Item 6: City Centre
Streets for People Deliberations Report
|
|
Council
9 September 2020
|
REPORT R18133
City
Centre Streets for People Deliberations Report
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
consider public feedback on Council’s Streets for People proposal.
1.2 To
approve option four, “Retain the current configuration of footpaths and
car parking in the city centre”, given that public feedback was finely
balanced on two options at either end of the spectrum. This will allow
officer resource to be focused on the completion of the City Centre Spatial
Plan, creating the vision within which future place making can occur with
better support and certainty.
2. Summary
2.1 This
report addresses the Streets for People consultation options and covers the
main issues raised in the feedback, along with other feedback people have
provided on the city centre, such as through Council’s Annual Plan
consultation process.
2.2 The
Streets for People proposal was approved in April 2020 during COVID19 lockdown
through report R16965. The proposal included a Stage 1 temporary response
to ensure social distancing was enabled on key streets in the city centre, and
a Stage 2 approach which sought feedback on a proposed step change in the
Nelson City Centre to create people-focused streets to achieve some of the six
key moves of walkability, destination Nelson, liveability, and
blue green heart.
2.3 Social
distancing requirements were lifted more quickly than anticipated and Stage 1
temporary works approved in report R16965 became redundant and were, at the
request of some city centre retailers, removed part way through their
implementation.
2.4 Council
sought feedback on the Streets for People Stage 2 options. Feedback
received is finely balanced between 43% in favour of retaining the current
configuration of footpaths and car parks and 39% in favour of closing Trafalgar
Street to vehicles. The remainder of the respondents were in favour of
the other two options. A number of respondents provided alternative options to
those that were consulted on, and a number of respondents pointed out that
other strategies affecting decision making on the options should be completed
first, including the Parking Strategy, the Public Transport Plan and the City
Centre Spatial Plan (a plan of how to implement the 6 key moves on the ground).
2.5 Having
considered the feedback, officers have proposed a way forward that includes
completing the Spatial Plan prior to decision making on any options to achieve
place making in city centre streets. This will mean that Waka Kotahi
funding will be unable to be utilised this financial year.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Council
1. Receives the report City
Centre Streets for People Deliberations Report (R18133) and its attachments
(A2444112, A2448998 and A2444109); and
2. Revokes resolution
(CL/2002/043) of Council on 23 April 2020 below:
“2. Approves stage 1 short term tactical
initiatives to enable safe pedestrian movement in the city centre post
COVID19 lockdown from existing unspent Transport budget;”
3. Approves the approach whereby
the city centre spatial plan and parking strategy is completed prior to any
further decisions on place making in the city centre streets; and
4. Resolves that the $3.1M
capital budget and associated grant funding of $1.971M is removed from the
Annual Plan 2020/21 and is reallocated over years 2 to 8 of the Long Term
Plan 2021-31 to implement city centre spatial plan place making; and
5. Notes that Waka Kotahi funding of up to $900,000 awarded as a result of a
successful application to the Innovating Streets Fund will be forgone.
|
4. Background
4.1 Council
adopted the vision of the Smart Little City in its Long Term Plan 2018-28 along
with its priority for revitalisation of the city centre. This included the
aspiration for the…city centre to enrich and build our local culture -
the bustling meeting place everyone who lives, works and visits here. City
Centre Development was also one of the four key priorities adopted in the Long
Term Plan 2018-2028.
4.2 Council
approved the City Centre Programme Plan in September 2019 including the Six Key
Moves to guide work in the city centre. The Six Key Moves was consulted on and
adopted during the 2020/21 Annual Plan process, along with Council’s
related key priorities of creating a sustainable transport culture and housing
affordability and intensification.
4.3 At
its meeting on 23 April 2020, Council approved in report R16965 a programme of
short term tactical improvement work for the City Centre. This included Stage 1
temporary measures to provide safer pedestrian movement during the COVID19
pandemic, a public feedback process on Stage 2 including four options for
medium term tactical initiatives to provide better people places (known as
Streets for People), a funding application to the Waka Kotahi for Innovative
Streets, and an Annual Plan 2020/21 capital budget of up to $5M (comprising
$3.1M and associated grant funding of $1.971).
