Agenda of Infrastructure Committee

Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 2 June 2020

Minutes of a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee

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

On Tuesday 2 June 2020, commencing at 9.05a.m.

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand (via zoom), M Courtney, J Edgar, K Fulton (via zoom), M Lawrey (via zoom), R O'Neill-Stevens, G Noonan (via zoom), P Rainey (via zoom), and R Sanson (via zoom)

In Attendance: Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E-J Ruthven)

Apologies : Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor T Skinner

Karakia Timatanga

Committee members gave a karakia timatanga.

1. Apologies

Resolved IC/2020/024

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Skinner.

Edgar/Courtney 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 7 May 2020

Document number M9841, agenda pages 6 - 12 refer.

Resolved IC/2020/025

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held on 7 May 2020, as a true and correct record.

O'Neill-Stevens/Bowater Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

Document number R17032, agenda page 13 refers.

Councillor McGurk presented the report.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions regarding the resource consent process and construction timeframes relating to the Maitai footpath widening project, and Council’s additional applications to the Provincial Growth Fund and the Crown ‘shovel ready’ projects fund.

Resolved IC/2020/026

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R17032).

McGurk/Edgar Carried

7. COVID-19 Implications for Infrastructure

Document number R17024, agenda pages 14 - 18 refer.

Manager Capital Projects, Lois Plum, presented the report and answered questions regarding the proposed construction timeframes for Provincial Growth Fund projects.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, and Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered further questions regarding drainage for, and future stages of, the Maitai Shared Path Widening Project, and the trial of a Barnes Dance crossing at the Trafalgar Street/Halifax Street intersection.

Attendance: Councillor Rainey left the meeting at 9.21a.m.

Resolved IC/2020/027

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report COVID-19 Implications for Infrastructure (R17024).

Edgar/Fulton Carried

8. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan

Document number R13697, agenda pages 19 - 39 refer.

General Manager Regional Sewerage and Landfill, Nathan Clark, presented the report.

Attendance: Councillor Rainey returned to the meeting at 9.30a.m.

Resolved IC/2020/028

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan (R13697) and its attachment (A2375131); and

2. Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan (A2375131).

Noonan/Courtney Carried

9. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved IC/2020/029

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

2. 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:

Noonan/O'Neill-Stevens 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	Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 7 May 2020	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)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 7 May 2020

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 9.31a.m. and resumed in public session at 9.33a.m.

The only business transacted in confidential session was to confirm the minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists therefore this business has been recorded in the open minutes.

10. Confirmation of Confidential Minutes - 7 May 2020

Resolved IC/2020/030

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of part of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held with the public excluded on 7 May 2020, as a true and correct record.

O'Neill-Stevens/McGurk Carried

11. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved IC/2020/031

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Noonan/Bowater Carried

Karakia whakamutunga

Committee members gave a karakia whakamutunga.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.35a.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 6: Chairperson's Report

Infrastructure Committee

2 July 2020

REPORT R18097

Chairperson's Report

1. Chair’s foreword

1.1 My Chair’s report deals with a wide range of issues.

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R18097).

3. Discussion

3.1 As previously advised, a trial of the “Barnes Dance” pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Trafalgar and Halifax Streets began on 25 June. The “Barnes Dance” is a type of crossing that allows pedestrians to cross intersections in every direction at the same time, which reduces waiting times. Pedestrians have to wait for up to two signal phases before they can cross. This is just one of the ways we are making Nelson’s City Centre more walkable for pedestrians as part of our City Development Strategy.

3.2 Pay-by-Plate parking meters have been installed and went live on Monday 29 June 2020 and the new parking by-law came into effect on 1 July 2020. During this week parking officers and transport staff have been carrying out an educational and ambassadorial role to assist members of the community with the changes. Enforcement will begin shortly although the posted parking time limits have been enforced.

The advent of free parking in the central city area has created significant adverse effects, mostly due to the lack of turnover of parking and workers in the central city occupying parking normally used by visitors and customers.

