2021 and therefore is required to be raised to 70km/h.

4.2 The higher speed limits will likely impact safety around the interchange, and the entrances to Massey University and Food HQ.

4.3 Around the interchange, vehicles travelling from Summerhill Rd to Fitzherbert Bridge will have to vary their speed from 60km/h to 70km/h before slowing down to 50km/h. Meanwhile, vehicles travelling to Summerhill Drive will vary their speed from 50km/h to 70km/h before slowing down to 60km/h. All of this will occur in a stretch of road no more than 600 metres in length.

4.4 Around the entrances to Massey University and Food HQ, the increased speed will increase delays for vehicles exiting these locations as the increased speed will make it more difficult for vehicles to pull out onto Tennent Drive. This will impact safety, as some drivers are more likely to take risks when pulling out onto Tennent Drive.

4.5 The Committee should note that the Tennent Drive reversal will result in the Speed Limit breaching the Rule, which also requires 70km/h speed zones to have a minimum length of 700 metres. Council officers contacted NZTA to notify them of this situation. NZTA advised that the Speed Limits Rule states that if it is impractical for the road to meet this minimum-length requirement, then the road may have a speed limit for a length of road that is shorter than the minimum length.

Railway Road

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 - map showing the section of Railway Road where the speed limit will be reversed

4.6 Traffic travelling towards Bunnythorpe from the roundabout with Airport Drive will be travelling at 70km/h. Prior to reaching the intersection with El Prado Drive, the speed limit will change to 100km/h (extending the existing 100km/h zone by approximately 1km.

4.7 The higher speed limits will likely impact safety around El Prado Drive and Roberts Line, as these roads will now intersect with Railway Road at a significantly different speed.

5. Costs

5.1 The estimated cost of implementation for these speed limit reversals is $8,000-$10,000.

· The changes to Railway Rd will require the replacement of 10 speed limit signs, totalling $2,808.

· The changes to Tennent Drive and the interchange will require the replacement of 18 speed limit signs, totalling $4,212.

· The labour costs for installation are estimated to be around $50-$100 per sign.

5.2 There is no NZTA co-funding for these reversals. All costs associated with the reversals will need to be fully funded by Council. As this Rule was released following the completion of the Council’s Long-Term Plan 2024-34, there is no specific programme to fund any of this work. Funding will likely need to come from the Transport Operational budget.

6. Speed management planning

6.1 In addition to the requirement to reverse some speed limits by 1 July 2025, there is a new requirement to introduce variable speed limits for all schools by 1 July 2026.

6.2 There are other areas of the city where speed limits may need to be reviewed. These include areas where there are known safety concerns, or where development is dependent on changed speed limits.

6.3 Council officers have therefore identified a need to take a planned approach to any speed limit changes that may be required over the next 12-24 months. Taking a planned approach is more cost-effective and efficient than taking an ad-hoc approach to speed limit changes. It will also allow speed limits to be considered as part of the wider roading network, and to be consistent with Council’s strategic direction.

6.4 There is an Elected Member workshop scheduled for 12 March 2025 on speed management planning. This workshop will provide Elected Members with:

· an overview of the new Rule and the changes to the process for setting speed limits. This will include the new requirement to introduce variable speed limits for all schools by 1 July 2026.

· an update on the current state of speed management work (including the previous draft Speed Management Plan).

· an opportunity to discuss a suggested scope of work for a new speed management plan, including a proposed timeline, and to provide feedback on the scope.

7. Next Steps

7.1 Council Officers will notify NZTA by 1 March 2025 of the roads which will have their speed limits reversed and enter the changed speed limits into the National Speed Limits Register by 1 May 2025.

7.2 Council Officers will prepare an implementation plan to ensure that all affected speed limit signs are changed by 1 July 2025.

7.3 Council Officers will prepare communications to advise the community of the changes that are being made, and the reasons for those changes.

7.4 Council Officers will also hold the scheduled workshop with Elected Members in March to begin planning for the next stage of speed limit changes (including the mandatory variable speed limits for schools).

7.5 NZTA is currently consulting on a range of state highway speed limit reversals. A Council submission on state highway speed limit reversals affecting PNCC will be reported to the 5 March Council meeting.

8. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		Yes
The increase of the speed limit on Railway Road and Tennent Drive will likely decrease safety for road users. This is inconsistent with the purpose of the Transport Plan, which includes making sure that the “transport network is integrated with land use planning and is safe for all users”. The inconsistency is caused by the Speed Limits Rule, which was signed by the Minister of Transport. It directs road controlling authorities (RCAs) to reverse these speed limits and does not permit the RCA to take any other action except to reverse the speed limit. There is no intention to amend the Transport Plan to accommodate this inconsistency. Safety for all road users remains a key outcome for the Council. While the Council cannot set a different speed limit for these roads before 1 July 2025 it can follow the Speed Limits Rule to set a new speed limit after it has been reversed. The Council will be receiving information at a workshop on 12 March 2025 about the process for setting speed limits. Following that workshop the Council could decide to return the speed limits to their current setting as a matter of urgency after 1 July 2025, or it could decide to include these roads in a wider project to develop a speed management plan.
The recommendations contribute to: Not applicable.
The recommendations contribute to this plan: Not applicable.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The recommendations do not contribute to the Council’s strategic direction or any of its plans. The recommendations are required to be made as a result of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024, signed by the Minister of Transport. The recommendations are inconsistent with the purpose of the Transport Plan, which includes making sure that the “transport network is integrated with land use planning and is safe for all users”.

