AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Works and Infrastructure Committee
Thursday 28 June 2018
Commencing at 9.00a.m.
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Stuart Walker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, Councillors Luke Acland, Paul Matheson, Matt Lawrey, Gaile Noonan, Tim Skinner and Mike Rutledge (Deputy Chairperson)
Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Order 12.1:
· All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings
· 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
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.
Works and Infrastructure
Committee
28 June 2018
1. Apologies
1.1 An apology has been received from Her Worship R Reese
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Stella Chrysostomou, Church Street Committee, in support of the Church Street Project
4.2 Aaryn Barlow, Health Promoter, Nelson Marlborough Health, in support of Tahunanui Cycle Network Project
Document number M3499
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 22 May 2018, as a true and correct record.
6. Chairperson's Report 14 - 17
Document number R9417
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the Chairperson's Report (R9417).
7. Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 18 - 75
Document number R8965
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (R8965) and its attachments (A1831374, A1987259 and A1987256); and
Approves the Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) and the draft Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) for the purposes of community consultation subject to an equivalent resolution being passed by the Tasman District Council; and
Delegates authority to approve any minor changes to the draft Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) and Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) to the Chair (Councillor Kit Maling – Tasman District Council) and Deputy Chair (Councillor Stuart Walker – Nelson City Council) of the Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Working Party.
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) and the Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) that will allow the Special Consultative Procedure to commence.
8. Recycling - Effect of International Markets 76 - 84
Document number R9280
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Recycling - Effect of International Markets (R9280); and
Agrees to continue with recycling in Nelson recognising the strong commitment from Nelsonians; and
Agrees to accept the costs resulting from the global drop in commodity prices, for the 2018/19 financial year at an estimated cost of between $88,500 and $94,500, funded from current reserves in the Solid Waste account; and
Requests a further follow-up report to a future Works and Infrastructure Committee in early 2019 advising of the longer term future of recycling.
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the funding resulting from the global drop in commodity prices for the 2018/19 financial year at an estimated cost of between $88,500 and $94,500, funded from current reserves in the Solid Waste account.
9. Tahunanui Cycle Network - Preferred Option 85 - 119
Document number R8979
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report R8979 Tahunanui Cycle Network - Preferred Option , and its attachments (A1948256, and A1979013); and
Approves as the top priority for progression to targeted consultation, detailed design and construction Option 1: Route 1 – Annesbrook Roundabout to Beach Road as detailed in Report R8979; and
Recommends the package of work as identified in Attachment 2 (A1979013 of Report R8979) to be considered in the next review of the 2021-2031 Transport Activity Management Plan and Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-2031.
10. Church Street Upgrade 120 - 145
Document number R9055
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Church Street Upgrade (R9055) and its attachments (A1990747, A1977465, A1977517, A1979152 and A1952746).
Recommendation to Council
That the Council:
Approves Option 1 as presented in Report R9055 at a total project cost of $1,330,000 to fund the Church Street upgrade; and
Approves additional unbudgeted funding of $551,000 for Option 1; and
Approves the re-phasing of the project schedule and budget with $400,000 allocated to 2018/19 and $823,000 allocated to 2019/20, noting $107,000 has been spent to date.
OR
Confirms the additional costs are significant and unbudgeted and that any upgrade of Church Street should be included in the City Centre Strategy being completed in the 2018/19 year and prioritised accordingly.
11. Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges 146 - 160
Document number R9361
Recommendation
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Receives the report Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges (R9361) and attachments (A1985032, A1989357, A1985289, A1981206); and
Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge in the preferred location depicted on Option 3D (subject to approval by all private landowners to a change in their Right of Way status) as detailed in Report R9361, to allow progression to detailed design and construction; and
Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge in location Option 3C (as detailed in Report R9361) should Option 3D be shown to be impractical following consultation.
Note:
· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime.
· Lunch will be provided.
· Youth Councillors Samantha Cronin and Jacob Mason will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)
Works and Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 22 May 2018
Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Tuesday 22 May 2018, commencing at 9.00 a.m.
Present: Councillor S Walker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors P Matheson, M Lawrey, G Noonan, T Skinner and M Rutledge (Deputy Chairperson)
In Attendance: Councillors B McGurk and I Barker, Youth Councillors Ella Smith and Hayden Rose, Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis) and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)
Apology: Councillor Acland
1. Apologies
|
Resolved WI/2018/015 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor Acland. Rutledge/Walker Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
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 29 March 2018
Document number M3376, agenda pages 7 - 13 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2018/016 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 29 March 2018, as a true and correct record. Lawrey/Walker Carried |
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 9.03 a.m.
6. Chairperson's Report
Document number R9310, agenda pages 14 - 15 refer.
The Chairperson presented his report and tabled supplementary information A1971948 (R9338).
It was noted that Councillor Dahlberg was no longer a member of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, as resolved at the 15-17 May 2018 Long Term Plan Council meeting.
It was noted that Councillor Matheson had a long history with Accessibility for All (A4A) and was the longest standing member at the A4A forum table.
|
Resolved WI/2018/017 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Appoints Councillor Paul Matheson to the Councillor Liaison role for Accessibility for All for the 2016 – 2019 triennium. Rutledge/Noonan Carried |
|
Resolved WI/2018/018 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the Chairpersons Report (R9310) including supplementary information (R9338). Skinner/Lawrey Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1972948 - Supplementary Chairperson's Report |
7. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - 22 May 2018
Document number R9262, agenda pages 16 - 22 refer.
Group Manager Infrastructure Alec Louverdis noted a correction to agenda page 18 – a report on Church Street Improvement was not on the agenda, but would go to the Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting on 28 June 2018.
Mr Louverdis answered questions about Konini Street.
|
Resolved WI/2018/019 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - 22 May 2018 (R9262) and its attachment (A1150321). Noonan/Rutledge Carried |
8. Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2018-19
Document number R9074, agenda pages 23 - 28 refer.
Manager Roading and Utilities Marg Parfitt presented the report and answered questions about traffic implications of incentivising direct transport to landfill for commercial operators dumping hardfill and demolition. Mr Louverdis answered questions about greenwaste.
|
Resolved WI/2018/020 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2018-19 (R9074) and its attachment (A1918450); and Approves the proposed fees and charges as per attachment A1918450 of Report R9074 effective 1 July 2018. Matheson/Lawrey Carried |
9. Havelock North Drinking Water Government Inquiry
Document number R8851, agenda pages 29 - 34 refer.
Senior Asset Engineer – Utilities Phil Ruffell presented the report and answered questions regarding the following matters:
· disestablishment of the current Ministry of Health Unit overseeing drinking water regulation;
· chlorination of drinking water in Nelson;
· Nelson South drinking water; and
· the Three Waters Review undertaken by Internal Affairs.
|
Resolved WI/2018/021 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Havelock North Drinking Water Government Inquiry (R8851); and Notes the findings of the Havelock North Drinking Water Government Inquiry and the likelihood of future change in the drinking water supplier environment. Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
10. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2018/022 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. 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: Matheson/Skinner Carried |
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 29 March 2018 |
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7. |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
2 |
Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - Public Excluded - 22 May 2018 Enable contractual negotiations |
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 9.53 a.m. and resumed in public session at 9.56 a.m.
Please note that as the only business transacted in public excluded was to receive the minutes and the status report, this business has been recorded in the public minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists.
11. Confirmation of Minutes
11.1 29 March 2018
Document number M3377, agenda pages 3 - 4 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2018/023 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Confirms the minutes of part of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held with the public excluded on 29 March 2018, as a true and correct record. Matheson/Walker Carried |
12. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - Public Excluded - 22 May 2018
Document number R9264, agenda pages 5 - 6 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2018/024 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Status Report - Works and Infrastructure - Public Excluded - 22 May 2018 (R9264) and its attachment (A1150333). Noonan/Rutledge Carried |
13. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2018/025 That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Re-admits the public to the meeting. Noonan/Rutledge Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.56 a.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Item 6: Chairperson's Report
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 June 2018 |
REPORT R9417
Chairperson's Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To update the Works and Infrastructure Committee on infrastructure projects for the current financial year.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the Chairperson's Report (R9417). |
2. Discussion
2.1 I wanted to bring to the Committee’s attention a summary relating to the infrastructure portfolio for the current financial year.
Projects that have been completed
· Bronte Street footpath extension – construction of 3m wide footpath and associated retaining wall adjacent to St Joseph’s School;
· Footpath Improvements – minor works to install pedestrian dropped crossing points in Kawai Street and Alfred Street;
· ANZAC Park pedestrian refuge – pedestrian refuge in Rutherford Street adjacent to ANZAC Park;
· Seismic Reservoir upgrades – installed seismic valves to existing reservoir pipework;
· Orphanage Creek culvert upgrade – widened the existing culvert at Saxton Road;
· Manhole rehabilitation works – minor repair works to the interior of existing manholes;
· Jenner Road sewer upgrade – relined the existing public sewer within private properties adjacent to Jenner Road;
· York Stream upgrade – installed large diameter stormwater pipes and a new intake structure from Tipahi Street to Bishopdale;
· Maire Stream erosion repairs – installed rock protection around an existing trunk watermain that had been exposed by the 2011 extreme rain event;
· Days Track slip remediation – reconstructed the Days Track pedestrian access from Moana Avenue to Grenville Terrace;
· Saxton Creek upgrade – completed stage 3 of the upgrade of Saxton Creek;
· Brook Stream fish passage – installed two fish passage structures to trial their effectiveness within the Brook Stream stormwater channel;
· Main Road Stoke pedestrian refuge - a new pedestrian refuge within Main Road Stoke adjacent to the Greenmeadows Centre work site;
· Hilliard, Mules and Suter watermain renewals - upgrade of three aged watermains;
· Hampden Street East/Little Go Stream Flood Protection – new intake structure in Allan Street;
· Resurfacing of Waimea Road and Richardson Street;
· Resurfacing and pavement rehabilitation of Wildman Avenue/Vickerman Street Roundabout;
· Pavement rehabilitation and single lane resurfacing of Saxton Road between Main Road Stoke and Nayland Road;
· Sealing of cracked pavement surfaces on various city streets;
· Detailed structural inspection of road retaining walls (undertaken every 5-6 years);
· Stansell Ave slip repair – retaining wall to support an existing footpath opposite no.46 Stansell Avenue;
· Oldham Creek bridge replacement - replacement of bridge including road alignment and footpath improvements;
· Natalie Street and Joyce Place walkway connection;
· Rock wall protection reinstatement following storm damage at Akersten Street;
· Repair of Early Settlers Memorial platform and Rocks Road bollards and chains following February storms;
· Seafield Terrace reinstatement and realignment of the existing sewer following February storms;
· Cliff palisade retaining wall improvements to strengthen existing retaining structure;
· Trafalgar Park arched footbridge (over Maitai) – installation of hybrid cathodic protection.