4.4 The
Stage 1 initiatives approved in report R16965 were, at the time, considered
necessary in an environment of growing concern for social distancing and
economic effects on local businesses brought about by the pandemic. The
Stage 1 pedestrian widening works caught retailers by surprise, were not
supported by some, and became redundant before implementation was completed due
to COVID19 level restrictions lessening faster than anticipated.
Consequently, this report includes a recommendation to revoke Council’s
previous decision requiring the implementation of Stage 1 temporary works.
4.5 The
purpose of the public consultation on Stage 2 Streets for People options was to
advance the objectives of the Six Key Moves in the city centre programme to
enable significant transformative opportunities in the Nelson City Centre. The
Six Key Moves are: Destination Nelson; Walkable Nelson; Blue-Green Heart; Smart
Development; Liveable Centre; Clever Business.
4.6 Stage
2 Streets for People options were also part of the wider city centre programme
of looking at ways to achieve public space amenity gains as a result of Council’s
consideration of feedback on the Upper Trafalgar Pedestrian Mall. This
was one of Council’s first moves to provide more people focused spaces in
the city centre. Report R10370 Upper Trafalgar Street Pedestrian Mall
Declaration considered by Council on 27 August 2019 included the following
resolution:
Directs officers,
through the city centre programme, to look at ways to achieve public space
amenity gains in other areas of the city centre.
4.7 Public
feedback was sought on the Stage 2 Streets for People options from the 2 June
to 26 June 2020. The consultation document set out three medium term
tactical options aimed at increasing the amenity and walkability of city centre
streets with the greatest pedestrian use, that being Trafalgar, Bridge and
Hardy Streets and a Status Quo option. Delegation for oversight of the process
was provided to the City Centre Working Group at the April 2020 meeting.
Delegates
approval of the public feedback process, documents and method to the City
Centre Working Group.
4.8 Council
supported a funding application for Stage 2 to Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Innovative
Streets Fund in support of the Streets for People options in report
R16965.
Supports
an Innovative Streets funding application to be submitted to NZTA.
4.9 Council
has been successful in its application to the Innovating Streets fund, one of
only ten Council’s in New Zealand selected for large scale town centre
initiatives in Round 1 under the Major Centres category.
4.10 The
fund provides for 90% of up to $1 million funding assistance, which amounts to
$900k for a project costing $1 million or more. The funding is dependent on
Council and the funder agreeing on a final programme of works to be completed
this financial year and the Council committing to fund its 10% component along
with any additional costs valued over the $1million threshold. All projects are
required to go through Waka Kotahi’s co-design process (refer Attachment
2) which will require significant officer resourcing and capacity.
4.11 There
are a number of other important work streams that have been programmed that
will have an influence on the City Centre. These include the development of a
Parking Strategy, the Public Transport Plan, the review of the Out and About
Policy that includes the City’s active transport networks and the City
Centre Spatial Plan. All of these plans and strategies are due to be
completed before the end of 2021.
4.12 Council
now has to consider the feedback received on Stage 2 options, and decide
whether to approve any of the options, or as a result of considering feedback,
approve a hybrid option, or not proceed at this time. The next steps, including
any further public consultation processes that may be required, is dependent on
the option selected. A summary of the feedback is provided in section 5
below, the feedback documents can be found at https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/city-centre-streets-for-people.
4.13 The
Streets for People consultation sought a preference for and feedback on four
options:
Option 1. 6m footpaths
(total width) both sides of Trafalgar Street (from Halifax to Hardy Streets)
with parallel parking both sides, and 6m footpath (total width) Hardy and
Bridge Streets south side only.
Option 2. 8.5m footpaths (total width) both sides of
Trafalgar Street (from Halifax to Hardy Streets) with no parking and 6m
footpaths (total width) Hardy and Bridge Streets south side only.