3.3 The temporary 30 km/h speed limit in the central city was in place during the COVID-19 emergency. The speed limit was lifted on 10 June after the country went into Level One as there were no longer any social distancing requirements or expectations. The reason for the temporary speed limit in the central city no longer existed and it had to be removed because it was no longer legal nor enforceable.

Of course we are delighted that the country made it back to Level One so quickly and we can turn to recovery and rebuilding the local economy, but it does mean the speed limit has reverted back to the previous speed limit of 50km/h in the city centre and the 30km/h speed limit signs have been removed.

3.4 Staff have prepared a report for this Infrastructure Committee meeting to commence the process to change the speed limit in the central city (and other identified streets) permanently. A Special Consultative Procedure is required, as to change a speed limit bylaw is complex. Any proposed change (if supported) would not come into effect until late October/early November 2020.

3.5 The collection of plastic categories 3, 4, 6 and 7 by the Council ceased as from 1 July 2020. The Council will now only accept plastic categories 1, 2 and 5. A letter was sent to retailers, supermarket operators and Uniquely Nelson advising of the change and the reasons behind the decision.

The Chairperson has fronted several media events and interviews to publicise the change.

Officers within the Solid Waste and Communications teams at Council are commended for the level and quality of the communication around the change of collection and the reasons behind the decision, which from all accounts has increased the level of the understanding and has wide public support.

3.6 The design of the Maitai Walkway between Collingwood Street and the Normanby Bridge on Bridge Street has been finalised. The width of the pathway will be 2.5 metres and will be a continuation of the section from Trafalgar Street to Collingwood Street. The project has received funding of $600,000 from the Provincial Growth Fund. Work should begin on site within the month.

3.7 The launch of electronic Beecard ticketing for the Nbus is expected on 3 August 2020. Nelson will join eight other regions around New Zealand with an electronic ticketing system for public transport. The Beecard will able to be used in the other regions.

This will coincide with a modified and cheaper fare system. Travel on NBus will remain free until the date the Beecard becomes operational. The move to electronic ticketing will provide improved data to assist with the Public Transport Review and the Regional Public Transport Plan.

3.8 Unfortunately, Council was unsuccessful in the first tranche of the $7M available from the Innovative Streets Funds for Kawai Street. We however remain hopeful that our bid will be successful from the second tranche of $7M, and we will know the outcome of this application by the end of July.

3.9 Following a request from members of the Hampden Street School community for improved pedestrian safety on walking routes to school, officers have worked through a number of options. As an interim measure the current preferred option is the installation of a pedestrian refuge in Franklyn Street near the intersection with Waimea Road. Design has been completed and an independent safety audit is underway. The desktop audit has been carried out and identified that removal of car parking in the area would be required. A site visit is still required. The longer term solution is subject to the outcome of the Nelson Future Access study and a business case is being completed for traffic signals at the intersection.

3.10 Notwithstanding the COVID-19 emergency and lockdown the Trafalgar Street Bridge was resurfaced, extending its life by 30 years.

3.11 The Gracefield diversion project that will address wastewater issues in the area has moved at a pace during the year so we will be able to start construction before Christmas 2020.

3.12 The renewal of water meters is underway and over 4800 water meters have been replaced.

Author: Brian McGurk, Chairperson

Attachments

Nil

Item 7: Covid-19 Implications for Infrastructure

Infrastructure Committee

2 July 2020

REPORT R18058

Covid-19 Implications for Infrastructure

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update the Committee on the effects the COVID-19 lockdown and subsequent alert level changes have had on the Infrastructure Group.

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Covid-19 Implications for Infrastructure (R18058).

3. Background

3.1 As the last update to this Committee was on the 2 June 2020, updates have been kept to the minimum for this report.

3.2 As noted previously, the COVID-19 lockdown and moving through the different alert levels has impacted Council’s capital delivery programme to varying degrees.

3.3 A number of projects that were stopped for the duration of the lockdown have shown a drop in productivity since returning to site as a result of the “back-to-work” protocols, along with winter weather conditions.

3.4 Contractor variation claims have been received for the larger projects and the team is working to confirm these claims with appropriate evidence.