Projects that are underway or about to commence on site
· Neale Park Sewer Pump Station Upgrade – currently underway and expected to be completed in December 2018;
· Nile Street Stormwater Upgrade – currently underway and expected to be completed in October 2018;
· Brook MTB Hub - currently underway and expected to be completed in December 2018;
· Brooklands watermain renewal – currently underway and stage 1 is expected to be completed in June 2018;
· Footpath Improvements – various areas, currently underway and expected to be completed in June 2018;
· Asphalt surface crack sealing programme for high volume roads – various areas, currently underway and expected to be completed in June 2018;
· Seafarers Memorial and Friendship Walkway repairs following February storms - currently underway and expected to be completed in July 2018;
· Install of new CCTV cameras - various areas, currently underway and will be ongoing;
· Cable Bay Road debris catch fence - currently underway and expected to be completed in June 2018;
· Nelson Waste Water Treatment Plant sludge removal - currently underway and expected to be completed in September 2019.
Projects that have been tendered
· Civic House Floor 1 Upgrade;
· Professional Services Panel;
· Saltwater Creek Bridge;
· Orphanage Creek/Sunningdale Bank Reinstatement;
· Champion Link Road.
Stuart Walker
Chairperson
Attachments
Item 7: Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 June 2018 |
REPORT R8965
Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the Draft Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP) developed by the Joint Nelson Tasman Waste Working Party (Working Party) and recommend that Council approves the JWMMP for public consultation.
1.2 To consider and recommend that Council approves the Statement of Proposal (SOP) developed by the Working Party for public consultation.
2. Recommendation
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) and the Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) that will allow the Special Consultative Procedure to commence. |
3. Background
3.1 Council in December 2017 resolved as follows:
Approves the formation of a Joint Nelson City Council/Tasman District Council Working Party to advise both Councils on the review of the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, subject to a reciprocal agreement by Tasman District Council; and
Approves the Draft Terms of Reference as amended to reflect the removal of the words ‘co-opt and change of quorum to five, including two councillors from each council (A1831374); and
Appoints Councillors Walker, Barker and Lawrey as Nelson City Council members of the Joint Council Waste Working Party; and
Notes that the Joint Council Waste Working Party will report back to this Council’s Works and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be adopted by April 2018.
3.2 The Working Party’s Terms of Reference (refer to Attachment 1) includes the preparation of an amended JWMMP and submission of the Plan to the two Councils for consideration as the basis for consultation.
3.3 The original date set to bring this item back to both Councils by April 2018 could not be met due to the time involved in getting all parties from both Councils together for several workshops and meetings.
3.4 Council has not been able to meet the statutory requirement to review and adopt a waste management and minimisation plan within the period of 6 years. There was general consensus by the Working Group that working through the Plan was more important than rushing the task to meet the statutory requirement. The Working Party met on four occasions and agreed at their meeting on the 11 May 2018 to adopt the Draft JWMMP and for it to be presented to each Council for approval as the version to go out to wider consultation.
3.5 The risk to both Councils of not achieving this statutory timeframe is the potential loss of revenue (waste levy disbursements) from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), of around $55,000. However, advice received from the MfE indicates that there will be no sanction on Council as long as the Plan has been reviewed.
3.6 Subject to approval of the Draft JWMMP by the two Councils, consultation is scheduled to commence in August 2018, after which the Working Group as per their Terms of Reference will hear submissions, hold hearings and consider submissions on behalf of the two Councils.
4. Discussion
4.1 The proposed SOP and Draft JWMMP are required to be approved by both Councils prior to consultation commencing. The current Long Term Plans of both Councils were developed within the statutory requirement of the current JWMMP.
4.2 The Draft JWMMP provides a policy framework for waste management and minimisation activities and contains a list of solid waste management options available to the community and Councils through which the Councils can develop and implement projects/programmes to achieve improved solid waste management outcomes. However, the Plan does not place any financial obligations on either Council and will not impact on the current LTP budget.
5. Key changes in the Draft JWMMP
5.1 The Working Party concluded that the existing JWMMP is broadly fit for purpose and mainly focussed on articulating the concept that the community shares the responsibility for waste minimisation with the Councils.
6. Options
6.1 The Council has two options with respect to the Draft JWMMP and SOP as detailed below:
· Option 1 - Endorse the recommendation (with minor amendments) from the Working Party that the Draft JWMMP is suitable to inform the SOP for consultation - preferred option; or
· Option 2 - Not accept the recommendation of the Working Party and make recommendations to the Working Party to amend the SOP and/or Draft JWMMP.
|
Option 1: Accept that the Draft JWMMP with minor amendments be used to inform the Special Consultative Procedure. |
|
|
Advantages |
· Provides consistent policy framework relating to solid waste management and minimisation for the Regional Landfill Business Unit and the Nelson Tasman Communities. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· None |
|
Option 2: Not accept that the Draft JWMMP be used. |
|
|
Advantages |
· None. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Amendments to the SOP and Draft JWMMP will delay the consultation, which will in turn delay the adoption of the JWMMP. · Potential loss of payment from the MfE. |
7. Conclusion
7.1 The Council has a statutory obligation to review the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan at least every six years.
7.2 The Draft JWMMP and SOP have been developed and approved by the Joint Working Party and approval is sought from the Committee and Council to commence consultation.
Johan Thiart
Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: Joint Waste Working Party: Terms of Reference A1831374 ⇩
Attachment 2: Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan A1987259 ⇩
Attachment 3: Statement of Proposal - Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan A1987256 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The JWMMP is a key strategic document for waste management and minimisation in the region. It influences the management of Council services and provision of long-term infrastructure. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The development of the JWMMP contributes to the community outcome “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. It is a document that will guide waste management decisions by the Council over the next six years. |
|
3. Risk The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires the Council to review the JWMMP at an interval of no less than six years. The risk that the MfE might delay the payment of Waste Levy disbursements to Council until the new JWMMP is adopted is assessed to be low as confirmation has been received from the MfE that it is unlikely that payments from them will be withheld. |
|
4. Financial impact Decisions made in the review and amendment of the JWMMP have no direct financial or budgetary implications for the Council in the medium to long term, but these impacts will be ultimately determined by the Council through future Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement Waste management and minimisation policy affects most people in our region and commercial operators and the wider community have a significant interest in this matter. This matter is of medium importance and a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) in accordance with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 is planned. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Iwi have been kept up to date and were invited to take part in the process of developing the Draft JWMMP. The current Draft, once approved, will be shared by way of separate meetings with Iwi and their comments will be considered by the Working Party. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee areas of responsibility includes: “Solid Waste, including landfill and transfer stations, recycling and waste minimisation”. A Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Working Party has been set up and their Terms of Reference include for reviewing the Draft JWMMP, hearing and considering submission and recommending a final JWMMP to both Council’s for adoption. The Working Party has no powers to decide. Their Powers to recommend include: “Recommending the adoption of an amended JWMMP for Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council” The Council has approved that the Draft JWMMP be considered by the Works and Infrastructure Committee first before coming back to Council. |
Item 8: Recycling - Effect of International Markets
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 June 2018 |
REPORT R9280
Recycling - Effect of International Markets
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide the Committee with an update on the current status of recycling as a result of changes in international commodity markets.
1.2 To agree a way forward with respect to how recycling is progressed for the 2018/19 financial year.
2. Summary
2.1 Nelsonians have a very high commitment to recycling evidenced by the 40% increase in recycling since the new wheelie bins were introduced.
2.2 China, one of the largest markets for recyclables has made the decision, through their National Sword initiative, not to accept recycling and have restricted all licences. This has resulted in a sudden and steep drop in commodity prices for fibre and certain plastics.
2.3 This drop in commodity price is having an effect both nationally and internationally and is an issue that is affecting all local authorities in New Zealand, with the issue being commented on by the Minister of Conservation. Some Councils in Australia have already taken steps to divert all recycling to landfill.
2.4 Nelmac has been affected by the commodity down-turn and has signalled to Council that they will be seeking relief, as allowed for under their contract with Nelson City Council (NCC).
2.5 The contract with Nelmac states that responsibility will become the Principal’s if the commodity price drops for any one commodity by 70% for 12 months or more. The 70% trigger level has been reached for fibre (January 2018) and PET Mixed plastics (April 2018) and will remain Nelmac’s responsibility for 12 months until January 2019 and April 2019 respectively.
2.6 When Council accepts responsibility as Principal for those two commodities, the additional costs will be able to be covered through the current reserves in the Solid Waste Account.
3. Recommendation
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves the funding resulting from the global drop in commodity prices for the 2018/19 financial year at an estimated cost of between $88,500 and $94,500, funded from current reserves in the Solid Waste account. |
4. Background
4.1 Council entered into a contract with Nelmac in late 2004 for “Contract 2906: The collection and processing of recyclable materials and the operation of the re-use shop”. That contract is valued at $951,000/annum (and includes wheelie bin collection).