Option 3. Close Trafalgar
Street to vehicles (from Halifax to Hardy Streets) and
6m footpaths (total width) Hardy and Bridge Streets south side only.
Option
4. Status quo, retain the current configuration of
footpaths and car parking.
5. Discussion
5.1 Public
feedback on the Stage 2 Streets for People options was sought via the Shape
Nelson communications platform. Media coverage included a Nelson Mail editorial
and front page article as well as an article in the Nelson Weekly and coverage
in the Nelson Magazine. The consultation was also promoted through the
Councils own channels, including the website and social media, a series of
posters around the city centre and the Our Nelson newsletter to residents.
5.2 A
total of 770 responses were received on the feedback document via Shape Nelson,
separate email, by phone and by post which included detailed qualitative
feedback on the options and other general feedback. This feedback is
summarised under the headings below.
5.3 A
quick poll was also run on Shape Nelson which enabled users to vote on options
1 to 4. There are some reliability issues with the quick poll as there
were several instances where the poll was filled out by the same user
(identified by its IP address) for example, up to 4000 times. Note that
these were removed from final results. Although the results of the quick poll
generally reflect the qualitative survey, officers are not as confident the
quick poll results are reliable. Results from the quick poll were 59% do nothing
and 41% do one of options 1, 2 or 3 (with 36% of that being in favour of option
3).
5.4 Feedback
on the proposal was also collected at two breakfast forums with city centre
retailers where oral feedback was received from the people who attended, as well
as a number of face to face meetings between City Development officers and city
centre businesses over the four week consultation period.
5.5 Feedback
on activities to enhance the city centre is ongoing. For example, 48 people
provided feedback during consultation on the Annual Plan 2020/21. The
City Centre Business Task Force, a group of retail, hospitality and office
business owner representatives in the city centre have had the opportunity to
comment at a number of recent meetings.
5.6 This
report takes into consideration both the written and oral feedback that has
been received over the June consultation period of Streets for People and the
Annual Plan.
Summary of
feedback
Streets
for People Feedback (excluding Quick Poll results)
5.7 Feedback
was received from Nelson residents (77%) and from those living in Richmond
(3%), other areas (6%) and area of residence not identified (14%). Shopping was
the most popular reason for coming to the city centre followed by recreation
and work. Around 100 people who gave feedback own a business in the city centre
and list this as one of the reasons they visit.
5.8 Of
those that responded using the feedback form, 43% stated that they preferred
option 4, 39% preferred option 3, 3% preferred option 1 or 2 and 15% provided
feedback that didn’t clearly state a preference for a particular option.
5.9 82%
of those that provided feedback either preferred Option 3 “Close
Trafalgar Street to vehicles (from Halifax to Hardy Streets) and 6m footpaths
(total width), Hardy and Bridge Streets south side only” or Option 4
“Retain the current configuration of footpaths and car
parking”.
5.10 The
feedback forms gave space to provide feedback on each option as well as space
for general feedback. In order to provide some quantitative analysis of the
free text feedback, all of the feedback was reviewed and nine broad topics
identified. Three of the broad topics have been split up to reflect the
possible views within them which gives a total of 14 topics in total. The
issues are provided in the graph below.
5.11 The
most commented on topic was parking with 430 responses mentioning it in some
way. 106 of the parking related responses wanted to see more parking in the
city centre, 47 wanted to see less parking and 277 didn’t express a clear
preference either way. Other comments typically covered issues such as; not wanting
an overall reduction in parking, operational aspects and a parking building to
allow reallocation of space within the city centre.
5.12 The
next most common comment, with 140 comments, was supportive of the city centre
needing to refocus on providing for people rather than cars. This was closely
followed by 115 comments on the need for any changes to be of high quality.
5.13 A
total of 74 people commented on the need for Council to carefully consider the
cost of any changes and queried whether Council should be spending money on
this type of project.
