image001

 

AGENDA

Ordinary meeting of the

 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

 

Thursday 4 August 2016

Commencing at 9.00am

Council Chamber

Civic House

110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

 

 

Membership: Councillor Eric Davy (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, Councillors Ian Barker, Luke Acland, Ruth Copeland, Matt Lawrey (Deputy Chairperson), Gaile Noonan and Tim Skinner


Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Orders:

·      All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings (SO 2.12.2)

·      At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.

·      Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee (SO 3.14.1)

It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda.  They should withdraw from the room for discussion and voting on any of these items.

 


N-logotype-black-wideWorks and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

Page No.

 

1.       Apologies

1.1       An apology has been received from Councillor Ruth Copeland

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1       Updates to the Interests Register

3.2       Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

4.1       Jill Williams - FishStop

Jill Williams, of FishStop, will speak about the outdoor dining in Alton Street.

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1       23 June 2016                                                            7 - 11

Document number M1952

Recommendation

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 23 June 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.  

6.       Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 4 August 2016                      12 - 15

Document number R6354

Recommendation

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 4 August 2016 (R6354) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

  

7.       Chairperson's Report                                16 - 18

Document number R6353

Recommendation

THAT the Chairperson's Report (R6353) be received.

    

Transport and Roading

8.       80 Scotia Street Road Stopping                19 - 28

Document number R6050

Recommendation

THAT the report 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping (R6050) and its attachments (A1529664, A1532866 and A1538842) be received;

AND THAT a Hearing Panel of the Works and Infrastructure Committee be delegated to hear and consider objections to the proposed Road Stopping at 80 Scotia Street in accordance with the attached Terms of Reference (A1538842);

AND THAT the Chairman of the Works and Infrastructure Committee and Councillors _________ and __________ be appointed to the Hearing Panel, with Councillor_________ as alternate;

AND THAT the area of road to be stopped be subject to final survey but be no greater than 85.87m2 in area.

 

9.       Stoke Urban Design - Progress Transport Projects                                                     29 - 35

Document number R6216

Recommendation

Receive the report Stoke Urban Design - Progress Transport Projects (R6216);

Approve the progression of the following transport projects in 2016/17:

 

·        Implement Putaitai Street right turn;

·        Design of Poormans Stream shared path between Neale Avenue and Main Road Stoke;

·        Remove Strawbridge Square raised planters and close Putaitai Street entrance;

Approve the progression of the following transport projects in 2016/17 from the Stoke Centre Enhancement Account:

·        Design Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I - pedestrian refuge;

·        Implement Bail Street parking optimisation;

·          Concept design of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage II;

Approve construction of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I; 

 Recommendation to Council

 

Approve bringing forward $85,000 from the 2018/19 Stoke Centre Enhancement Fund to enable the construction of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I to take place in 2017/18.

 

Water, Wastewater, Stormwater

10.     Business Cases- Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station  36 - 76

Document number R5986

Recommendation

THAT the report Business Cases- Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station (R5986) and its attachments (Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road A1507720 and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station A1479115) be received;

 

AND THAT the two business cases presented (Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road A1507720 and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station A1479115) be approved to allow works to proceed in 2016/17.

  

Land

11.     40 Frenchay Drive Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply                                      77 - 81

Document number R6073

Recommendation

Receive the report 40 Frenchay Drive Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply (R6073) and its attachment (A1568725).

 

Recommendation to Council

Grant the proposed easement over Lot 31 DP 487620, adjoining the boundary with Lot 29 DP 487620, in favour of land owned by Hammock Hill Family Trust (CFR 703598) pursuant to section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977;

Agree that all costs incurred by Council in this matter will be met by the Hammock Hill Family Trust.

     

·(delete as appropriate)

 

 

  


 

Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday 23 June 2016, commencing at 9.00am

 

Present:               Councillor E Davy (Chairperson), Councillors I Barker, L Acland, R Copeland, M Lawrey (Deputy Chairperson), G Noonan and T Skinner

In Attendance:     Councillors P Matheson and M Ward, Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading (R Palmer), Manager Operations and Asset Management (P Anderson), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and Nelson Youth Councillors (K Phipps and L Wilkes)

Apology:              Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese

 

 

1.       Apologies

Resolved WI/2016/044

THAT an apology be received and accepted from Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese.

Davy/Lawrey                                                                        Carried

 

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chairperson advised that item 10, 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping, was to be withdrawn from the agenda as officers needed to gather further information.

3.       Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4.       Public Forum 

There was no public forum.

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1       10 May 2016

Document number M1876, agenda pages 7 - 14 refer.