4.2 Recyclables collected by Nelmac and their markets until March 2016 are as follows:
· Fibre (paper and cardboard) to Full Circle;
· Aluminium/steel to Nelson Metals/Sims Metals;
· HDPE Plastics (milk bottles) to Comspec;
· PET Mixed Plastics (water/carbonated bottles) to Full Circle;
4.3 Smart Environmental Limited (SEL) in collaboration with the Tasman District Council (TDC) built a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) in Richmond to process recyclables. Nelmac have taken all recyclables collected at kerbside (glass, plastics, aluminium/steel and fibre) to SEL since March 2016.
4.4 Since the introduction of wheelie bins (around October 2016), recycling has seen a 40% growth, with fibre making up around 80% of all recycling collected in Nelson.
4.5 China has traditionally been the single largest purchaser of recyclable materials with NZ sending around 15 Million kilograms to China every year. In mid-2017 China advised the world that it would no longer receive the rest of the world’s recyclables. That initiative, known as National Sword, came into effect in January 2018 and has resulted in the restriction of import licenses.
4.6 The restriction of import licenses has seen global commodity prices plummet for some commodities especially fibre and PET Mixed plastics. SEL have advised Nelmac that they are working hard to establish new markets (both locally and overseas), and whilst Nelmac are themselves actively seeking other markets the message is the same for them – everyone is struggling and competing for the same markets.
4.7 The markets for glass and HDPE plastics are unaffected by National Sword for our region, as those markets remain within New Zealand with glass going to Auckland and HDPE plastic going to Christchurch.
4.8 Whilst some material has been diverted to Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, SEL advise that they are seeking alternative markets in the Philippines, Malaysia and India. They further note that they will continue to sell product even at low prices and if needs be, if markets cannot be found, will be looking at storing material. SEL are continuing to take product and have not signalled at this stage any intention to stop taking product.
4.9 They have also asked Nelmac to potentially store product - however the ability of Nelmac to store product, especially fibre (at an average of around 129 tonnes/month and up to 160 tonnes/month) is not feasible. The area required to stockpile this volume of fibre every month (for potentially up to 12 months) would require covered storage (as fibre has no value once it is wet) of around 1,700m2.
4.10 In addition, the storage of recyclables (plastic and fibre) poses a health and safety risk. As recently as last month a fire broke out at a MRF facility in Thames that resulted in the destruction of a warehouse and around 150 tonnes of stored plastic and fibre with another 100 tonnes having to go to landfill due to fire damage.
4.11 SEL have reported through various media sources that they are stockpiling paper and plastic (on behalf of Council’s with whom they have contracts) since the ban, with around 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes stockpiled around the country. Research by officers’ also show that most, if not all Councils, are currently stockpiling recycling.
4.12 The Minister of Conservation has noted that the Government’s long-term effort is focused on improving onshore capacity for recyclable materials but that this will take time. A task force has been set up to look at how to deal with this growing mountain of recyclable waste in New Zealand and will be led by the Ministry for the Environment.
Current contract
4.13 The current recycling contract with Nelmac includes a clause that caters for a drop in commodity prices. Clause 3.2.2 - National and International Recyclables markets notes:
“That in the event of a national or international collapse in any of the specified recyclable products the financial consequences of such a collapse may, at the request of the Contractor, become the responsibility of the Principal. In the circumstances the Contractor will provide the information on all specified recyclable product values since commencement of the contract. The Engineer will then assess the impact of the collapse on the Contractor. The Principal, Engineer and the Contractor shall then determine any necessary variation to the contract. A market collapse in any one specified recyclable product, other than glass, is defined as where the commodity price received by the contractor drops by 70% or more from the prices as at 1 October 2004 for a period of 12 months or longer.”
4.14 The average tonnage/month per commodity is shown in the table below:
|
Commodity |
Average tonne/month |
Percentage of overall recycling |
|
Fibre |
129 |
77% |
|
PET Clear |
6 |
3.6% |
|
PET Mixed |
7 |
4.3% |
|
HDPE |
6 |
3.6% |
|
Aluminium |
1 |
0.9% |
|
Steel |
8 |
5% |
|
Contamination |
9 |
5.6% |
5. Discussion
Commodity prices
5.1 Commodity prices have steadily decreased since September 2017 as a result of National Sword. The contract with Nelmac requires commodity prices to have fallen by 70% for a period of 12 months as at 1 October 2004. Whilst the prices for all commodities have fluctuated since 2004 when the contract commenced, Nelmac have only been experiencing significant effects since September 2017. The table below summarises that history.
|
Commodity |
04/05 |
Sept 17 |
April 18 |
% drop since Sept 17 |
70% Trigger |
Date 70% threshold reached |
|
Fibre |
$62/t |
$122/t |
$8/t |
93% |
$37/t |
Jan 2018 |
|
PET Clear |
$375/t |
$321/t |
$151/t |
53% |
$96/t |
Not yet reached |
|
PET Mixed |
$75/t |
$31/t |
$0/t |
100% |
$9/t |
April 2018 |
5.2 The monthly drop in commodity prices since September 2017 and the 70% trigger level is shown in the following table:
|
Month |
PET Mixed |
Fibre |
PET Clear |
|
Sept 2017 |
$31 |
$122 |
$321 |
|
Oct 2017 |
$22 |
$102 |
$321 |
|
Nov 2017 |
$12 |
$102 |
$162 |
|
Dec 2017 |
$12 |
$97 |
$162 |
|
Jan 2018 |
$12 |
$37 |
$162 |
|
Feb 2018 |
$12 |
$37 |
$162 |
|
March 2018 |
$12 |
$8 |
$162 |
|
April 2018 |
$0 |
$8 |
$151 |
5.3 From the two tables, it is clear that commodity prices have dramatically fallen over the last eight months as a result of National Sword. The industry view is not positive, with the outlook unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
5.4 Currently the contractual threshold of 70% has been reached as follows and Nelmac has written to Council giving notice of their intent to seek relief, as allowed for under the contract:
5.4.1 Fibre - Jan 2018 and will remain Nelmac’s responsibility until Jan 2019;
5.4.2 PET Mixed - April 2018 and will remain Nelmac’s responsibility until April 2019;
5.4.3 PET Clear – trigger not yet reached.
5.5 For the 2018/19 financial year, Council will be faced with the cost for fibre for six months and for PET Mixed plastics for two months. At the current prices, there would be no financial implication to Council for PET Clear during 2018/19.
6. Financial considerations for 2018/19
Cost to Council for 2018/19
6.1 The cost to Council for the 2018/19 financial year, for fibre and PET Mixed is as follows:
|
Commodity |
Current prices |
Lower end prices |
|
Fibre |
@ $8/t |
@ $0/t |
|
6 months |
$88,000 |
$94,000 |
|
PET Mixed |
@ $0/t |
@ $0/t |
|
2 months |
$500 |
$500 |
|
TOTAL |
$88,500 |
$94,500 |
6.2 Council currently has reserves in the Solid Waste Activity amounting to $570,000 (as at 30 June 2017) that could be used to offset the current commodity price down-turn for the 2018/19 financial year.
Cost to landfill for 2018/19
6.3 The cost to take recycling to landfill will attract a charge of $119/tonne (excluding GST) and will depend on the volumes taken to landfill. The table below details the indicative costs to take recycling to landfill:
|
Commodity |
Volume/month (average) |
Total |
Comment |
|
Fibre |
129 tonne |
$92,000 |
For 6 months |
|
PET Mixed |
7 tonne |
$ 2,000 |
For 2 months |
|
TOTAL |
$94,000 |
|
|
7. Options
7.1 Council has two options as detailed in item 7.2 below. These two options are based on the assumption that:
7.1.1 Recycling will continue in Nelson for 2018/19 – officers are of the view that it is too soon to make any decision to consider stopping recycling as this would undermine the excellent recycling ethos within Nelson; and
7.1.2 Storing of recycling product by Nelmac is not viable, as the covered area needed (particularly for fibre) is large and would cost in the region of $105,000/year for a lease, $40,000 to $50,000 in transport costs/double handling and would still pose a fire and safety risk and have implications on insurance.
7.2 The two options are:
7.2.1 Option 1 – Continue to recycle with Council accepting costs for 2018/19 (6 months for fibre and 2 months for PET Mixed).
7.2.2 Option 2 – Continue to recycle and take to landfill until commodity prices stabilise.
|
Option 1: Continue to recycle with Council accepting costs for 2018/19 |
|
|
Advantages |
· Low reputational risk. · Can be covered from Solid Waste reserves. · Recycling momentum maintained. · No cost to ratepayer. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Lowers solid waste reserves. |
|
Option 2: Continue to recycle and take to landfill |
|
|
Advantages |
· Can be covered from Solid Waste reserves. · No cost to ratepayer |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· High reputational risk. · Undermines recycling ethos. · Greater cost than (or on a par) with option 1 · Lowers solid waste reserves |
8. Conclusion
8.1 Commodity prices have fallen dramatically for fibre and certain plastics and continue to be low as a result of National Sword.
8.2 Nelmac has requested relief, as allowed for under the contract, to cater for low commodity prices and their mounting losses.
8.3 Council needs to make a decision as to how they wish to proceed with recycling for 2018/19 and officers have provided options. Officers support Council accepting the drop in commodity price and continuing to recycle on the basis that the impact is less than diverting recycling to landfill – and that this be funded from the reserves in the Solid Waste account.
Alec Louverdis
Group Manager Infrastructure
Attachments
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Recycling is a key Government initiative to address sustainability in a cost effective manner for households and businesses. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy Recycling contributes to the following community outcome: “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”; “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected”; “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” and “Our Council provides leadership and a regional perspective”. |
|
3. Risk How Council deals with the current situation is critical to the perceptions of the general public on the back of the excellent work the community has done to embrace and increase recycling. The risk of reputational risk to Council if recycling is discontinued or if recycling is collected but taken to landfill is very high. |
|
4. Financial impact The long-term financial impact to Council is potential high should commodity prices remain low. However, this can be offset by the reserves in the Solid Waste Activity for the 2018/19 year, which will allow officers time to assess the commodity markets. In the interim Nelmac’s profit and therefore funding dividend to Council will be impacted by the loss they will carry for 12 months. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of medium significance. Council will however need to clearly communicate their decision to their ratepayers. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted on with respect to this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee areas of responsibility includes: “Solid Waste, including landfill and transfer stations, recycling and waste minimisation”. |
Item 9: Tahunanui Cycle Network - Preferred Option
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 June 2018 |
REPORT R8979
Tahunanui Cycle Network - Preferred Option
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve a preferred cycle facility route from Annesbrook Roundabout to Beach Road to allow targeted consultation, detailed design and construction to proceed.