3.5 All capital works as well as operations and maintenance (roading, three waters and solid waste) are back to normal.

Provincial Growth Fund (PGF)

3.6 The update of these projects is as below. Officers have worked to get these projects ready for construction with some requiring consent renewals and iwi engagement.

3.7 NCC Beach Road raised table - contractor appointed with work commencing mid-June.

3.8 NCC Maitai pathway improvement - resource consent renewal lodged, contractor appointed, communication plan underway, an archaeologist report has been received and an iwi monitor engaged.

3.9 Regional landfill York Valley road resurfacing – contractor appointed with asphalting underway.

3.10 Regional landfill Eves Valley Implement planting & tracks Eves Valley - landscape plan received and programme finalised with contractor.

3.11 NRSBU Bullivant Road Cycleway – This work, valued at $100,000, will not be proceeding as it stands. This project intended to provide a cycleway that would improve the interaction between recreational users to Rabbit Island and vehicles from the NRSBU biosolids contractor and the TDC logging contractor.

The result of the urgency of the application was that TDC officers were not consulted on. The recent advice is that this project did not fit in with the Rabbit Island Management Plan. This lack of consultation was not intentional but an oversight and a direct result of the urgency officers were faced with at the time.

TDC have however identified an alternative cycleway project in their area and NCC officers are preparing a submission to the Department of Internal Affairs that will seek to replace the Bullivant Road project. TDC have also agreed, if this variation is approved, to manage this project directly.

3.12 Officers are planning to provide draft copies of the 2021–31 Activity Management Plans (AMPs) to the Infrastructure Committee in August (transport) and October (three waters/solid waste).

Public Transport

3.13 A fare recovery plan has been submitted to Waka Kohi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for consideration. The plan requests Nbus services remain free of charge until the electronic ticketing project goes live on 3 August, with NZTA covering revenue shortfall. On 3 August the contract will convert to a gross contract and the ability to have contactless payment fares will resume. As indicated in the Annual Plan deliberations report officers anticipate significant reduced passenger fare revenue for the next 12 months and await advice from NZTA about how that funding shortfall will be met. Total Mobility fares returned to their normal subsidy rate on 1 July.

Solid Waste and Waste Minimisation

3.14 All services at the Pascoe street transfer station have returned to normal.

3.15 The Transfer Station hopper operation contract tender closed on 5 June and officers are evaluating submissions. The new contract will commence in November.

3.16 The Organic food waste trial tenders have been received with two tenders currently being evaluated. The trial is scheduled to commence this calendar year.

3.17 Waste minimisation activities are returning to normal under Alert Level 1. This includes restarting promotion of the cup bond subsidy and Refill NZ water bottle refill programmes in July as part of an ongoing focus on reducing single use plastics. Council is also supporting the national Plastic Free July project to encourage our community to create less plastic waste, and throughout the month will be sharing tips and videos as well as a virtual launch event across its media channels.

3.18 During the shutdown and subsequent alert levels, support was provided for an investigation of demolition versus deconstruction for the Mediterranean Warehouse project

3.19 Changes to what plastic is accepted for kerbside recycling commenced on 1 July. A thorough engagement campaign was commenced in June and will be ongoing as part of Council’s education programme.

Author: Lois Plum, Manager Capital Projects

Attachments

Nil

Item 8: City Centre and Home Zone Speed Limits - Statement of Proposal for changes to the Speed Limit Bylaw

Infrastructure Committee

2 July 2020

REPORT R13686

City Centre and Home Zone Speed Limits - Statement of Proposal for changes to the Speed Limit Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the Statement of Proposal (SOP) to amend the Speed Limit Bylaw 2011 (210) (Bylaw) and to approve the commencement of a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) for speed limit reduction for the city centre (excluding the ring roads) and home zones.

2. Summary

2.1 A workshop on Nelson’s speed management planning was held with Councillors on 4 March 2020. In this workshop, officers provided an overview of work being done to develop Nelson’s speed management plan, Ministry of Transport’s (MoT) national road safety strategy “Road to Zero”, and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s (NZTA) work to introduce National Speed Limit Register from 2021.