Resolved WI/2016/045

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 10 May 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Davy/Lawrey                                                                        Carried

 

6.       Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 23 June 2016

Document number R6061, agenda pages 15 - 19 refer.

In response to a question, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, provided further detail on the Bridge Street upgrade.

Resolved WI/2016/046

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 23 June 2016 (R6061) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

Noonan/Lawrey                                                                    Carried

 

7.       Chairperson's Report     

The Chairperson spoke about two conferences he had recently attended, one regarding the development of a National Disability Strategy; and one regarding transport and infrastructure. The Chairperson urged Council to consider those with disabilities when designing or planning new facilities, roadways and pathways.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 9.06am.

Resolved WI/2016/047

THAT the verbal Chairperson’s Report be received.

Davy/Barker                                                                         Carried

 

Transport and Roading

8.       Roading Maintenance Contract Collaboration - Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council - Business Case

Document number R5518, agenda pages 20 - 33 refer.

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, and Manager Operations and Asset Management, Peter Anderson, presented the report.

In response to questions, Mr Anderson spoke about the cost benefit analysis of options, the proposed alignment of documents with Tasman District Council, and the likely efficiencies from progressing with Option 2. He added that Option 2 was essentially the ‘status quo’ but with improved procedures.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, clarified that Council would still be operating under its Procurement Policy, and the term of contracts would dictate the subsequent review of procedures relating to those contracts.

Resolved WI/2016/048

THAT the report Roading Maintenance Contract Collaboration - Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council - Business Case (R5518) and its attachment (A1521826) be received;

AND THAT Option 2 as detailed in attachment (A1521826) of Report R5518, to explore a combined procurement strategy with the Tasman District Council on urban road maintenance and renewal activities, be approved subject to similar approval by Tasman District Council;

AND THAT if Tasman District Council do not approve Option 2 then Option 1 (Do nothing different – Status Quo) be the approved option.

Lawrey/Noonan                                                                    Carried

 

9.       Road Stopping - Brook Recreation Reserve - Referral to Council

Document number R6043, agenda pages 34 - 36 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report.

Resolved WI/2016/049

THAT the report Road Stopping - Brook Recreation Reserve - Referral to Council (R6043) be received;

AND THAT the Works and Infrastructure Committee refer its delegation regarding road stopping to Council, in respect of the proposal to stop the road reserve at the Brook Recreation Reserve.

Barker/Acland                                                                       Carried

 

10.     Church Street Concept Proposal

Document number R6058, agenda pages 47 - 55 refer. 

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, presented the report along with a PowerPoint presentation (A1569269).

Concern was raised that benefits of the upgrade would go only to those businesses in Church Street. It was also suggested that the upgrade could direct business from the Rutherford Hotel to Church Street instead of other hospitality establishments.

The Committee discussed the design connection through to the Montgomery Carpark. There were mixed views regarding a suggestion to remove several carparks on Church Street.

In response to questions, Mr Palmer advised that the businesses were able to apply for outdoor dining. He added that a new layout could be trialled earlier than planned if road marking and adequate barriers were put in place. Mr Palmer said due to there being no change in the one-way operation of Church Street, wider consultation regarding the project was not formally required.

Resolved WI/2016/050

THAT the report Church Street Concept Proposal (R6058) and its attachments (A1473241 and A1473250) be received;

AND THAT $75,000 be allocated from provision in the 2016/17 CBD Enhancement budget to engage with stakeholders and develop a design for the upgrade of Church Street in the 2016/17 financial year;

AND THAT the developed design be brought back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee for approval prior to construction;

AND THAT construction be prioritised in future Annual/Long Term Plans.

Acland/Noonan                                                                     Carried

 

Attachments

1    A1569269 - Church Street Concept Proposal

         

 

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 10.06am.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                         Chairperson                                    Date

             

 


 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

REPORT R6354

Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 4 August 2016

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To provide an update on the status of actions requested and pending.

 

2.       Recommendation

THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 4 August 2016 (R6354) and its attachment (A1150321) be received.

 

 

Shailey Burgess

Administration Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1150321 - Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee  

   



 


 

 


 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

REPORT R6353

Chairperson's Report

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To update the Committee on various matters.

 

2.       Recommendation

THAT the Chairperson's Report (R6353) be received.

 

 

 

3.       Discussion

3.1       This is the final meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee for this term of council. I would like to take this opportunity to make the following comments.

3.2       I would in the first instance like to extend a thank-you to all the members of the committee for your work ethic and contribution to the volume of work conducted. We have got through a lot. 

3.3       I would also like to thank the staff and acknowledge their professionalism and dedication to providing expert advice that has enabled complete and quality decisions to be made.