2. Summary
2.1 Council resolved in August 2017 to establish the Tahunanui Cycle Network Advisory Group (Group) consisting of key stakeholders, councillors, community representatives and Council officers to determine a preferred route for the Tahunanui Cycle Network.
2.2 The Group consulted with the Tahunanui community, schools, specific community groups and cycling advocate groups to better understand how people currently travel around Tahunanui and what improvements they would like to see. The outcome from this consultation has identified a preferred option as a priority as well as an overall programme of works for improving cycling facilities within Tahunanui.
2.3 As part of the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and Long Term Plan (LTP) deliberations, officers advised the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) that the cost estimate for this preferred option, at $2.8M, was higher than that provided in both the RLTP and LTP and made the recommendation to the RTC and Council to increase the funding to ensure that both NZTA subsidy and/or Urban Cycle Fund (UCF) funding was secured. This increase was approved by both the RTC on the 11 May 2018 and Council on the 17 May 2018.
2.4 The consultation also identified future works and linkages and officers advised the RTC that this programme of works had as yet not been considered by the Works and Infrastructure Committee and as a result had not been included in either the LTP, RLTP or Transport Asset Management Plan (AMP). Should this Committee approve the future works and linkages, officers propose to consult on these suite of projects through an application to vary the RLTP in the new financial year that will enable these projects to be considered in the National Land Transport Programme and secure funding from the National Land Transport Fund. Once that process has been completed, the projects, if signed off by the RTC will be added to the Council’s work programme as part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan. This proposed variation to the RLTP will be co-ordinated with the variation planned to include the three NZTA State Highway projects identified in the Transport Agency Investment Proposal but not yet part of the current RLTP – this work is the subject of a separate report to the Nelson Regional Transport Committee.
2.5 The preferred option will provide a high quality asset that will be safer and more appealing for all active users and is able to provide significant benefits as a stand-alone project if the remaining works programme is deferred or delayed.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The Tahunanui cycleway project was approved by Council on 26 November 2015 as part of the “Out and About“ Policy, with the specific aim of providing a safe and efficient cycle route through Tahunanui for ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists, school children and the local community.
4.2 This project along with two other projects is part funded by Central Government’s Urban Cycle Fund (UCF) and includes:
4.2.1 QEII Drive and Haven Road Shared Path – Work on this project commenced in February 2018, is programmed for completion in July 2018 and managed entirely by NZTA.
4.2.2 Saltwater Creek Bridge - currently out for tender, with agreement reached with NZTA to extend the UCF funding for this project to the end of June 2019.
4.3 As reported by officers at the 11 May 2018 RLTP deliberations meeting, the form and status of the UCF under the new Government is still unknown. The RTC and Council have however, as part of their submission to the Draft GPS, noted their desire that the UCF funding continue and officers await advice from Central Government and NZTA as to the future of this fund.
4.4 Work on a preferred option connecting the airport to Tahunanui Beach using Bolt Rd, Green Street, Roto Street and Golf Road was debated by the Works and Infrastructure Committee on 18 May 2017 and was subsequently not approved. It was considered that the route did not serve the needs of the community as it did not link directly to the Railway Reserve and to schools, and that a large portion of Tahunanui, including the Tahunanui Hills area, was not adequately served.
4.5 Council resolved on 10 August 2017, following a public forum presentation by members of the Tahunanui community, as follows:
“That an Advisory Group to include the Chair of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, Councillor Lawrey, a representative of Bicycle Nelson Bays, a representative of NZTA and officers; to move this project forward be set up; and
That a final option for implementation will be presented to a future Works and Infrastructure Committee for approval in March 2018”.
4.6 The Group was set up and comprised:
· Councillor Walker (Chair)
· Councillor Lawrey
· Bicycle Nelson Bays (Chris Allison & Natalie Lacaze-Campbell)
· Tahunanui Business Association (John Gilbertson)
· Tahunanui Community Centre (Judy Robinson)
· Tahunanui Primary School (Barbara Bowen)
· NZTA Urban Cycleway Fund (Gerry Dance)
· NCC officers
5. Consultation
5.1 The Group consulted with the members of the Tahunanui community, schools, various community groups and cycle advocacy groups to better understand how they currently travel around Tahunanui and what improvements they would like to see. The aim of this consultation was to assist in developing an overall programme of works for improving cycling facilities within Tahunanui and was seen as important to provide an active travel network for the whole Tahunanui suburb, including the Tahunanui Hills area.
5.2 Public consultation ran between 13 November and 7 December 2017. The consultation material consisted of a paper and electronic feedback form and blank map to gather information on the following:
· Where people presently go to and from; and
· Their chosen route; and
· What route they would use if it was made safer to do so.
5.3 A total of 220 submissions were received, comprising text and map responses which have been collated and summarised on Attachment 1. The main feedback from the consultation was that:
· The most popular places people presently travel to and from is the Railway Reserve to Rocks Road, followed by Tahunanui Beach to the Airport/Trent Drive.
· There was difficulty in crossing Annesbrook Drive, Tahunanui Drive and other busy roads in various locations.
5.4 A number of the Group will be in attendance at the meeting to speak to this project.
6. Programme of Works
6.1 The submissions were analysed by the Group and a programme of work developed which included the development of a main spine route (Route 1) linking Annesbrook Roundabout to Beach Road, suitable crossing points on State Highway 6, a route to the airport and secondary routes linking to Route 1.
6.2 The Group determined the priorities based on the outcome from the consultation, with the highest priority being Route 1. This route represents the main spine for Tahunanui and provides a safer link from Tahunanui beach to the Railway Reserve and will provide a viable and appealing alternative to the use of State Highway 6 Tahunanui Drive for active transport modes. This route also directly links up with Stoke schools and the Tahunanui School and Community Centre.
6.3 Route 1 is able to operate independently as a stand-alone project if the remaining works programme is deferred or delayed.
6.4 NZTA is supportive of Route 1, in particular, the portion of the route along Annesbrook Drive as this portion of the route will have minimal impact on the existing traffic lanes as the cycle facility will occupy road berm and the existing footpath.
6.5 The full programme of works (refer to Attachment 2) is expected to deliver the desired benefits, and capture active travel customers from a wider area and cater for the whole community and schools. The programme of works with priorities is detailed in Figure 1 below.
7. Facility Type for Route 1
7.1 Route
1 (yellow route in figure 1 below) is a new cycling facility from Annesbrook
Roundabout to Beach Road via Annesbrook Drive, Parkers Road, Muritai Street,
Waikare Street and will consist of two ‘facility types’ as
determined by the Group, best practice guidelines and detailed multi criteria
analysis. These facility types are shown below.
Figure 1 – Coastal Cycle Route Overview
|
Facility Type |
Off Road Shared Path |
|
Proposed Roads |
SH6 Annesbrook Drive and some of Parkers Road |
|
Description |
A 3.5m wide off-road shared path is proposed for SH6 Annesbrook Drive (610m long) to the crossing point on Parkers Road (50m long). A single wide path to be used by both cyclists and pedestrians. On Annesbrook Drive existing parking, sealed shoulders and traffic lanes remain unchanged on both sides. |
|
Layout |
|
|
Facility Type |
Two-way Separated Cycle Path |
|
Proposed Roads |
Some of Parkers Road, Muritai Street and Waikare Street |
|
Description |
A 3m wide two-way separated cycle path is proposed from the crossing point on Parkers Road (190m long), along Muritai Street (840m long) and along Waikare Street (130m long). The cycle path is to be on one side of the road, protected from traffic by raised concrete separators, planted wherever possible. Separate footpaths are retained on both sides. Parking is retained on one side only. On-road cycle lanes on Muritai Street are removed. |
|
Layout |
|
Effect on parking
Route 1 will result in a total estimated loss of 57 car parking spaces as detailed below.
7.1 There is demand for parking by local business employees during work days on Parkers Road and the west end of Muritai Street, but low level demand by residents at all times in all areas. Loss of parking is never popular, but it is nonetheless a consequence and outcome of the preferred option selected by the Group.
7.2 It is hoped that due to the inclusive and collaborative approach taken through the consultation process that it will be possible to win over potential public negative opinions in favour of community benefits, particularly the ability for children to safely get to school using active travel modes. This does however have the risk of a delay in the project implementation as officers commence targeted consultation.
7.3 It is the intention for officers to work with businesses in the area as part of their Travel Management Plan initiative (due to commence in July 2018) and officers will be looking to assist affected businesses to assist in developing work-place travel plans to reduce demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of Parkers Road.
8. Finances
8.1 Following the recent RLTP and LTP deliberations, a revised budget of $2.8M was included in the budgets (to ensure that NZTA subsidy was secured) for Route 1, with the proposed phasing as follows:
|
Financial year |
2018/19 |
2019/20 |
2020/21 |
Total |
|
Amount |
$200,000 |
$800,000 |
$1,8M |
$2,8M |
8.2 The original funding split for this project was a 1/3 each from Council, NZTA and UCF. The UCF funding was required to be spent by 2018 and NZTA have recently agreed to extend that to June 2019. That timeframe would not align with the current anticipated timeline to complete this work (June 2021).
8.3 Officers are still hopeful that the UCF will continue in some form and that approval will be granted to complete this project beyond 2019. However, should the UCF fund not continue, then Council’s share will increase from 33% to 50%.
8.4 NZTA, which is part of the Group has indicated strong support for this preferred route and are also very supportive of the portion of the route adjacent to SH6 Annesbrook Drive and has indicated that this portion of the project may be eligible for full funding by NZTA as it is contained within the State Highway corridor.