2.2 The National Speed Limit Register will be informed by the local speed management plans, which are required under the new legislation and a rule change by the MoT. In the workshop, whilst councillors asked officers to continue working on city-wide speed management plan, they expressed an interest in officers addressing, without delay, the city centre speed limit (excluding the ring roads) and the speed limits in “home zones” (where there is not a continuous footpath on at least one side of the road). This report and the SOP was developed based on that direction.

2.3 Speed limit reduction from 50km/h to 30km/h in the city centre (excluding the ring roads) and home zones aligns well with the 2018 Government Policy Statement’s (GPS) focus on safety and access and Councils desire to see a greater uptake of active travel modes. It is also consistent with the national road safety strategy “Road to Zero”, the NZTA’s tactical urbanism and innovative streets approach and the City Centre Spatial Plan.

2.4 An SCP is required to make changes to Council’s Bylaw, which involves adoption of an SOP, a one month consultation period and consideration of written and oral submissions. The Infrastructure committee has delegated authority to hear and deliberate on submissions.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report City Centre and Home Zone Speed Limits - Statement of Proposal for changes to the Speed Limit Bylaw (R13686) and its attachments (A2398604; A2403583; A239860; A2372939 and A2379502); and

2. Agrees a Bylaw to set a permanent speed limit is the most appropriate way of addressing safety and access in the city centre (excluding the ring roads) and home zones; and

3. Agrees the proposed amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) are the most appropriate form of bylaw and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

4. Agrees a summary of Statement of Proposal Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) is not required; and

5. Adopts the Statement of Proposal (A2372939 of Report 13686) relating to lowering of the speed limit from existing limit to 30km/h in the city centre (excluding the ring roads) and home zones; and

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure, with the consultation period to run from 13 July 2020 to 14 August 2020; and

7. Approves the Consultation Plan (A2379502 of Report 13686); and

8. Notes that the Consultation Plan (A2379502 of Report 13686) will include sufficient steps to ensure the Statement of Proposal will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

9. Notes that the Consultation Plan (A2379502 of Report 13686) will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

4. Background

City Centre

4.1 In a speed management workshop held on 4 March 2020 Councillors indicated an appetite for officers to develop a Statement of Proposal to reduce the speed limit from existing limit of 40km/h or 50km/h to 30km/h in the city centre (excluding the ring roads) and in home zones.

4.2 In response to the Post Covid-19 arrangement, an emergency speed limit reduction from 50km/h to 30km/h was set up under clause 7.1(2) of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, through the Chief Executive’s delegation. At the direction of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport agency (NZTA) this emergency speed limit was removed soon after New Zealand reverted back to Alert Level 1 which no longer required social distancing and is shown in green in Attachment 1 (A2398604). For the short time the limit applied it was well received by the public.

4.3 A permanent speed limit reduction in the city centre is proposed specifically to improve the amenity and vitality of the area. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is a perceived safety issue, especially for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

4.4 The public life surveys undertaken in the central city show that the daily number of pedestrian movements range from 44,000 and 76,000, daily cycle movements between 1,800 and 3,500 in and around the central city depending on the season and day of the week.

4.5 Vehicle counts show average volumes on the central city streets range from 150 to 6,200 per day.

4.6 These pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle counts support that it is appropriate to reduce the speed limit to 30km/h in order to provide a safe feel of the area where different road users can move around with confidence.

4.7 In the last five years (2015-2019) there has been 60 police reported crashes on the roads inside the ring road of which 44 were non-injury related, 13 resulted in minor injury and three resulting in serious injury. Of the 60 crashes, nine (1 non injury, 1 serious and 7 minor injury) involved pedestrians, and 7 (1 non injury, 1 serious and 5 minor injury) involved cyclists. While speed was not the cause of any of these crashes, speed could be the factor in the outcome. Ministry of Transport’s (MoT) Road Safety Strategy 2010-2020 highlights that speed affects the likelihood and impact of all crashes.

4.8 Officers in conjunction with Tasman District Council (TDC) conducted an Attitudinal Speed Limit Survey in June 2019. This survey covered both Nelson and Tasman roads and received over 2,000 responses. Most of the responses relating to the Nelson central city supported a speed limit reduction to 30km/h. The preliminary results of this survey were socialised with Councillors at the 4 March 2020 speed management plan workshop.