3.4       Council’s successes have been many and have all contributed to making Nelson an Even Better Place. 

3.5       Some of the projects completed through this term of council include:

- Numerous remedial works following the December 2011 and April 2013 extreme storm events, including the Cable Bay Road rebuild.

- Council’s re-sealing programme. Downer received a national award for this project.

- Traffinz award for our schools’ cycling programs.

- St Vincent to Gloucester walk/cycle award.

- Corder Park major sewerage upgrade.

- Arapiki sewer upgrade.

- Ngawhatu sewer upgrade. This had been a project deferred by previous councils that we made a commitment to get completed.

- Saxton Creek. Contract awarded; gravel trap and stage 1 completed.

- Maitai walkway between Akersten Street and Trafalgar Street.

- Waimea Road/Motueka signalised intersection.

- 40kph school speed limits.

- Matai Pipeline duplication between dam and the water treatment plant.

- Nayland Road water main renewal.

- Storm repair work at Saxton Field.

- York Stream upgrade.

- Arrow Street stormwater upgrade

- Earthquake strengthening at various council owned facilities

- Installation and commissioning of the fifth train at the water treatment plant

- The Suter re-development (due for completion in October this year)

3.6       Projects currently underway (or about to commence) on site:

- Todds Bush footpath and stormwater upgrade. 

- Maitai Pipeline duplication between the water treatment plant and the city.

- Hampden Little Go stream stormwater upgrade.

- Isel House earthquake strengthening.

- Trafalgar Centre strengthening  and upgrade – due to be fully re-opened later this year. 

- Cycleway between Gloucester Street and Haven Road.

3.7       Future projects approved and work advanced:

- Days Track reinstatement.

- Fiddle Lane improvements.

- Neale Park sewer pump station upgrade. 

- Refinery earthquake strengthening.

- Stoke Community and Sports Facility including Greenmeadows stormwater upgrade.

3.8       Work is also well underway in renewing the City’s Maitai and Roding water resource consents.

3.9       It was gratifying for the contractors and this council to receive national awards in relation to 3 contracts which reinforces the quality of the projects undertaken.

3.10     Many more projects have been completed.  The work isn’t necessarily pretty but it ensures the whole community’s health and safety. 

3.11     Also, Nelson’s continuing growth has to be factored in, to ensure we have the infrastructure in place to meet its ever increasing demands.

3.12     There is still much to be undertaken with essential infrastructure for this community.

 

Eric Davy

Chairperson

Attachments

Nil  


 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

REPORT R6050

80 Scotia Street Road Stopping

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To decide whether to proceed the Stopping of the Road at 80 Scotia Street to a Council Hearing and/or to the Environment Court.

2.       Delegations

2.1       The Works and Infrastructure Committee has delegated authority to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the operation of roads conferred on Council by relevant legislation. The Committee has the power to hear and consider applications for road stopping.

 

3.       Recommendation

THAT the report 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping (R6050) and its attachments (A1529664, A1532866 and A1538842) be received;

AND THAT a Hearing Panel of the Works and Infrastructure Committee be delegated to hear and consider objections to the proposed Road Stopping at 80 Scotia Street in accordance with the attached Terms of Reference (A1538842);

AND THAT the Chairman of the Works and Infrastructure Committee and Councillors _________ and __________ be appointed to the Hearing Panel, with Councillor_________ as alternate;

AND THAT the area of road to be stopped be subject to final survey but be no greater than 85.87m2 in area.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       In 2013 Council was approached by the owner of 80 Scotia Street to sell part of the road reserve on Scotia Street, shown on Attachment 1, to provide access to a rear section to enable the building of a residence.

4.2       At a Council meeting in May 2013 it was resolved:

THAT the Chief Executive be delegated the authority to proceed with the road stopping of 85.87m2 of unformed legal road adjoining the eastern boundary 80 Scotia Street (Lot 35 DP2049), and to sell that land to the adjoining owners as an amalgamated title, subject to the outcome of the public consultation required under the Local Government Act 1974, and the owners paying:

- an initial administration fee of $600 plus GST;

- the value of the land as assessed by a registered valuer;

- all costs associated with the legal road stopping which may include valuation costs, legal costs, survey costs, Land Information New Zealand costs, public notification costs, hearing costs and /or consultants, Environment Court hearing costs and administration costs in excess of the $600 deposit referred to above.

4.3       Resource Consent RM 135288 was issued in December 2013 for the residence subject to the road stopping and purchase of the land fronting Scotia Street from Nelson City Council.

5.       Discussion

Objections

5.1       Council initiated the road stopping procedure in 2014, through public notification, and seven objections were received.