8.5 It is proposed to include the remaining priorities within Attachment 2 (priorities 2 to 7) in the RLTP as a variation in the new financial year and once approved included in the 2019/20 Annual Plan. The estimated total cost for the future priorities works is $5,500,000 (refer to Attachment 2 for detail).
9. Options
9.1 The committee has three options to consider as part of this report:
9.1.1 Option 1 - Approve the preferred option from the Group; or
9.1.2 Option 2 - Not approve the preferred option from the Group; or
9.1.3 Option 3 – Do minimum.
|
Option 1: Route 1 – Annesbrook Roundabout to Beach Road |
|
|
Scope |
A 3.5m wide off-road shared path is proposed for Annesbrook Drive (610m long) to the crossing point on Parkers Road (50m long). A 3m wide two-way separated cycle path is proposed from the crossing point on Parkers Road (190m long), along Muritai Street (840m long) and along Waikare Street (130m long). |
|
Estimated Cost |
$2,800,000 - NCC share either $933,000 (1/3,1/3,1/3 split) or $1,400,000 (50/50 split) |
|
Benefits (from Business Case) |
· Increase in number of recreational/commuter cyclists using route · Reduction in vehicle movements · Increase in number of students cycling to school · Decrease in cycle crash numbers in Tahunanui |
|
Benefit/Cost Ratio |
1.4 |
|
Advantages |
· Provides a convenient, high quality, appealing and connected route for interested but concerned cyclists and school children between Annesbrook Roundabout and Tahunanui Beach. · Muritai Street and Waikare Street will benefit from reduced traffic speeds and improved aesthetics and amenity through increased vegetation and softening of the existing wide road environment. · Provides separation between vehicles & cyclists along the whole route (except at road crossing points), and separation between cyclists & pedestrians along Muritai and Waikare Street. · Issues with visibility at accesses and intersections alleviated on separated two-way facility. · This route is not subject to concerns over future airport development plans. · Fulfils community and stakeholder expectations that a facility will be constructed promptly after completion of the December 2017 community engagement phase and that the facility will potentially be followed by a comprehensive connected network. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Total parking loss estimate 57 spaces. Parking loss on Parkers Rd (17 spaces) and Waikare Street (3 spaces). Parking removed for one whole side of the affected part of Muritai Street (37 spaces). Parking on the opposite side of all streets can be re-marked with bays to maximise parking density. · Numerous access ways and intersections will be crossed by the cycle facilities. Best-practice design guidelines are well established and will be applied during detail design. |
|
Option 2: Do not approve the preferred option |
|
|
Scope |
Leave the network as is in the current condition |
|
Expenditure spent to date (17/18) |
$65,900 - NCC share $33,000 (50/50 split) |
|
Benefits |
· Low cost · Road network is not altered apart from normal maintenance operations |
|
Benefit/Cost Ratio |
N/A |
|
Advantages |
· No additional cost · No loss of parking |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Does not align with Council “Out and About” Policy · Would be very unpopular given the public exposure of the project. · Reputational risk · Potential reluctance for future financial support from NZTA for other cycling projects · Will not provide safety improvements and not reduce associated crash risk. · Will not aid in increasing cyclist numbers. |
|
Option 3: Do Minimum |
|
|
Scope |
Improve signage to link existing facilities between the Railway Reserve and Tahunanui Beach. |
|
Estimated Cost |
$135,000 - NCC share $67,500 (50/50) |
|
Benefits |
· Low cost · Improved way finding |
|
Benefit/Cost Ratio |
<1 |
|
Advantages |
· Low cost · Low Risk · No loss of parking |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· NZTA would be unlikely to fund improvements on SH6 Annesbrook Drive if a facility was not provided on local roads to link in to it. · Would be very unpopular given the public exposure of the project. · Will not provide safety improvements. · Will not aid in increasing cyclist numbers. |
10. Conclusion
10.1 Following the establishment of the Group and consultation, a preferred priority option has been identified at an estimated cost of $2.8M as well as a future programme of works to improve cycling and active travel.
10.2 This full programme of works will provide a staged completion of other links and connections (particularly when combined with the Great Taste Trail link and SH6 on-road cycling improvements) to achieve a network for cycling and active travel throughout Tahunanui. Eventual completion of the programme will link the Tahunanui Hills area, the school and community centre, the beach, the airport and the railway reserve at Annesbrook, and will cater for any combination of east-west and north-south journey choices.
10.3 The preferred route comes at a substantial loss of parking, but will provide a safer, direct and appealing high quality route that can stand alone should the other programmes of work not continue.
Paul D'Evereux
Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading
Attachments
Attachment 1: Tahunanui Cycle Network Consultation Summary (A1948256) ⇩
Attachment 2: Tahunanui Cycle Network package of works (A1979013) ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government This project will link existing cycling infrastructure and promote active transport participation rates. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The 2018-28 Asset Management Plan has set a target of 25% of all journeys to be undertaken by walking or cycling by 2021-27. The 2015-2021 RLTP has set objectives to ensure the community has a range of travel choices and supports national strategies for energy efficiency. The recommendation will contribute to these goals by appealing to a wide range of cyclists thereby promoting greater uptake of active travel modes, supporting Nelson’ Active Travel Hierarchy and the “Out and About” policy. This project contributes to the following community outcome - “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”; “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected”; “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” and “Our Council provides leadership and a regional perspective”. |
|
3. Risk The risk to implementing the preferred options, due to loss of parking, is high. However, due to the inclusive and collaborative approach taken through the Group, it should be possible to win over negative views in favour of community benefits, particularly the ability for school children to get to school using active modes. |
|
4. Financial impact The project is NZTA subsidised and currently falls outside the window of when the UCF needs to be spent. The RTC and Council have made a submission to the GPS requesting that the UCF continue and officers are awaiting feedback from Central Government. There is a risk that if the UCF is discontinued, then Council’s share through the LTP will be 50% as opposed to 33%. However, NCC contribution may reduce depending on the outcome of the Annesbrook Drive portion potentially being fully funding by NZTA. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of medium significance. The work is contained within road reserve and existing private accesses to the road corridor are to be retained. Due to the loss of parking, targeted consultation will need to be undertaken if the Committee approves the preferred option. Community consultation has been carried out as detailed in Section 5 of this report. Close liaison will be required with residents and businesses whose existing parking is affected and NZTA for parts of the route located on State Highway road reserve. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted on this project. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee areas of responsibility includes: Cycleways and Shared Pathways with an active transport focus. |
Item 10: Church Street Upgrade
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 June 2018 |
REPORT R9055
Church Street Upgrade
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of the report is:
(a) To agree, in the absence of a current city centre strategy, that Church Street is a focus area for improvement; and
(b) If the agreed option is to proceed with an upgrade of Church Street then:
(i) Confirm the preferred option for upgrade; and
(ii) Confirm the budget available to undertake the works.
2. Summary
2.1 Church Street was identified in the Heart of Nelson Strategy (2009) as an area for façade improvements to help enhance and support the city centre amenity. This was to include verandah provision and footpath / carriageway enhancement to encourage outdoor seating and a laneway precinct. It was intended to improve linkages to a proposed performing art/conference centre. The performing art/conference centre has not eventuated and there is currently no updated strategic document that identifies the work in Church Street as a priority area for work.
2.2 The upgrade proposal arose from a number of property owners/occupiers in Church Street asking for work to be undertaken. Council has worked in partnership with these property owners/occupiers to develop a design.
2.3 The total estimated cost of the design is $1,330,000. The total project budget is $779,000 (note: this includes $204,000 from the water renewal programme).
2.4 Given that the opportunity for completion this financial year has passed, should the Committee agree to the preferred option, work would not take place until between May and October 2019 at the earliest.
2.5 Several key issues have been identified since tendering the project, resulting in a total budget shortfall of $551,000 to deliver the preferred option as supported by the owners/occupiers.
2.6 A workshop was held with Councillors on 15 February 2018 where the financial shortfall was discussed and four options were presented. These options being:
|
Option No. |
Description |
Estimated Cost |
Additional Budget |
|
1 |
Upgrade Church St, Convert Road to Shared Zone |
$1,330,000 |
$551,000 |
|
2 |
Upgrade Church St, Convert Road to Shared Zone with Removal of Vegetation etc |
$1,096,000 |
$317,000 |
|
3 |
Upgrade Church St by Retaining Existing Surfaces & Add Above Ground Elements |
$575,000 |
$0 |
|
4 |
Do Nothing and Consider City Development Strategy |
$0 N.B. $107k spent to date |
$0 |
2.7 Councillors expressed a desire to understand the option preferred by the Church Street business and property owners. The feedback from the businesses and property owners confirms they prefer Option 1. Option 3 (retain the existing surfaces and add above ground elements) and Option 4 (do nothing) were less preferred options.
2.8 A considerable amount of time, cost and goodwill has been put into Option 1 by both officers and the Church St business and property owners. Officer’s support progressing with Option 1 as this option best meets the desired outcomes. Officers do note that if this project was starting right now (with the development of the City Centre Strategy about to commence), then they would have recommended that the City Centre Strategy is undertaken first, allowing for Church Street to be considered and prioritised as part of the bigger picture.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Works and Infrastructure Committee Receives the report Church Street Upgrade (R9055) and its attachments (A1990747, A1977465, A1977517, A1979152 and A1952746). |
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves Option 1 as presented in Report R9055 at a total project cost of $1,330,000 to fund the Church Street upgrade; and Approves additional unbudgeted funding of $551,000 for Option 1; and Approves the re-phasing of the project schedule and budget with $400,000 allocated to 2018/19 and $823,000 allocated to 2019/20, noting $107,000 has been spent to date. OR Confirms the additional costs are significant and unbudgeted and that any upgrade of Church Street should be included in the City Centre Strategy being completed in the 2018/19 year and prioritised accordingly. |
4. Background
4.1 On 23 June 2016 the Works and Infrastructure Committee received a proposal for the improvement of the Church Street urban environment from Church Street property and business owners. The Committee resolved:
“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.”