Home Zones

4.9 The following streets are considered home zones and considered part of the proposed speed limit reduction. Refer to Attachment 2.

· Airlie Street

· Albert Road

· Allan Street

· Arrow Street extension.

· Athol Street

· Atmore Terrace

· Avon Terrace

· Beachville Crescent

· Brook Terrace

· Cherry Ave

· Champion Terrace

· Cleveland Terrace (from Manuka Street to Atmore including Mayroyd Terrace)

· Clouston Terrace

· Endeavour Street

· Fifeshire Crescent

· Fountain Place (10-24)

· Grenville Terrace

· Hampden Street West (from Wigzell Park to walkway)

· Hanby Park

· Harbour Terrace

· King Street

· Larges Lane

· Martin Street

· Mayroyd Terrace

· Moncrieff Avenue

· Montcalm Street

· Mt Pleasant Ave

· Omaio Village (Railway Reserve)

· Poynters Crescent

· Point Road (Monaco)

· Queens Road (106-130)

· Rainer Street

· Rangiora Terrace

· Rimu Street

· Ronaki Terrace

· Stanley Crescent

4.10 The above mentioned streets are considered appropriate for the speed limit reduction because they lack a footpath on either side of the road. The typical layout of these streets is shown in Attachment 3.

4.11 Service requests and anecdotal evidence suggests that speed of 50km/h feels dangerous on these roads and can be a safety issue for vulnerable road users including pedestrians where these roads lack pedestrian facilities. Officers are of the view that any perception of danger will suppress the uptake of active modes of travel. In addition other constraints that give the street character such as narrowness of roads, short lengths and short sight lines, do cause concern for all road users including vehicle drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists.

4.12 NCC and TDC combined Attitudinal Speed Limit Survey (discussed earlier) also asked about these kind of residential streets. The vast majority of respondents (83%) noted that a 50km/h speed limit on these streets is inappropriate and should be reduced.

5. Discussion

Safety and Amenity

5.1 A slower speed environment improves safety, both real and perceived, for all street users. The lower speed environment also provides better opportunity for users to see each other giving them more time to react and accommodate the other users as required.

5.2 The survival rate from a pedestrian and vehicle collision is significantly greater when speed is less than 30km/h. The following graph shows the likelihood of pedestrian injury or death at different speeds. The risk of serious injury or death significantly reduces at lower speeds. There is less than 10% chance of death and 30% chance of serious injury if a pedestrian is hit at 30km/h speed. This increases to 30% chance of death and over 60% chance of serious injury if a pedestrian is hit at 50km/h speed.

5.3 Similarly, it takes a car a longer distance to stop while travelling at higher speed. For example, a car travelling at 30km/h only needs around 13m to stop, whereas a car travelling at 50km/h needs around 28m to stop – an extra 15m. On busy central city streets and in home zones that extra 15m can be critical.

5.4 Although there are very few reported crashes on the residential streets proposed for change, the perceived safety concerns among the residents is high. This is reflected in complaints made by residents suggesting loss of residential amenity and suppressed uptake of active transport due to perceived safety concerns. In slow speed environments, it would be appropriate for different transport users (people walking, driving or on bikes) to mix and share the space. This will also increase the amenity and liveability in these areas.

5.5 Lower speeds will increase attractiveness and competitiveness of alternative modes for people to choose to walk and cycle more, interact with local shops or services and with neighbours. This will not only help build community values but also improve their physical and mental wellbeing. Loneliness and social isolation are shown to be directly linked to mental illness. Interaction with neighbours and other people in the street can strengthen social ties and it is easier to communicate when you are not in a private car. Chance interactions with neighbours and people in the street will have positive benefits for mental wellbeing and reduction in social isolation (https://loneliness.org.nz/nz/research/typology-of-loneliness-in-nz/).

National context

5.6 A 30km/h speed limit would be consistent with both the 2018 and the draft 2021 central government policy statement on transport (GPS), which aim to create a more equitable and safer transport network, and their national road safety strategy, Road to Zero.