Attachments

1.	Table of roads to be considered for speed limit reversals ⇩
2.	Map - Tennent Drive Speed Limit Reversals ⇩
3.	Map - Railway Road Speed Limit Reversals ⇩

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Strategy & Finance Committee

MEETING DATE: 26 February 2025

TITLE: Committee Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION TO Strategy & Finance Committee

1. That the Strategy & Finance Committee receive its Work Schedule dated February 2025.

COMMITTEE WORK SCHEDULE – FEBRUARY 2025
Item No.	Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction
1.	~~26 February 2025~~	Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw – hearings	~~General Manager Strategic Planning~~		13 November 2024 Clause 54-24
2.	~~26 February 2025~~	~~Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification – hearings~~	~~General Manager Strategic Planning~~		14 August 2024 Clause 38-24
3.	~~26 Feb 2025~~ 28 May 2025 20 August 2025	Quarterly Treasury Report	General Manager Corporate Services		Terms of Reference
4.	~~26 February 2025~~ 28 May 2025 20 August 2025	Quarterly Performance Report	General Manager Corporate Services	Q4 report to include any CE variations to roading /active transport and waters budgets (refer to clause 104)	Terms of Reference Council 5 June 2024 Clause 104-24
5.	~~26 February 2025~~	~~Reserves Classifications - deliberations~~	~~General Manager Infrastructure~~		14 August 2024 Clause 41-24
6.	~~26 February 2025~~	~~Annual Review of Delegations Manual~~	~~General Manager Corporate Services~~	Report to be presented to Council in March.	6 September 2023 Clause 147-23
7.	~~26 February 2025~~ 28 May 2025	Public Spaces: policy and bylaw options	General Manager Strategic Planning	Aiming for May to address complexities raised.
8.	~~26 February 2025~~ 20 August 2025	Vegetation Framework to include a Tree Policy focused on Council administered streets and public spaces	General Manager Strategic Planning	Competing demands on planning resources; priority given to growth work, eg. Plan Change I	Committee of Council 9 June 2021 Clause 31.8
9.	~~26 February 2025~~	~~Te Apiti Ashhurst Loop Track - negotiations and Recreation Fund application~~	~~General Manager Infrastructure~~	Negotiations in progress. Report to be presented to 7 May Council meeting to align with 2025-26 Annual Budget (Plan) process.	8 May 2024 Clause 32
10.	~~26 February 2025~~ 28 May 2025	Small vehicle fleet ownership and long-term lease investigation results	General Manager Corporate Services	Communications with potential providers ongoing.	Council 29 Nov 2023 Clause 193.3-23
11.	28 May 2025	Options of designating part of Linklater Park as dog-on-lead,	General Manager Strategic Planning		8 May 2024 Clause 26
12.	~~28 May 2025~~ 20 August 2025	Public Spaces: approval to consult on draft policy and bylaw	General Manager Strategic Planning
13.	~~TBC~~ 28 May 2025	Contact Centre - Breakdown of expenses	General Manager Corporate Services		Council 3 April 2024 Clause 52-24
14.	2026	Delegation Manual - Fees & Charges review	General Manager Corporate Services	Review alongside the Revenue and Financing Policy.	8 May 2024 Clause 24
15.	TBC	Nature Calls - Prospective funding and finance options	General Manager Corporate Services	Awaiting decision of Water Service Delivery options.	Council 10 June 2024 Clause 111-24
16.	TBC	Draft Interim Speed Management Plan	General Manager Strategic Planning	February workshop.	Council 5 April 2023 Clause 46-23

Attachments

NIL

Vaughan Dennison (Chair)
Karen Naylor (Deputy Chair)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Mark Arnott	Lorna Johnson
Brent Barrett	Orphée Mickalad
Lew Findlay (QSM)	William Wood
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Kaydee Zabelin
Leonie Hapeta

Submission No.	Submitter
1	Frances Holdings Ltd
2	Jackie Carr

Submission No.	Submitter
17	New Zealand Precycle
19	Chris Teo-Sherrell
20	Enviro NZ

1.	Submissions on the Roxburgh Crescent Land Classification ⇩
2.	Procedure Sheet ⇩

1.	Submissions on the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw ⇩
2.	Procedure Sheet ⇩

Does the Council have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: All of Council’s Goals.
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of objectives in: (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) The objective is: to enable Council to exercise governance by reviewing financial performance and operating performance and provide accountability for these to the public.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	As above.

1.	31 December 2024 Monthly Dashboard ⇩
2.	Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 December 2024 ⇩
3.	Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 December 2024 - Appendix 1 Performance Measures ⇩
4.	Quarterly Performance and Financial Report - period ending 31 December 2024 - Appendices 2-10 ⇩