4.2 On 30 March 2017 the Committee received a further report to approve concept plans for the Church Street improvements to allow detailed design to continue. The concept design included:
· Flush roadway and footpaths creating a pedestrian oriented environment.
· A one-way, formally designated “Shared Zone” environment, with a self-enforcing low design speed (approximately 20km/hr).
· Gateway treatments at the street entrances.
· Increased pedestrian path widths.
· Increased outdoor dining space.
· Central area outside café/restaurants as a focal point.
· Improved lighting for aesthetics, usability and safety.
· Ability for property owners and businesses to give identity to the street.
· Increased vegetation - approximately 16 additional trees and green planting areas. (Note: 11 trees have been included in the final detailed design phase.)
· Opportunity to close the street on a temporary basis for festivals, markets and events which was supported by the Church Street business and property owners.
4.3 The Committee resolved as below:
“Approves the concept design as detailed in Attachment 2 (A1719554) of report R7018 for the improvement of Church Street that will allow detailed design and construction to proceed; and
Directs officers to engage in further discussions with business and property owners to establish if a financial contribution can be achieved to enable catenary lighting on Church Street, noting the budget limitation for lighting for this project.”
4.4 The overhead ‘catenary’ lighting shown on the concept plans was not included to keep the project within budget and the owners/occupiers agreed to fund the lighting to the amount of approximately $35,000.
4.5 Verandahs cover which were a driver for the work under the Heart of Nelson Strategy was not included in the concept design.
4.6 The opportunity arose to replace an existing asbestos cement watermain within the proposed worksite and this was subsequently included within the design, funded from the Water Renewal 2017/18 work programme at an estimated cost of $204,000. Whilst the watermain did not need renewing, constructing directly on top of the existing watermain would have significantly increased the likelihood of failure and the need for ongoing repairs, and possibly a replacement within 10 years of upgrade. Were it not for the upgrade to Church Street the watermain is not expected to require renewal within the next 10 years.
4.7 The approved and available budget for the Church Street upgrade is as follows:
|
Item |
Amount |
|
Church Street Upgrade |
$575,000 |
|
Watermain Upgrade |
$204,000 |
|
Total Budget |
$779,000 |
|
Spent to Date |
$107,000 |
|
Available Budget |
$672,000 |
5. Discussion
Strategy for the Area
5.1 An upgrade of Church Street is included in the Heart of Nelson Strategy (2009), along with a number of other suggested improvements for the city centre. The Heart of Nelson Strategy saw the street as a connection between the Rutherford Hotel and at that time a proposed performing arts/conference centre with canopies to protect pedestrians from the weather. The Rutherford Hotel subsequently constructed the conference centre within the hotel building in 2014 and the performing arts centre did not progress.
5.2 No rain/sun canopies are included within any option outlined in this report.
5.3 Council has committed to including a focus on the city centre through the 2018/28 Long Term Plan. The City Development Team will, when the vacancy is filled, develop an updated strategy for focus areas within the city centre. This strategy will include a prioritised programme of work centred on development and improvement opportunities that are expected to maximise desired benefits given budgetary allocation. The anticipated date for completing this updated strategy is June 2019.
5.4 A trial closure of Upper Trafalgar Street was carried out from December 2017 through to the end of March 2018. The purpose of the closure was to create an inviting pedestrian-friendly space for Nelsonians and visitors to enjoy and to test the feasibility of declaring Upper Trafalgar Street a pedestrian mall every summer. Council provided seating and shade for the community spaces and businesses extended their outdoor dining areas. This closure was supported by retailers within Upper Trafalgar St and the public more generally but has raised concern amongst other retailers about the need for the City Centre Strategy so other areas are known and prioritised.
Costs
5.5 The project was tendered in October 2017 and tenders received were greater than budget by $313,000. The two main reasons for the increase in tender costs were:
· The local construction market being very buoyant, which is resulting in greater construction costs. This issue has been costed at $240,000.
· During the detailed design phase, additional requirements costed at $73,000 were allowed for, including:
o Greater depth of road pavement being replaced.
o Increased extent of reseal on Hardy Street and Selwyn Place.
o Amendments requested from the Blind Foundation.
o Perimeter Paving introduced around the block paving area.
o Use of tree pit ‘cells’ to improve longevity of proposed trees (from 5 – 10 years to 50 years).
5.6 In addition, as a result of the Queens Street upgrade in Tasman where hazardous coal tar material was identified, officers assessed this risk as being high, and subsequently tested the Church Street site and discovered coal tar. The production of coal tar took place at the old Nelson Gas Works located in Haven Road. This facility was producing gas from coal from 1873 until 1971. Coal tar is a waste product from the gas production process. It is carcinogenic and is considered a hazardous material under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. Coal tar waste has been used widely in New Zealand and overseas in the construction of roads. Its use was gradually phased out through the 1970’s. The estimated cost to manage this issue is $150,000.
5.7 These issues, along with an increase in risk contingency and additional costs for associated delay, result in a budget shortfall of $551,000 for the current design, referred to as Option 1.
5.8 There is no budget within the infrastructure area for this shortfall.
5.9 Four options have been considered to address these issues. Further detail on these options is described in Section 6 and Attachment 1 of this report.
|
Option No. |
Description |
Estimated Cost |
Additional Budget |
|
1 |
Upgrade Church St, Convert Road to Shared Zone |
$1,330,000 |
$551,000 |
|
2 |
Upgrade Church St, Convert Road to Shared Zone with Removal of Vegetation etc |
$1,096,000 |
$317,000 |
|
3 |
Upgrade Church St by Retaining Existing Surfaces & Add Above Ground Elements |
$575,000 |
$0 |
|
4 |
Do Nothing and Consider City Development Strategy |
$0 N.B. $107k spent to date |
$0 |
5.10 Option 2 issues and risks are similar to Option 1 but the overall cost is lower due to the reduction in amenity features.
5.11 Option 3 is expected to be within budget as many below ground risk items are removed and the significant roading elements are not included.
Consultation
5.12 A workshop was held with Councillors on 15 February 2018 where the financial shortfall was discussed and these four options were presented. Councillors expressed a desire to understand the option preferred by the Church Street business and property owners.
5.13 Officers presented the options to the business and property owners on 22 February 2018. The Church Street Committee (made up of local business and property owners) undertook wider consultation with those unable to attend the meeting and confirmed a preference for Option 1 (continuing with the design as originally proposed). They confirmed they would not provide any further funding over the approximately $35,000 for the overhead catenary lighting (a combination of financial contributions and works in kind). They accept they will need to also meet the costs of renting footpath space outside their premises for dining and any costs associated with temporary street closures.
5.14 Officers met again with business and property owner representatives on 21 May 2018 to discuss in more detail Option 3 (retain existing surfaces and add above ground elements). This option had been further developed since the meeting on the 22 February 2018. The business and property owners who attended this meeting confirmed that as a group their preferred choice remained Option 1. Those who attended also stated that either Option 3 or Option 4 (do nothing) were their second choices, although this varied between business/property owners and did not represent the group as a whole.
Construction Schedule
5.15 Flexibility was provided when the project was tendered, by allowing construction to take place within a 6 month window. The local businesses confirmed that they did not want construction taking place from November to April as this would have an adverse effect on their businesses.
5.16 The work cannot now be completed within the current construction window. Therefore, any construction work would have to wait to next financial year (i.e. May to October 2019) or future years depending on the option approved.
Outcomes and Benefits
5.17 The outcomes and expected benefits for this project are summarised in the table below:
|
Outcomes |
% |
Expected Benefits - Investment Objectives |
|
Increase street amenity |
70% |
· Increase in pedestrian counts during the day and evening. · Increase retail spend. · Increase use of outdoor space. · Positive news stories about the street. · Improved night time light levels. · Maintain full occupancy rates of rentable/commercial spaces. · Increase in visitor length of stay. · Enhanced opportunity to activate additional spaces. · Reduce average traffic speeds (stakeholders request). |
|
Improve traffic efficiency and overall safety |
30% |
· Reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. · Reduce bottlenecks or unintended network efficiencies (i.e. rat runs). · Improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicle movements. |
5.18 If the project was starting following completion of the City Centre Strategy, it is unclear whether the outcomes above would remain the same.
6. Options
6.1 A summary of the four options are summarised in this section. The advantages, disadvantages, financial summaries, timeframes and outcomes assessment for the four options are discussed in detail in Attachment 1.
|
Option and Description |
Est Cost |
|
Option 1 - Upgrade Church Street, Convert Road to Shared Zone Maintain the one way traffic flow from Hardy to Selwyn Place, but extend it for the full length of Church Street. Double extent of pedestrian space and convert road to shared space. Use of urban design principles to enliven streetscape and improve dining space and connections through Church Street Key features include: the flush roadway and footpaths creating a pedestrian oriented environment; gateway treatments at the street entrances; improved lighting for aesthetics, usability and safety; ability for property owners and businesses to give identity to the street; central area outside café / restaurants as a focal point; increase in green space and trees. Businesses fund the catenary lighting. Renew existing watermain. Refer to Attachment 2 for artistic impression. Timeline: · Construction Window - May 2019 to October 2019 |
CAPEX: $1.330M OPEX Yr1: $56k ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIRED $551k
|
|
Option 2 - Upgrade Church Street, Convert Road to Shared Zone with Removal of Vegetation etc As per Option 1 except for the removal of some items including, public seating, tree pits, vegetation, several rubbish recycling bins, quality paving in the central area and public drinking fountain. Businesses fund the catenary lighting. Renew existing watermain. Refer to Attachment 3 for artistic impression. Timeline: · Construction Window - May 2019 to October 2019 |
CAPEX: $1,096k OPEX Yr1: $40k ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIRED $317k |
|
Option 3 - Upgrade Church Street by Retaining Existing Surfaces & Add Above Ground Elements The aim is to create improved outdoor dining experiences, constructing an aesthetic vibrant pedestrian friendly street scape – includes catenary lighting. This involves retaining the majority of the existing roadway pavements but working with the Church Street business and property owners to provide an improved dining experience (increased dining area and catenary lighting), utilising local artists to enliven the street, e.g. artwork, entranceway features and placement of planter boxes. Council funds the catenary lighting. Watermain is not renewed as majority of road is unaffected. Refer to Attachment 4 for artistic impression. Timeline: · Stakeholder Engagement, Concept Design – 2018/19 · Design, Procurement – 2019/20 · Construction phased over 2019/20 to 2020/21. |
CAPEX: Est $575k OPEX Yr1 $31.5k ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIRED Nil
|
|
Business Option 4 - do nothing different – baseline Leave street as is and consider in the city development strategy |
CAPEX: $0k OPEX: write off of $107k spent to date |
6.2 These four options were evaluated under a multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Each indicator was scored from 1 to 5. Where 5 is the ‘best’ (as contributing most improvement) and 1 is the ‘worst’. Refer to Attachment 1 for further detail on the decision criteria, indicators and MCA.