5.2       Officers have contacted the objectors to understand their concerns, and to explore any options for resolutions.

5.3       One objection has been withdrawn, and as at 26 May 2016 three objectors have confirmed they wish to continue with their objection and three have not responded.

5.4       If the objections are withdrawn prior to the hearing then Council would not hold a hearing and would declare the road stopping to the Chief Surveyor and via a public notice in accordance with Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974.

5.5       The objections and officer comments are detailed in Attachment 2. The main issue of concern raised by the objectors is based on the location of the proposed driveway on the corner which they consider is already dangerous, particularly due to visibility and lack of footpath.

5.6       Under Schedule 10, Section 5 of the Local Government Act 1974, if the objections cannot be resolved, the objections and plans must be sent to the Environment Court for resolution.

Road Safety Review

5.7       Crash History: There have been no recorded crashes on this corner in the last 5 years.

5.8       Visibility: The Nelson City Council Land Development Manual requires domestic driveways to have 45m sight visibility. This can be achieved in all directions; however, as an added precaution the vegetation will be cut back along the bank alongside No 53 to improve the visibility around the corner for all road users.

5.9       Vehicle speeds: The curvilinear approaches along Scotia Street to this location result in local drivers understanding the road conditions. A recent speed survey indicated the majority (85%) of drivers use this area at speeds below 46kph.

5.10     Lack of footpaths: This section of road is currently included in the new footpaths prioritised programme for a single footpath on the western side. However due to the high cost involved to construct the required retaining walls and the relatively low pedestrian use it is not expected funds will be allocated to this project within the next 10 years.

The design of the road reserve adjacent to the area to be stopped does however include the applicant providing a 1.5m bench for Council to build a footpath at a future date without the need for costly retaining structures by the ratepayer.

5.11     Pedestrian Safety: Whilst there have been no recorded crashes involving pedestrians in this area in the last 5 years, it is accepted it is not a pedestrian “friendly” environment and that pedestrian levels of service are low which can be expected to deter use by pedestrians of all ages. The road is approximately 5.8m wide with banks and vegetation along the carriageway edges. Officers will assess the addition of this section of road to the Homezone project list, which is prioritised as part of the Minor Improvement budget.

6.       Options

6.1       Under the Local Government Act there are 4 options to handle objections to a Road Stopping as shown in the following table:

 

Option

Action

Effect

1

Consider objections without holding a hearing. Uphold any or all of the objections.

Road Stopping process halted and applicant advised.

2

Consider objections without holding a hearing. Reject all of the objections.

Road Stopping process continued and application referred to the Environment Court.

3

Hold a Hearing to further consider objections. Uphold any or all objections

Road Stopping process halted and applicant advised.

4

Hold a Hearing to further consider objections. Reject all objections

Road Stopping process continued and application referred to the Environment Court.

6.2       Whilst the Local Government Act does not expressly require a hearing of objections to be held, it is good practice to provide objectors an opportunity to be heard and Council procedures include that step.

6.3       If this is the option chosen then Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Hearing Panel is required and a draft TOR is shown in Attachment 3.

6.4       If a Hearing Panel is established, it is proposed to schedule a hearing, and a separate deliberations and decision-making meeting, in the second half of August/early September 2016.

6.5       Officers consider the safety of the corner and the proposed driveway is within design standards, however, can understand adjacent residents’ concerns regarding the safety of the pedestrians. Officers do not consider the additional driveway will make the existing safety issues for pedestrians worse around that bend as driveway users will have clear visibility of pedestrians on the corner.

6.6       The applicant wishes to proceed and has accepted that all costs incurred in proceeding to a Council Hearing or Environment Court would be paid by them.

7.       Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1       The recommendations in this report align with the Community Outcomes in the LTP – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs.”

7.2       The recommendations in this report are not inconsistent with the objectives in the Regional Land Transport Plan.

8.       Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1       Any decision to stop this section of road reserve is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

 

 

9.       Consultation

9.1       This Road Stopping was advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1974, Section 342, Schedule 10.

9.2       No further consultation or advertisement is proposed beyond liaising with the current objectors and consideration of holding a hearing of objectors.

10.     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1     No specific consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

11.     Conclusion

11.1     Officers recommend that the Works and Infrastructure Committee delegate the matter of hearing and deliberating of objections to the Road Stopping of 80 Scotia Street to a Hearing Panel.

 

Rhys Palmer

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1:    Plan of Road Stopping 80 Scotia Street - A1529664  

Attachment 2:    80 Scotia St, Road Stopping, Table of Objections - A1532866  

Attachment 3:    Terms of Reference - A1538842  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   



 



 


 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

REPORT R6216

Stoke Urban Design - Progress Transport Projects

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve selected short term transport opportunities in Stoke as identified through the development of the draft urban design strategy.