5.7 Many cities overseas and in New Zealand have reduced speed limits in their city centres, which have yielded safety, amenity and improved business results. Increased foot-count is good for retailers and businesses. Many studies have shown that people who travel by foot and bike tend to shop more often and spend more.

5.8 In 2016, Christchurch introduced a 30km/h lower speed zone within a large part of the central city area, as part of their “Accessible City” transport rebuild plan. Analysis of crash data two years before and after suggests considerable reductions in crash numbers (-25%) and injuries (-36%) since its implementation, despite growing numbers of traffic and people returning to the city.

5.9 Similarly, Hamilton City Council has also reduced the speed limit to 30km/h in their central city and many residential streets through their speed management plan. According to recent statistics, instances of cars hitting pedestrians have fallen to half in the central city after the speed limit of 30km/h was implemented.

5.10 Auckland Council will be doing the same in 2020. Dunedin City Council and Wellington City Council (through Let’s Get Wellington Moving) are consulting on reducing speed limits to 30hm/h in their central city’s and other areas. In approving this Statement of Proposal to lower speed limits Nelson City Council is in step with other cities and is aligned with the central government’s focus on safety, access, and amenity.

5.11 Besides city centres, many cities in New Zealand have reduced speed limit in their residential streets (“home zones” in Nelson terms). For instance, Auckland Transport have included many residential streets in their proposal to lower speed limit to 30km/h, to be implemented in 2020.

5.12 In Nelson, in the past, home zones were ‘treated’ with infrastructural interventions such as kerb buildouts and speed tables. Examples of local residential home zones are Iwa Road, Queens Road and Locking Street.

5.13 Most of the roads listed in this report for proposed speed limit reduction are ‘self-explaining roads’ and 30km/h speed can be achieved through changing the speed limit. However speeds will be monitored and infrastructure interventions planned if required. There are three roads currently limited to 40km/h (Atmore Terrace, Mayroyd Terrace and a section of Cleveland Terrace), but as these lacks footpaths on either side it is proposed to reduce them to 30km/h for consistency.

5.14 Local police support lowering speed limits in the streets proposed and prefer the speed limit is addressed before infrastructure changes are considered.

5.15 The alternative option to achieve desired safety outcomes would be to build footpaths on all of the streets listed. Council does have an extensive footpath programme with over $1M invested in new/improved footpaths each year. This programme will continue but a programme of building new footpaths on the all hillside streets listed will take considerable time and budget, and encounter some complex designs, including retaining walls, due to topography.

5.16 The list of streets proposed for 30km/h does not cover all requests received at Council for lower speed limits. Officers plan to address those speed limits as part of the overall speed management plan later next year. The speed management plan will address all streets in the city based on the Safe System Approach. The Safe System Approach acknowledges that as people we all make mistakes but that a mistake should not mean someone dies or is seriously injured on our roads. It is also an approach that values everyone using the road, not just those in vehicles. It is about caring for more vulnerable road users like people walking or riding bikes.

5.17 The Draft SOP includes three potential outcomes of the special consultative procedure as noted below:

· adopting the proposal to reduce the speed from existing limit of 40km/h or 50km/h to 30km/h in total for the central city and the home zones.

· retaining the current speed limits; or

· based on community feedback, adopting a lowered speed limit, in selected streets included in the proposal.

5.18 If approved, the cost to implement the speed limit changes will be approximately $50,000. This cost includes converting speed limit signage at entry/exit points and additional home zone signage. This will be funded from the Low Cost/Low Risk roading improvements budget which attracts a 51% subsidy.

Consultation and decision making process

5.19 Section 156 of the Local Government Act (LGA) requires Council to use the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) before making a decision to amend a bylaw. When carrying out the SCP (as outlines in section 83 of the LGA) the Council must:

· prepare and adopt a statement of proposal.

· consider whether a summary of the statement of proposal is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.

· make the statement of proposal publically available for at least one month and invite written submissions.

· provide an opportunity for people to present their views to the local authority in person.

5.20 The draft SOP is included as Attachment 4. No summary of the SOP has been prepared as the full document is not overly complicated to allow people to make well informed submission.