|
Indicator |
Weight |
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 |
Option 4 |
|
Scale of benefit improvement - Street Amenity Ref to Attachment 5
|
40% |
5 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|
Cost |
30% |
1 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Scale of benefit improvement: traffic flow efficiency and user safety |
20% |
5 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
|
Stakeholder support |
10% |
5 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
Total |
100% |
3.8 |
3.2 |
3.5 |
2.4 |
|
Rank |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
6.3 The outcome from the MCA shows that Option 1 is the highest scoring, followed by Option 3 and then Option 2.
6.4 When taking into account the MCA, a review of the business case, and the views expressed by the owners/occupiers, officers consider Option 1 is likely to bring the most benefit. If the job is to proceed then it should be done in a manner that adds to the vitality of the city centre rather than a solution to fit within budget. It is acknowledged that Option 3 can be achieved within the existing budget. Option 2 has been discounted by officers because it does not achieve many of the amenity aims of the project and it is the least preferred option of the business and property owners.
6.5 With any option, other than Option 1, there will be disappointment from the Church Street owners/occupiers. Officers have worked in partnership with them for some period of time and there is a raised expectation that works will occur.
6.6 A considerable amount of time, cost and good will has been put into Option 1 by both officers and the Church St business and property owners. Officer’s support progressing with Option 1 as this option best meets the desired outcomes. Officers do note that if this project was starting right now (with the development of the City Centre Strategy about to commence), then officers would have recommended that the City Centre Strategy is undertaken first, allowing for Church Street to be considered and prioritised as part of the bigger picture.
6.7 There has been no engagement with the wider Nelson retail community to canvas their views on where activation should occur and in what order. Progression of work on Church Street may result in negative comments from other retailers within Nelson.
7. Conclusion
7.1 The Church Street Upgrade project progresses an idea that has been put forward by business and property owners on the street.
7.2 Officers have worked in partnership with the businesses since 2016 to develop a design that best meets the desired benefits for the project.
7.3 Several key issues have come to light resulting in a budget shortfall of $551,000 if Option 1 (proposed and supported by the owners/occupiers) is progressed.
7.4 Each option has been assessed against decision criteria and officers recommend Option 1 is developed through to construction. If the unbudgeted additional costs of the work are considered to be significant then officers recommend nothing further occur at this time until the completion of the City Centre Strategy work which will include a prioritisation of work areas.
7.5 Should the Committee recommend any option to Council, construction is planned to be undertaken from May to October 2019 with the exception of Option 3 which would be phased over 2 years (19/20-20/21).
Clare Barton
Group Manager Environmental Management
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1990747 - Description of Options and Multi Criteria Analysis ⇩
Attachment 2: A1977465 - Option 1 - Artist Impression ⇩
Attachment 3: A1977517 - Option 2 - Artist Impression ⇩
Attachment 4: A1979152 - Option 3 - Artist Impression ⇩
Attachment 5: A1952746 - Assessment of Options Contribution to Street Amenity ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government This project is expected to assist in increasing the vitality, walkability and permeability of the central city bringing economic and wellbeing benefit for the community. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The proposal contributes to the following community outcome: ‘Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed’, and ‘Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient’ The proposal is also consistent with Nelson 2060, Goal Seven states “Our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson”. |
|
3. Risk The key risk is the removal of hazardous material (Coal Tar). If works involve excavation below ground, then the risk of encountering hazardous material is high. The consequence of this is increased cost for disposal of waste to landfill. Options proposed in this report allow for these costs, therefore reducing the consequence of this risk to low. An additional risk is the focus on Church St, in the absence of a wider strategy, which may raise negative commentary from other Nelson retailers and property owners within the city centre. |
|
4. Financial impact Should the Committee approve to proceed with the Option 1, additional funding of $551,000 is required. Ongoing roading maintenance costs will be funded through operational budgets. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is considered of low significance. Extensive consultation has been undertaken with the Church Street business and property owners but no other retailers or business owners have been consulted. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted on this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee has the responsibility for considering the “roading network, including associated structures, bridges and retaining walls, walkways, footpaths and road reserve, landscaping and ancillary services and facilities, street lighting and traffic management control”. Council has delegated responsibility to approve additional funding. |
Item 11: Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges
|
|
Works and Infrastructure Committee 28 June 2018 |
REPORT R9361
Waimea Road Severance - Pedestrian refuges
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To advise the committee on options to address severance across Waimea Road.
1.2 To consider and approve a preferred location for a pedestrian refuge.
2. Summary
2.1 Council resolved in March 2016 to investigate pedestrian severance along Waimea Road between Tukuka Street and Boundary Road, recognising the poor level of service to pedestrians wanting to cross Waimea Road.
2.2 The draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) released in April 2018 places emphasis on Safety and Access as priorities. Provision of safe crossing points on busy arterial roads is consistent with this strategic direction.
2.3 A pedestrian refuge was installed as part of the stormwater upgrade works at the intersection of Waimea Road and Boundary Road in June 2016.
2.4 Installing another pedestrian refuge in the section of Waimea Road between Tukuka and Boundary Road is challenging due to the high number of private property access ways, high traffic volumes and safety concerns for turning motorists.
2.5 This report summarises the options to improve pedestrian amenity across Waimea Road.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 In March 2016 Council considered a report on “Waimea Road issues and opportunities”. This report identified a number of projects for action and investigation, including provision of a pedestrian/cycle refuge between Tukuka Street and Boundary Road and officers were requested to initiate consultation on these opportunities and report that feedback to a future Works and Infrastructure meeting.
4.2 On 10 May 2016, the Works and Infrastructure committee approved the construction of a pedestrian refuge immediately north of Boundary Road as part of the stormwater upgrade, which has since been installed.
4.3 At the March 2018 Works and Infrastructure meeting, the committee requested officers to bring back a report to review and progress consideration of another pedestrian refuge on Waimea Road between Tukuka and Boundary Road.
4.4 Officers have undertaken an Indicative Business Case, assessed pedestrian movements and investigated a number of locations. Officers have also had this work independently assessed by Viastrada Limited (traffic engineers and planners specialising in walking and cycling facilities).
5. Discussion
5.1 Waimea Road traffic
5.1.1 Waimea Road has a traffic volume of 24,000 vehicles/day, with an average of 2,200 vehicles/hour at peak times, making it challenging for pedestrians/cyclists to cross Waimea Road and creating a severance issue for the Bishopdale/Nelson South Community. The next safe crossing facility other than the pedestrian refuge at Boundary Road is at the intersection of Waimea Road and Tukuka Street. These two refuge crossings are 470 metres apart.
5.1.2 The average speed along Waimea Road is 50km/h with three percent of the southbound traffic travelling at speeds in excess of 70km/h.
5.1.3 There were five reported crashes between Tukuka Street and Boundary Road in the five year period 2013 to 2017 resulting from loss of control and nose to tail. No crashes involving pedestrians were reported.
5.2 Pedestrian facilities guidelines
5.2.1 The Land Transport New Zealand Pedestrian Planning Guide (Guide) shows various levels of service to pedestrians at different crossing facilities (Attachment 1). The chart shows pedestrian delay based on traffic volume and crossing facility type. It recommends that for the volumes of traffic on Waimea Road that a pedestrian refuge with kerb build outs provides a level of service that is on the cusp of acceptable levels (shown by the red dot on the graph in attachment 1).
5.3 Waimea Road pedestrian issues
5.3.1 A survey of where pedestrians cross Waimea Road between Tukuka Street and Market Road shows that 137 crossed Waimea Road between 7am and 6pm, comprising 28 students, 91 adults, and 18 elderly. Crossing demand was concentrated at Tukuka Street (19%), Brunner Street walkway - north end of Russell Flats (15%) and Boundary Road (17%), but was otherwise random. The location of crossing facilities and bus stops on the length of Waimea Road from Bishopdale Hill to Rutherford Street are shown on Attachment 2.
5.3.2 Nelson Intermediate was consulted regarding their students crossing Waimea Road. Five students regularly cross at Boundary Road, and four at Tukuka Street. They reported that cars stop if the traffic is moving slowly or they wait for gaps in traffic to cross. No concerns were raised.
5.3.3 Managers of the Russell Flats were consulted on pedestrian demands from the Russell Flats community. Concern was raised about attracting elderly pedestrians to a crossing facility that might not deliver any safety benefits. Provision of a refuge means elderly residents would still need to cross the live lanes unaided.
5.4 Existing and future pedestrian facilities
5.4.1 There are two existing pedestrian refuge islands for pedestrians/cyclists to cross Waimea Road – one at Tukuka Street and one at Boundary Road. These are meeting some of the current demands with 36% of surveyed pedestrians using these crossing points.
5.4.2 Pedestrian facilities also compete against parking demand for kerbside space. Unless there is an existing no parking provision, any pedestrian facility will result in loss of parking.