2.       Delegations

2.1       The Works and Infrastructure Committee has delegated authority to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the operation of roads and carparks.

 

3.       Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee

Receive the report Stoke Urban Design - Progress Transport Projects (R6216);

Approve the progression of the following transport projects in 2016/17:

·    Implement Putaitai Street right turn;

·    Design of Poormans Stream shared path between Neale Avenue and Main Road Stoke;

·    Remove Strawbridge Square raised planters and close Putaitai Street entrance;

Approve the progression of the following transport projects in 2016/17 from the Stoke Centre Enhancement Account:

·    Design Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I - pedestrian refuge;

·    Implement Bail Street parking optimisation;

·      Concept design of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage II;

Approve construction of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I; 

 

It is recommended that Council

 

Approve bringing forward $85,000 from the 2018/19 Stoke Centre Enhancement Fund to enable the construction of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I to take place in 2017/18.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       To guide the future growth and development of Stoke, a community endorsed strategy for the Stoke Centre and surrounding area is being developed, led by consultant John Tocker of Jerram Tocker Barron. The Stoke Urban Design Strategy will consider urban design planning and development for Stoke as well as recommendations for the Nelson Plan review and transport planning which both require an urban design perspective.

4.2       Council has already signalled investment into Stoke redevelopment through the Long Term Plan 2015-25. Projects include the Greenmeadows Community Facility, a Youth Park, Library upgrade and transport projects including developing the Poorman’s Stream walkway, Putaitai Street right turn, footpath improvements (city wide), a bus interchange and a local bus service.

4.3       This report deals with the projects that can be progressed in 2016/17 from existing budgets.

5.       Discussion

5.1       The 2014 Nelson City Council community engagement process ‘Spotlight on Stoke’ identified the need for a multi-use community centre, the desire for an enhanced retail and leisure environment, development of appropriate facilities for youth, additional cycle and walkway links, better utilisation of parks, and better traffic management and parking provision.

5.2       This report outlines the short term transport initiatives that can proceed as a first stage of works that will be consistent with the proposed broader draft strategy that is under development.

          Transport Issues

5.3       The summary of the significant transport issues are listed below: 

          Main Road Stoke Songer Street Intersection

5.4       The Main Road Stoke Songer Street intersection is at full capacity in peak hours due to high right turn demand from Songer Street West onto Main Road Stoke.

5.5       High delays for pedestrians crossing due to long traffic signal cycle times.

5.6       Poor crash record.

          Strawbridge Square

5.6       The no right turn from Putaitai Street onto Main Road Stoke causes a rat run through Strawbridge Square from the Countdown carpark. This creates a cross road situation in Putaitai Street increasing the pedestrian crash risk both on the Putaitai Street footpath and in Strawbridge Square.  There has also been documented near misses from the interaction between the angle car park manoeuvres on Putaitai Street with those travelling straight through into Strawbridge Square.

5.7       There are no convenient or protected pedestrian routes in either direction across the car park.

5.8       The Songer Street access point to Strawbridge Square experiences high levels of congestion and risk taking by turning vehicles during peak times.

5.9       The high sided concrete tree barriers lead to scraping of vehicles and the narrowness of the aisles can make manoeuvring in some locations difficult.

          Road Severance

5.10     The high traffic volumes on Main Road Stoke and Songer Street results in severance for pedestrians and people on bikes and is compounded by the wide crossing distance.

          Way-Finding

5.11     The road network and location of Strawbridge Square has poor legibility for those unfamiliar with the area.

          Parking

5.12     The P180 time limit in Strawbridge Square combined with a low level of enforcement discourages turnover and encourages 3-4 hour or longer ‘long stay’ by workers.

          Cycle Connections

5.13     The popular Railway Reserve through the centre of Stoke has no direct connectivity to the Stoke CBD for people on bicycles.

5.14     There is a lack of quality east west cycle connection between the Coastal Route, the Railway Reserve and Marsden Valley.

6.       Budget

          Transport Forward Works programme

6.1       The projects in the following table have allocated budget in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and are recommended to proceed as planned:

 

Project

Budget

Implement Putaitai Right Turn onto Main Road Stoke

$41,000 - 2016/17

Poormans Stream shared path – (Neale Avenue to Main Road Stoke)

$41,044 - 2016/17 $136,915 - 2017/18

Strawbridge Square - Remove raised concrete barriers around trees and close Putaitai entrance

$45,000 - 2015/16 $15,392 - 2016/17

          Projects to be funded from Stoke CBD Enhancement Budget in the short term.