5.14 Those
that preferred Council retain the status quo option 4 (328 supportive
respondents) noted that there is insufficient car parking currently and to
remove parks without replacing them elsewhere or without providing better
public transport is short sighted. The view that parking is needed directly in
front of shops for older people or convenience was also expressed, and that
this option was preferred because Council should not be spending ratepayers money
post COVID19 when businesses are struggling. Rates reductions in the city
centre were also considered by some as offering better value to businesses.
5.15 Those
that supported option 3 (298 supportive respondents) noted that this was
a forward thinking option, that it is time to prioritise pedestrians and
cyclists over cars and create more enjoyable city centre spaces. A common theme
of the feedback was that cities all over the world had successfully implemented
this approach to city centre shared spaces and benefited from having a central
anchor-attraction location that provided revitalisation and a place for
residents and visitors to visit.
5.16 The
ability to trial the option before it becomes permanent was also seen as
valuable, as was that the option could be staged or transitioned over a number
of years in alignment with replacement car parking or public transport to
offset any carparks that might be removed.
5.17 There
was some support for options 1 and 2 ( a total of 26 supportive respondents)
but generally only by those who preferred option 3 and used options 1 and 2 as
a fall back to the do nothing option. Some noted that options 1 and 2 did
not go far enough to provide an active city centre place for the amount of
investment and change involved.
Retail
breakfast forum feedback
5.18 Two
breakfast forums were held with retailers on the 24 and 25 June that were
facilitated by the First Retail Group, with officers and Elected Members
attending. While they were in Nelson the facilitators also spent time
connecting with retailers on a one to one basis.
5.19 In
summary, the predominant view from these sessions was that Council would be
better placed to deliver any significant change as a package of activities
showing how they contribute to the overall vision for the city centre. This
would address retailers concerns at the proposed timing of permanent changes
and the need for any changes to be aligned with the outcome of pay by plate,
the Parking Strategy, Public Transport Review, and the City Centre Spatial Plan
before they could be supported.
City
Centre Business Task Force meetings
5.20 Feedback
was also collected at a series of eight meetings with the City Centre Taskforce
Group and/or its individual members over the consultation period.
5.21 Feedback
from these sessions was that; there is a need for change, the city centre is
tired, something needs to be done before the end of the year, and a trial
approach using a mix and match of options in different locations in
consultation with the business owners directly affected is supported in the
short term. Feedback suggests measuring the effects of tactical trials
and pay by plate is required, as well as completion of the Parking Strategy
before further changes would be supported.
Annual
Plan 2021/21 feedback
5.22 Forty-eight
submitters to the 2020/21 Annual Plan commented specifically on the topic of
city centre development. Most submitters supported active transport with
more pedestrian precincts and fewer cars, a focus on people friendly activities,
and/or greater residential uptake opportunities.
5.23 One
submitter noted the benefits that could be gained from broadening the area to
include better linkages to precincts like NMIT while another submitter raised
the importance of also investing in Stoke and Tahunanui centres. While parking
was not mentioned by many, three submitters objected to the potential loss of
carparks, two of them out of concern for the need to adequately cater for
mobility access.
5.24 City
centre residential living was also supported by a number of submitters who
provided feedback on housing and affordability.
Main
feedback themes
5.25 Specific
feedback was provided on a number of topics including parking, cycling and
active transport, quality of place, people not cars and other options. A
summary of the feedback is provided below.
Parking
5.26 Other
than commenting on the proposed options of the Streets for People proposal the
majority of additional feedback that was received, 277 responses, concerned
parking. This included a spectrum of views ranging from a preference for less
parking and more people friendly spaces (47) to those who highlighted the
importance of parking for easy accessibility and economic viability reasons
(106).
5.27 The
suggestion of a parking building, to better accommodate parking needs was
raised by people preferring both the status quo option as well as the other
options under 1-3. Investigation into the need for a parking building is part
of the scope of the Parking Strategy and more will be known on this option
then.