5.21 Following adoption of SOP by the Infrastructure Committee, it will be made available to the public for feedback, with a proposed consultation period from 13 July 2020 to 14 August

5.22 The draft consultation plan is included in Attachment 5.

5.23 Hearings will be held in August 2020 followed by deliberations by the Infrastructure Committee in October. The recommendation of the Committee will be considered by the Council thereafter, with any new speed limit changes to follow.

6. Options

6.1 The options to be considered in this report are whether to adopt or not adopt the draft SOP.

6.2 Officers recommend Option 1 to provide the opportunity to test community feedback on lower speed limits in city centre (excluding the ring roads) and home zones.

Option 1: Recommend adoption of the draft SOP
Advantages	· Opportunity to improve safety, accessibility, and amenity of city centre and home zones. · Aligns well with GPS 2018 focus on safety and access. · Is in step with other cities and aligns well with NZTA’s innovative street/tactical urbanism initiatives currently under development. · Supports the Council’s vision for central city as a “people friendly” area
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not recommend adoption of the draft SOP
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Lost opportunity to improve safety, accessibility, and amenity of city centre and home zones. · Lost opportunity to align with various central government’s initiatives around innovative streets/tactical urbanism, which are closely linked to speed.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The draft SOP proposes to reduce the existing speed limits from 40 km/h or 50km/h to 30km/h in the city centre (excluding the ring roads) and key home zones to improve safety, accessibility and liveability.

7.2 Adopting the draft SOP and commencing the SCP will enable the Infrastructure Committee to gain public feedback on this proposal and to conclude whether or not this proposed is supported by the community.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: Map of city centre showing streets for speed limit reduction (A2398604) ⇩

Attachment 2: Proposed changes on the bylaw map.(A2403583) ⇩

Attachment 3: Photographs of streets showing typical orientation in home zones (A2398605) ⇩

Attachment 4: Statement of Proposal - Speed limit reduction in CBD and home zones (A2372939). ⇩

Attachment 5: Draft Consultation Plan - Speed limit change CBD and home zones (A2379502).

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report considers how to provide safe and appropriate infrastructure that is designed to improve safety of vulnerable road users and also reduce future costs. Initiation of a special consultative procedure enables democratic local decision-making on behalf of the community.

A review of the Speed Limit in city centre and home zones for safety, access and amenity fits with the 2018 and draft 2020 GPS Key Strategic Priority for Safety, a safe system, free of death and serious injury where speed management is a suitable delivery mechanism.

The Council as Road Controlling Authority is required to set speed limits that are safe and appropriate and give effect to nationally consistent and evidence based speeds through the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2017, Rule 54001/2017.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report supports the community outcome: “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.”

3. Risk

The key reason to reduce the speed limit on city centre and home zones is to reduce the risk of crashes and provide a better level of service for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

4. Financial impact

An SCP procedure and changes to traffic speed limit signage can be completed at minimal cost and within existing budgets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium/high significance because it affects a large number of road users in the city centre and home zones. Therefore the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) will be followed. The detailed timeline is provided in the body of the report.

6. Climate Impact

This proposal support Councils leadership towards reduction in carbon emissions by making alternative modes of travel competitive and attractive when compared to private car travel. Increasing safety perceptions and amenity of our roading network can influence travel behaviour that could have a positive effect on climate change and encourage modal shift.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report but iwi will be sent the SOP as outlined in the Communications plan attached.

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider bylaws affecting the transport network.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

· Transport network, including, roading network and associated structures, walkways, cycleways and shared pathways, footpaths and road reserve, street lighting, traffic management control and parking.

Delegations:

· The committee has all of the responsibilities, powers, functions and duties of Council in relation to governance matters within its areas of responsibility, except where they have been retained by Council, or have been referred to other committees, subcommittees or subordinate decision-making bodies.

· The exercise of Council’s responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters includes (but is not limited to):

o Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate

o Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes

o To hear and deliberate on submissions for Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation requirements arising from legislation, falling within the areas of responsibility.

Item 9: Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan

Infrastructure Committee

2 July 2020

REPORT R13696

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) 2020/21 Business Plan (Business Plan).