6.2       There is a budget line of $715,231 in the LTP starting 2016/17 with $51,305.  There is no budget in 2017/18 with the remainder spread over 2018/19 and 2019/20.

6.3       The following projects are recommended to proceed in 2016/17 under the Stoke Centre Enhancement Budget of $51,305.

 

Project

Budget

Detailed design of Main Road Stoke traffic calming Stage I - pedestrian central refuge to link proposed civic space with commercial centre.

$15,000 – 2016/17

Implement Bail Street (short term) car park optimisation.

$20,000 – 2016/17

Concept design of Main Road Stoke traffic calming Stage II – Reduced Speed Zone and associated features to reinforce slow zone around Stoke Centre - Create a village feel so that Stoke can be anchored from a civic and commercial perspective.

$16,305 – 2016/17

6.4       The construction of Main Road Stoke traffic calming Stage I should coincide with the opening of the Greenmeadows Community and Sports Facility and $85,000 funding for the construction is recommended to be brought forward from the 2018/19 Stoke Centre Enhancement budget to enable this.

6.5       There is considerably more expenditure recommended in the table below than allocated within the Stoke Centre Enhancement budget.  It is envisaged that these projects will be consulted on and considered for funding in the upcoming 2017/18 Annual Plan and 2018-28 LTP.

 

Project

Priority

Rough order Cost

Strawbridge Square Upgrade including;

Pedestrian paths longitudinally and laterally.

Access improvements.

1

$710,000

Implementation of Main Road Stoke traffic calming Stage II – Reduced Speed Zone and associated features to reinforce slow zone around Stoke Centre - Create a village feel so that Stoke can be anchored from a civic and commercial perspective.

2

Not scoped

Street furniture - coordinated with elements proposed in the Stoke Community Centre throughout the Stoke Centre.

3

$150,000

Wayfinding/Signs - Provide creative wayfinding for the activities close to and within the CBD.

4

$50,000

Railway Reserve cycleway connection to south side of Stoke Centre.

4

$150,000

7.       Options

7.1       There are a number of projects in the strategy for Council to consider as outlined in this report. As the recommendations in the draft strategy span multiple areas of Council involvement, these need to be considered both as a whole and as individual projects or outcomes.

7.2       Council has signalled funding $715,231 for Stoke Centre enhancements and considerable investment as detailed in section 6 for associated transport activities within the LTP.

7.3       Council can decide to proceed with some, all or none of the projects but need to give consideration to the overall outcome for Stoke in making these decisions.

8.       Alignment with relevant Council policy

8.1       Much of the planned transport work for the Stoke redevelopment has been informed by the 2015-25 LTP.

8.2       The activities recommended align with Nelson 2060 Goal Seven: Our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson.

9.       Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

9.1       This decision is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

10.     Consultation

10.1     An initial staff workshop and Stoke Redevelopment Working Party visit to Stoke were held to provide direction to consultants for the development of the Strategy. Following on from this, two public consultation meetings were held in September 2014, attended by 90 members of the public, to gather input into possible development options.

10.2     A Council workshop was held on 20 October 2015 to discuss potential planning and projects in Stoke and present draft proposed actions. A subsequent meeting of the Stoke Redevelopment Working Party held on 9 November 2015 discussed options to be progressed.

10.3     Further consultation will take place on individual projects as these are delivered, for example the accesses impacted by the recommended changes to the Bail Street parking area.

11.     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

11.1     Maori have not been specifically consulted in terms of this report.

12.     Conclusion

12.1     Council has already committed to a number of projects to enhance Stoke. There are a number of additional transport focussed projects for Council to consider in the short term.

 

 

Rhys Palmer

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Nil

 


 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

REPORT R5986

Business Cases- Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve business cases for two capital projects scheduled for the 2016/17 financial year and confirm them as the basis for work to proceed.

2.       Delegations

2.1       The Works and Infrastructure Committee is responsible for the provision, operation and maintenance of water, wastewater and stormwater and these two projects fall within this area of responsibility.

 

3.       Recommendation

THAT the report Business Cases- Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station (R5986) and its attachments (Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road A1507720 and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station A1479115) be received;

AND THAT the two business cases presented (Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road A1507720 and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station A1479115) be approved to allow works to proceed in 2016/17.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       The 2015-25 Long Term Plan and Asset Management Plans identified two projects that require significant capital expenditure by Council: Tahuna Slope Risk Area Stormwater ($1.8M 2015/16-2020/21) and Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station ($5.1M 2016/17-2020/21).

4.2       Council has adopted a business case approach to new capital expenditure and projects of this size require ratification by the Committee.