5.28 The
change to pay by plate parking was a focus of the retailers and business groups
spoken to, and the need for Council to demonstrate what the effect of this is
on park occupancy prior to making a decision on one of the options. Data
available at the time of writing this report is presented in the section 5.37
below.
Cycling
and active transport
5.29 Fifty-six
respondents supported more active transport including in the city centre.
Comments included the need to make it safer for cycling on city centre streets
(citing the conflict with parked cars as an issue particularly angle parking)
and the need for more cycle and active transport infrastructure such as storage
and stand facilities. There were a number of comments also on the need to
minimise cycle and pedestrian conflicts.
Quality
of place
5.30 One
hundred and fifteen responses indicated that any built outcome should be of a
high quality, even as a temporary or semi-permanent tactical
implementation. Quality of place will be a critical outcome given the
prominence of Trafalgar Street as Nelson’s “Golden Mile” with
premier shopping and high pedestrian use.
People
not cars
5.31 Ranking
second behind parking, 140 responses indicated a priority on people-focused
outcomes on Nelson’s City Centre streets as part of the Streets for
People public feedback. Feedback on this issue cited the success of the
tactical closure (seasonal and now permanent) in upper Trafalgar Street.
As the City Centre transforms into the future with more medium-density
residential living, increased access to public transport and active mode shift,
and the need to build better climate resilience for stormwater and urban forest
outcomes, place-based outcomes that prioritise people are often cited as
preferred by respondents on this issue.
5.32 Many
respondents wanting people focused outcomes understood that parking is needed
for access into the City Centre, but considered there was sufficient
availability in the four existing car parking squares.
Hybrid
option
5.33 Some
feedback on Streets for People proposed several amendments to the options to
make them more acceptable. Feedback also proposed several additional
options to consider that were not part of the four approaches included in the
feedback document and these can be examined through the Spatial Plan.
5.34 Generally,
the options proposed by respondents look to preserve City Centre on-street
carparking, or minimise the loss of carparking as this is seen as critical to
customer convenience to shopping in Nelson.
5.35 In
response to feedback on how to make the options more acceptable, Council
officers have created a “hybrid” option. The hybrid option
trials options 1 and 2 proposed in the Streets for People feedback on the
middle section of Trafalgar Street. In doing so it minimises car parking
loss to 20 on Trafalgar Street. Plans in Attachment 1 illustrate each of
the four options feedback was sought on, and the hybrid option is shown in
Attachment 2.
5.36 The
options analysis in section 6 assesses the hybrid option.
5.37 The
hybrid concept is not supported by the City Centre Business Task Force group.
Additional
information
5.38 Over
the consultation and feedback analysis period, officers have gathered further
information to assess to what extent the change to pay by plate will affect
parking availability.
Pay
by Plate
5.39 At
the time of writing this report pay by plate was in week 6. Data on
carpark usage at this stage is preliminary, but provides an insight into the
sort of results Council can expect once a full analysis is complete over a
longer time period.
5.40 Early
trends are encouraging, a 42% decrease in 1 hour free transactions indicates
that more parks are available for shoppers as workers have relocated their
daily parking to the fringe. The full analysis of the effects of pay by plate
over a longer time period will also be brought to a later Infrastructure
Committee meeting. The infographic below compares the weeks of 9 July to 12
August 2020 with the same weeks in 2019.
5.41 The increase in revenue, and reduced level
of one hour free transactions aligns with the view held by officers prior to
the change that the old pay and display one hour free approach was being abused
by some all-day parking in the city squares. Corresponding to this change
in data are anecdotal observations that parking on the city fringe has come
under increased pressure. This suggests that the all-day parking that was
previously “free” in the city has moved to the fringe, freeing up capacity
in the parking squares rather than any reduction of visitors/shoppers to the
city.
Paymark
Spend Data
5.42 Paymark
spend data for June and July 2019 and 2020 has also been obtained to see if pay
by plate has had an effect on spending in the city centre that correlates with
greater parking turnover. Paymark data represents all credit card and
eftpos spending on the paymark network.