5.5 Bus stops
5.5.1 Bus stops are a critical factor when considering the location of pedestrian crossing points. In the section under consideration, there are 4 bus stops – two southbound, the first being at 143 Waimea Road, and the second adjacent to the Caltex Bishopdale, and two northbound at 178 Waimea Road and 136 Waimea Road.
5.5.2 The existing southbound bus stop adjacent to Caltex Bishopdale was temporarily relocated to Russell Flats during the York Stream stormwater upgrade works in 2016. This temporary location received very positive public feedback and will become the permanent location.
5.6 Emergency services
5.6.1 A pedestrian refuge could reduce vehicle access to the painted median, and this could restrict passing opportunities for emergency vehicles. Waimea Road is relatively wide and Emergency Services were asked if they could accommodate a pedestrian refuge on the painted median in the area of Russell Flats. Fire, Police and Ambulance services all responded that they had no issues with a pedestrian refuge along this stretch of road.
5.7 Resident turning movements and exact location of refuge
5.7.1 A pedestrian refuge is considered to have a “safety flaw” when it does not allow a right turning vehicle to completely leave the traffic lane when turning right into a property and this is a key consideration for Waimea Road due to its high traffic volume.
5.7.2 A pedestrian refuge will also impact on vehicles turning right when exiting a property. Vehicles exiting a property are inconvenienced in that they need to wait for a gap to cross both traffic lanes at once because the refuge occupies the painted median where they could previously wait until merging into traffic. These vehicles can turn left but have to “go around the block” to return to their desired direction of travel.
5.7.3 Officers have also gained knowledge from previously installed pedestrian refuges around the City and a summary of where refuges have been installed locally on arterial roads in recent years is appended as Attachment 3. Complaints and concerns have been raised from these crossings specifically in relation to vehicle turning movements. Mitigation measures have been implemented to address some of these concerns.
5.7.4 Landowners potentially affected by a pedestrian refuge along Waimea Road were written to in October 2017. Five responses were received with comments generally in support of assisting pedestrians to cross Waimea Road, but with concern about their individual vehicle access to their properties.
5.7.5 Many Waimea Road driveways are very steep off the back of the footpath or have steep crossings onto the road. These issues combined with the traffic volume already make access challenging without further restricting vehicular turning movements.
6. Financial
6.1 Pedestrian refuges are funded through the NZTA Subsidised Transport Low Cost/Low Risk (LC/LR) at 51% funding assistance.
6.2 The implementation costs of the options considered as part of this report range from between $115,000 (Option 3C) and $350,000 (Option 3D). Any option chosen would need to be prioritised against other items in the LC/LR works programme. The 2018-21 budget in the Regional land transport Plan (RLTP) for LC/LR is $10 million.
7. Options
7.1 Numerous options were considered by officers and these were peer reviewed by an independent consultant, Viastrada.
7.2 The following options were considered but not pursued for the following reasons:
7.2.1 Overpass/Underpass – The underpass option would not address Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Both options have detour lengths that would make such facilities unappealing to the target audience as the Waimea crossing distance is simply too short, both would require utility service relocations and property acquisition, both would have major impacts on traffic during construction and both have an estimated cost of around $2.5M.
7.2.2 A pedestrian crossing (zebra crossing) has not been considered as a viable option because of the poor safety record associated with pedestrian crossings that are not on raised platforms. A raised platform is not suited to an arterial such as Waimea Road.
7.2.3 A signalised pedestrian crossing (similar to Waimea Road outside Hampden Street School) would have an impact on the traffic flow along Waimea Road. The pedestrian volume is not considered high enough to justify the negative effects on traffic flows or the estimated cost of $600,000.
7.3 The Viastrada peer review considered the three options proposed by officers and one further option (Option 3D) suggested by them - Option 3D had not been consulted on. Refer to Attachment 4 for location plans.
7.4 Both options 3A and 3B have safety flaws that relate to turning movements of traffic into and out of driveways and have not been considered further.
7.5 There are three options for the Committee to consider as detailed in the table below.
7.5.1 Option 1 – Do nothing;
7.5.2 Option 2 – Install pedestrian refuge at location 3C at an estimated cost of $115,000.
7.5.3 Option 3 – Install pedestrian refuge at location 3D at an estimated cost of $350,000. This is the preferred option of officers.
7.6 Options 3C and 3D require targeted consultation with directly affected residents (property owners and tenants). Option 3D would require all private property owners to agree to an easement change over their Right of Way (ROW). Officers note that it would only take one land owner not to agree to this change to their ROW to make this option unable to be implemented.
7.7 The major difference and advantage of Option 3D over 3C is that Option 3D caters for the known pedestrian desire line generated by the bus stop and the Brunner Street Walkway that would result in the refuge getting more use than Option 3C which is 50 metres further south. There is a risk pedestrians will not walk to Option 3C, but merely cross the road at a location that suits them. Option 3D is the safer crossing option but does however attract a much higher implementation cost over Option 3C.
|
Option 1: Do nothing |
|
|
Advantages |
· No effect on traffic flow or movement; · Property owners not affected; · No loss of parking. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Does not address severance issue; · No improvement for pedestrians wanting to cross Waimea Road; · No provision for relocated bus stop pedestrian desire line; · Ongoing safety risk for pedestrians crossing Waimea Road; · Potential to suppress demand for walking as a mode of transport.
|
|
Option 2: Install Pedestrian refuge at location 3C |
|
|
Advantages |
· Closer alignment to recommendations in the National Pedestrian Planning Guide; · Kerb buildouts provide a shortened crossing distance, which particularly suits elderly and children crossing the road; · Provides a protected pedestrian space on the painted median; · Northbound bus stop (outside 178 Waimea Road) does not need to be relocated. · Addresses anticipated desire line resulting from relocation of south bound bus stop, from Caltex Bishopdale to Russell Flats. · Least effect on property access of all options. Two (of four) affected landowners in support of refuge. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Drivers coming out of driveway at 186 Waimea Road intending to turn right will have to find a gap in traffic in both directions simultaneously, or turn left. This affects three households; · Currently located at the least used pedestrian desire line; · Loss of six 6 carparks; · Buildouts and refuge will limit carriageway width on Waimea Road which affect over-dimension vehicles but design can include the removal of central island to allow safe passage of over-dimension vehicles. · Ongoing safety risk for pedestrians crossing Waimea Road who chose not to use the refuge. · Refuge could fail to deliver the safety benefits expected by less-able pedestrians resulting in high safety risk for those pedestrians, because of the high traffic volume and speed, and the time required for less-able pedestrians to cross to/from the refuge. · Residents resist proposal in final targeted consultation prior to construction.
|
|
Option 3: Install Pedestrian refuge at location 3D |
|
|
Advantages |
· Best fit to the current pedestrian desire line so is expected to get the most pedestrian use; · Closer alignment to recommendations in the national Pedestrian Planning Guide; · Kerb buildouts provide a shortened crossing distance, which particularly suits elderly and children crossing the road. · A refuge provides a protected pedestrian space on the painted median which reduces the risk for pedestrians waiting to cross the road. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· High cost; · Drivers coming out of driveway at 178 Waimea Road, and Russell Flats driveway intending to turn right will have to find a gap in traffic in both directions simultaneously, or turn left. This affects 6 households and Russell Flats. · Closer proximity of realigned driveway may have an impact on quality of life for residents in the Russell Flats. · Risk of complications with altering driveway and affected easements over council land. · Loss of at least 6 carparks. · Northbound bus stop and shelter outside 178 Waimea Road will need to be relocated. · Buildouts and refuge will limit carriageway width on Waimea Road which will affect over-dimension vehicles but design can include the removal of central island to allow safe passage of over-dimension vehicles. · Ongoing safety risk for pedestrians crossing Waimea Road who would not use the refuge. · Residents could resist proposal in final targeted consultation prior to construction – it would only take one owner not to agree to a change in the easement across their ROW for this option not to be able to be implemented. |
8. Conclusion
8.1 Following a detailed business case and independent peer review of those options, a preferred option (Option 3D) to improve pedestrian levels of service on Waimea Road between Tukuka Street and Boundary Road has been identified at an estimated cost of $350,000. This option (option 3D) to realign the Russell Flats driveway to provide a location for the refuge on the pedestrian desire line is the preferred option.
8.2 The preferred refuge option results in some loss of parking, but will provide a safer crossing point for pedestrians.
8.3 Whilst option 3D is the preferred option, it will require agreement from all private landowners to change the easement across their Right of Way. It would only take one resident to not agree to this for option 3D not to be able to be implemented. Should this scenario eventuate, officer’s note that Option 3C would be a viable workable alternative location.
Margaret Parfitt
Manager Roading and Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1985032: Pedestrian planning guide - Level of service graph ⇩
Attachment 2: A1983957: Waimea Road crossing facilities and bus stop locations ⇩
Attachment 3: A1985289: Recently installed pedestrian refuge islands on Nelson arterial roads ⇩
Attachment 4: A1981206: Waimea Road pedestrian refuge options ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The report recommendation considers current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of the roading and parking network in the City. A pedestrian refuge on Waimea Road is something the Council is authorised to deliver as a Road Controlling Authority - no other agency can deliver this. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy Provision of a Pedestrian Refuge on Waimea Road aligns with Councils “Out and About” Policy, Community Outcomes and Transport AMP by providing for transport choice, active transport, and suitable safe and connected footpaths. |
|
3. Risk A pedestrian refuge does not preclude any future developments on Waimea Road. It could be designed to be removed. |
|
4. Financial impact At $200,000, the preferred option is roughly double what a standard pedestrian refuge would cost. However this option does provide the best outcome and can be funded from the Subsidised Transport Low Cost/Low Risk at 51% funding assistance. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of medium significance as it affects the driveways of several properties. Consultation has been undertaken but further consultation will be required with the Russell Street flats if Option 3D is approved. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Consultation with Maori has not been undertaken. |
|
7. Delegations The Works and Infrastructure Committee areas of responsibility includes “Roading network, including associated structures, bridges and retaining walls, walkways, footpaths and road reserve, landscaping and ancillary services and facilities, street lighting and traffic management control” |