5.       Discussion

Tahunanui Hillside (Slope Risk Area) Stormwater

5.1       The Tahunanui Hillside Slope Risk Area is a section of the Tahunanui Hillside stretching from The Cliffs to Paddy’s Knob. The area has been extensively developed with 212 residential properties established on the hillside. The area suffers periodic damage from storm initiated surface damage as well as long term creep of the hillside.

5.2       The presence of ground water in such areas can lead to increased rates of ground movement from water lubricating the slip zone and adding weight to the soil mass.

5.3       It is critical that adequate provision is made for stormwater control on the hillside and that Council’s water based utilities are not found to be responsible for land movement.

5.4       Work in 2015/16 included:

·    Nelmac investigating the integrity of water based utilities that could be easily inspected and identifying 110 properties that discharged some or all stormwater to the ground rather than direct to the Council stormwater reticulation.

·    Tonkin and Taylor Ltd developing a comprehensive plan of the slope risk area and advising Council on areas of geotechnical concern and options available to Council to address stormwater control in particular.

5.5       Work in 2016/17 is expected to include detailed design of works for Councils networks and discussions with Council’s legal advisers, property owners and the Insurance Council about the merits of upgrading existing private drains and connecting all properties to the Council stormwater network.

5.6       Upgrading private stormwater drainage could generally cost $5,000 - $15,000 per property depending upon the issues identified and the proximity of Councils network to the buildings. It would be possible to reduce this amount by approximately 20% if common design solutions were employed and all property owners engaged a common contractor directly. The cost of repairs to private water and wastewater pipes are difficult to estimate and could range from nothing for newer houses to $1,000- $5,000 depending upon the nature of the repairs required.

5.7       The business case (Refer Attachment 1) sets out the background to the project and the broad options available to Council.

5.8       Pending legal advice on Council’s statutory obligations relating to enforcement of upgrading of private services within the slope risk area the option that is recommended going forward is Option 2: “Investigate all sources of un-controlled water in the SRO and prioritise the upgrade/repair /renewal of public stormwater, wastewater and water networks as issues are identified. Prioritisation based on geotechnical advice. Public education campaign encouraging property owners to repair private reticulation and connect stormwater to Council main where necessary.”

Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station

5.9       Two sewer pump stations in Parkers Road handle wastewater from the Annesbrook /Tahunanui areas.

5.10     Parkers No1 was constructed in 1951 and Parkers No2 in 1982 - both are poorly located and reaching the end of their service lives (both will need full renewal in the next 5-10 years).

5.11     Council has purchased a site from Nelson Airport to construct a single new pump station at the end of Awatea Place to replace both of the Parkers Road pump stations.

5.12     Construction of a new pump station in this location allows Council to address the concerns of residents who live adjacent the current pump stations and improve the storage available in the network to guard against overflows.

5.13     The business case (Refer Attachment 2) sets out the background to the project and the broad options available to Council.

5.14     The option that is recommended going forward is Option 3: “Rationalise existing pump stations with the construction of a new pump station.”

6.       Options

6.1       Council has two options available to it:

6.2       Option 1 is to confirm that the business cases presented are appropriate and the projects can proceed.

6.3       Option 2 is to amend the business cases and proceed with the projects on the basis of the amendments.

7.       Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1       The two projects were approved by Council in the Long Term Plan 2015-25. Budgets for both projects remain as detailed in that plan.

7.2       The improvement of ground water control on the Tahuna Slope Risk Area should improve the sustainability and stability of the properties on the hillside.

7.3       The construction of the Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station allows the reticulated wastewater network to function in this area and ensures that the infrastructure that services the residential and commercial activities will remain sustainable.

8.       Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1       The decision is not significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9.       Consultation

9.1       The community has been consulted with respect to both projects through the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

10.     Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1     Māori have been included in the decision making process through the Long Term Plan 2015-25 public submission process.

10.2     Iwi have been involved in the Tahunanui Hills Stormwater- Moana Avenue to Rocks Road project through the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment to support the resource consent application for work in the slope risk area.

10.3     The detailed design of the Awatea Wastewater Pump Station will likewise require the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment by iwi given its location adjacent Maire Stream and the coast.  

11.     Conclusion

11.1     Business cases for both projects have been prepared and set out the background of the issues and the options available for each project.

11.2     It is recommended that the business cases be approved.

 

Phil Ruffell

Senior Asset Engineer - Utilities

Attachments

Attachment 1:    Business Case Tahunanui Hillside Stormwater-Moana Avenue to Rocks Road  A1507720  

Attachment 2:    Business Case Awatea Place Wastewater Pump Station  A1479115  

   



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


 

Works and Infrastructure Committee

4 August 2016

 

 

REPORT R6073

40 Frenchay Drive Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve an easement for electrical purposes over a Council owned local purpose (road) reserve at 40 Frenchay Drive.