5.53 The
results show that despite greater parking turnover and COVID19 lockdown,
spending is generally the same as the same time in 2019.
6. Options
6.1 Council
has several options to consider, the four options that feedback was sought on,
and a hybrid option representing suggestions received by respondents to the
feedback process.
6.2 After
considering all feedback received, officers consider that there is a need to
take a strategic approach given the feedback was finely balanced at either end
of the spectrum. Officers support the approach proposed by some
respondents in the feedback seeking that the City Centre Spatial Plan and Parking
Strategy are completed first before any place making involving car parking
changes. That approach enables any changes to be considered within the
vision and strategy for the city centre, and provides greater certainty about
the future of car parking and place making for the community.
6.3 Officers
recommended option is Option 4 “retain the current footpaths and car
parking” so that the City Centre Spatial Plan and Parking Strategy can be
first completed and provide the overall vision and framework for any future
place making. It is proposed that the provisional funding of up to $5M
approved by the Annual Plan (made up of $3.1M capital budget and grant funding
of $1.971M) be reprogrammed across years 2 to 8 of the Long Term Plan to
support future place making in the city centre streets once the Spatial Plan is
adopted.
6.4 The
Streets for People options came out of Council’s consideration of COVID19
lockdown and the desire to ensure the city centre could function as a people
place. Prior to COVID19 lockdown the focus of the city development team
was on completing the City Centre Spatial Plan in order to set up an LTP
programme of works to implement the six key moves on the ground over the next
10 years..
6.5 Council
took an opportunity that arose during COVID19 lockdown to apply to the Waka
Kotahi Innovative Streets Fund, and was successful in being awarded funding for
any tactical works arising out of the Streets for People proposals. The
Innovative Streets funding contract requires an in-depth co-design process
(refer Attachment 3) which involves significant officer resource in order to
meet Waka Kotahi expectations. The extent of the co-design process was
not known at the time of application.
6.6 If
Council was to decide on any of the options 1 to 3, or 5 this will result in a
significant delay to the City Centre Spatial Plan as there is insufficient
officer resource to do both projects this financial year.
|
Option 1: 6m footpaths
(total width) both sides of Trafalgar Street (from Halifax to Hardy Streets)
with parallel parking both sides, and 6m footpath (total width) Hardy and
Bridge Streets south side only.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Additional area for
place making is made available in the city centre.
· Can utilise the NZTA
Innovative Streets Funding plus the up to $5M Council funding set aside in
the Annual Plan.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Not generally
supported as preferred option by those who gave feedback on Streets for
People.
· Results in removal of
134 angle carparks to be replaced with a lesser amount of parallel parks.
· Strong opposition to
option 1 was received from city centre property owners and businesses.
· Works are undertaken
prior to completing the Car Parking Strategy, Public Transport Plan and City
Centre Spatial Plan.
· Defers Spatial Plan
completion.
|
|
Option 2: 8.5m footpaths (total width) both sides of
Trafalgar Street (from Halifax to Hardy Streets) with parallel parking both
sides, and 6m footpath (total width) Hardy and Bridge Streets south side
only.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Additional
area for place making is made available in the city centre.
· Can
utilise the NZTA Innovative Streets Funding plus the up to $5M Council
funding set aside in the Annual Plan.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Not
generally supported as preferred option by those who gave feedback on Streets
for People.
· Results
in removal of up to 134 angle carparks.
· Strong
opposition to 2 was received from city centre property owners and businesses.
· Works
are undertaken prior to completing the Parking Strategy, Public
Transport Plan and City Centre Spatial plan.
· Defers
Spatial Plan completion.
|
|
Option
3 Close Trafalgar Street to
vehicles (from Halifax to Hardy Streets) and 6m footpaths (total width) Hardy
and Bridge Streets south side only.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Gives effect to
the strong support from the community for Streets for People for the closure
of Trafalgar Street to vehicles, in particular the section from Bridge to
Hardy Streets.