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan (R13696) and its attachment (A2396455).

3. Background

3.1 The NRSBU was established by the Nelson City Council (NCC) and Tasman District Council (TDC) in July 2000. Its purpose is to manage and operate the wastewater treatment facilities at Bell Island and the associated reticulation network efficiently and in accordance with resource consent conditions and to meet the needs of its customers.

3.2 The five major customers are NCC, TDC, ENZA Foods, Alliance and Nelson Pine Industries.

3.3 The Memorandum of Understanding requires that the draft Business Plan be presented annually to each Council by 31 December each year and allows for each Council to provide feedback on the draft Business Plan.

3.4 The draft 2020/21 Business Plan was prepared by the NRSBU Acting General Manager and was presented to the Board, who resolved on 13 September 2019 as follows:

Moved Walker/Cr Maling

NRSBU19-09-1

That the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit:

1. receives and approves the draft NRSBU Business Plan 2020/2021 subject to minor changes approved by the Chairman; and

2. recommends the draft NRSBU Business Plan 2020/2021 be presented to the Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council for their feedback.

CARRIED

3.5 The NRSBU can only formally adopt the Draft Business Plan after receiving and considering comment from the two Councils and is then required to present the final Business Plan to the Councils by 20 March, for inclusion in each Council’s draft Annual Plan.

3.6 The Infrastructure Committee considered the Draft Business Plan on the 21 November 2019 and provided feedback to the Acting General Manager. That feedback requested specifics as to when the Business Improvement Plan was due to commence.

3.7 The Committee resolved:

Resolved IC/2019/067

“Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2020/21 Business Plan (R11478) and its attachment (A2279695); and

Provides comments back to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Acting General Manager on the draft Nelson Regional Sewerage 2020/21 Business Plan (A2279695”.

3.8 The General Manager considered that feedback, amended the Business Plan and presented it to the NRSBU Board on the 12 June 2020, where they resolved as follows:

“Receives the report Adoption of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2020/2021 Business Plan (R18049) and its attachment (A2396455); and

Approves the NRSBU Business Plan 2020-2021 (A2396455) subject to minor changes approved by the Chairperson; and

Recommends the NRSBU Business Plan 2020/21 be presented to the Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council”.

4. Discussion

4.1 The NRSBU Business Plan 2020/21 is appended as Attachment 1 and the General Manager will be present at the meeting to answer any questions.

5. Options

5.1 The Committee has already considered the draft Business Plan and provided feedback to both the Acting General Manager and General Manager. The General Manager has addressed that feedback in the revised Business Plan and presented it back to the Board for approval. The Board has subsequently approved the Business Plan.

5.2 All that remains is for both Council’s to receive that the Business Plan in line with the Memorandum of Understanding.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The NRSBU Business Plan 2020/21 has been approved by the NRSBU Board and is now presented to the two Councils.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2396455 - NRSBU Business Plan 2020 - 2021 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NRSBU is a joint committee constituted pursuant to the provisions of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002 and contributes to the four Local Government well-beings of social, economic, environmental and cultural.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The draft Business Plan is required under the MoU to be received by Council and included in the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

3. Risk

This report is of low risk as the Committee has already considered the Business Plan and provided comment back to the Acting General Manager. The risk not receiving the Business Plan is that this could delay the NRSBU implementing their Business Plan for 2020/21.

4. Financial impact

The NRSBU 2020/21 Business Plan reflects an increase in essential renewals expenditure and the commencement of the regional pipeline upgrade.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The NRSBU is a Joint Committee of the two Councils and its activities are included in the Long-term Plans and Annual Plans of each Council. Consultation is undertaken by both Councils in the preparation and adoption of these plans.

6. Climate Impact

A key feature of the draft Business Plan is the inclusion of a long–term objective of greenhouse gas emissions with the commitment to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the facility.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report but iwi have representation on the Board.

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Plan:

Relevant Areas of responsibility:

• Wastewater, including Bell Island Wastewater Treatment Plant

Delegations:

The exercise of Council’s responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters includes

• Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans, including activity management plans and the Infrastructure Strategy