2.       Summary

2.1       The owner of land near 40 Frenchay Drive (the Hammock Hill Family Trust) has applied to lay an electricity cable through the reserve to supply power to a house site on its property which is located on top of a ridge some 700 metres to the south of the reserve.  Currently the property is operating off grid.

2.2       The owner is building a new home and wishes to have a secure power supply.  The terrain on the property is particularly difficult, being very steep in places and the property is also subject to a landscape overlay.  For these reasons the preferred option is to bring the supply through the road reserve onto adjoining land owned by Bayview Subdivisions Ltd and from there, up a valley to the house site.

2.3       An easement is required to protect the owner’s and Council interests.

 

3.       Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee

Receive the report 40 Frenchay Drive Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply (R6073) and its attachment (A1568725).

It is recommended that Council

Grant the proposed easement over Lot 31 DP 487620, adjoining the boundary with Lot 29 DP 487620, in favour of land owned by Hammock Hill Family Trust (CFR 703598) pursuant to section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977;

Agree that all costs incurred by Council in this matter will be met by the Hammock Hill Family Trust.

 

4.       Discussion

4.1       The Hammock Hill Family Trust (“the Trust”) has investigated several possible routes for a power supply to the property.  The best and least intrusive option has been determined as an underground cable through the road reserve, to other privately owned land, from where overhead lines will take it through to the Trust’s property, and from there to the house site (see Attachment 1 for aerial photo). 

4.2       The road reserve has recently vested in Council.  Its purpose is to provide a possible future link to any subdivision of the adjoining Bay View land, although a road may never be formed in this location. There are existing services within the road reserve and the land will not be detrimentally affected by the laying of a power cable.

4.3       Council’s interests will be protected in that the easement must avoid all existing services and the Trust will be required to relocate the easement at its cost should the Council require this to be done in the future. The Trust will meet all costs incurred by Council.

          Legislation

4.4       As the electricity cable will be located on Council owned reserve land, an easement is required to formalise this occupation of land.

4.5       The Reserves Act 1977 confers on Council the ability to grant an easement if it is for one of the specified purposes in section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977. Council, as the administering body, may grant an easement for the purpose of an electrical installation or work. For this reason a formal Council resolution for the electricity easement is required.

4.6       Where the reserve is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected then public notice under the Reserves Act 1977 is not required.

5.       Options

5.1       The options are either to grant the easement (preferred option) or to not grant the easement.

5.2       Granting the easement will enable a more secure power supply to be provided to a property currently off grid and will have no impact on Council’s use of the road reserve.

5.3       Not granting the easement would mean the Trust would need to pursue other options at considerably increased cost and could involve powerlines and poles being located more prominently within a landscape overlay area.

a

 

Option 1: Grant the easement

Advantages

·   Compliance with Council’s landscape overlay requirements, less cost to the Trust and no costs incurred by Council,

Risks and Disadvantages

·   None

Option 2: Do not grant the easement

Advantages

·    None

Risks and Disadvantages

·    An alternative route may involve more impact on the landscape.

 

6.       Conclusion

6.1       Approval of an easement for right to convey electricity across Lot 31 DP 487620 along the boundary with Lot 29 DP 487620 (as shown on the attached plan) in favour of land in CFR 703598 owned by the Hammock Hill Family Trust. 

 

Nikki Harrison

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1578043 - 40 Frenchay Drive - aerial plan  

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Fits with the purpose of Local Government by providing good quality local infrastructure.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Electricity infrastructure is essential to the economic (and social) wellbeing of the Nelson community.

The costs of securing the easement will be met by the Hammock Hill Family Trust.

The recommendation also fits with Goal Seven – our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson.

3.   Risk

Very likely the granting of the easement will achieve the goal it is aimed at achieving. Low risk of adverse consequences.

4.   Financial impact

The costs of the easement will be met by the Hammock Hill Family Trust.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because it does not materially affect or impact the public or Council’s use of the road reserve.  No consultation is required under section 48(2) of the Reserves Act because this easement proposal meets the criteria of sections 48(3)(a) and 48(3)(b) of the Reserves Act:

•      Section 48(3)(a) the reserve is vested in an administering body and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and

•      Section 48(3)(b) the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has taken place.

7.   Delegations

The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for considering matters relating to the provision, operation and maintenance of roads and any matters relating to the management thereof. However under the Reserves Act 1977 this is a decision for full Council.