· Would be eligible for
NZTA Innovative Streets Funding however this tactical option can be
implemented without significant costs, and well within the $5M Council
funding set aside in the Annual Plan.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Does
not recognise the significant opposition to this option received via Streets
for People.
· Results
in the removal of 134 carparks (between Bridge to Hardy).
· Does
not give effect to the strong opposition that was received on this option
from city centre retailers and businesses.
· Works
are undertaken prior to completing the Parking Strategy, Public Transport
Plan and City Centre Spatial plan.
· Would
require a further Special Consultative Procedure in order to make a
Pedestrian Mall, and further Council deliberations and decision which would
affect the time available for construction works if Waka Kotahi funding was
sought to implement this option.
· Defers
Spatial Plan completion.
|
|
Option 4 Status quo, retain the current configuration of
footpaths and car parking.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Gives
effect to strong support from the community.
· Does
not require any cost expenditure.
· Allows
officers to complete the City Centre Spatial Plan, Parking Strategy and
Public Transport Plan providing the vision for the city centre prior to
implementing any place making.
· Allows
officers to continue to work with stakeholders and build on relationships
established during Streets for People in order to complete the Spatial Plan
and identify future place making projects.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Does
not recognise to the strong feedback from the wider community to make the
city centre more people friendly, the need from retailers for (in their view)
the tired looking streetscape to be refreshed, and the acknowledgement from
business and property owners that something does need to change to provide
better people focus in the city centre.
· Waka
Kotahi funding will be lost, further rounds of this type of funding are
dependent on the national election and Government priorities going forward.
|
|
Option 5: Hybrid
Option
|
|
Advantages
|
· Responds
to the full spectrum of public feedback on Streets for People.
· The
ability to trial all four options prior to committing to any single outcome
would enable public and stakeholders to test and compare results from a
business and enhanced public realm perspective to help guide future Council
decisions.
· Delivers an initial
stage that moves toward an aspirational outcome aligning with the City Centre
6 Key Moves
· Provides for a
co-design process with potentially affected property and business owners.
· Makes use of up to
$900K approved by NZTA as part of their Innovative Streets Fund.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
• Hybrid
and co-design process needs to be designed and constructed before end of
2020/21 financial year.
· There
is insufficient officer resource in the city development team to implement
the Hybrid option as well as progress the City Centre Spatial Plan.
• Results
in a reduction of car parking spaces.
• There is a risk that the Hybrid (which is essentially
a compromise option) isn’t supported by either ends of the spectrum of
feedback received, and is too small a scale to provide any measurable impacts
to help inform future work.
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 Council
has been engaging with retailers and the public on options to enhance the city
centre taking a people focused approach.
7.2 The
views expressed by the community and city centre business and property owners
are evenly split over the four options consulted on. There is however a
common theme that something needs to change in the city centre to better
provide for people, even from those respondents who preferred option 4.
7.3 A
number of respondents provided alternative options to those that were consulted
on, and other respondent’s pointed out that strategies affecting decision
making on the options should be completed first, including the Parking
Strategy, the Public Transport Plan and the City Centre Spatial Plan.
7.4 Officers
propose that the limited officer resource be focused on completing the City
Centre Spatial Plan. This will enable the vision of the city centre,
along with the Parking Strategy and Public Transport Plan, to be understood by
all and to provide the context and integrated approach for future place making
in the city centre.
8. Next
Steps
8.1 If
recommendations are approved in this report the following would be the next
steps:
8.1.1 Complete
the City Centre Spatial Plan by December 2020.
8.1.2 Integrate
Spatial Plan outcomes sought with the Parking Strategy and Public Transport
Plan by June 2021.
8.1.3 Continue
engagement with stakeholders.
8.1.4 Continue
to work with Waka Kotahi to ensure Nelson is included and engaged in any future
funding rounds.
8.1.5 Utilise
the feedback and relationships made during the Street for People process to
inform future place making project of the city centre.
Authors: Lisa
Gibellini, Team Leader City Development
Alan
Gray, City Centre Development Programme Lead
Attachments
Attachment 1: Streets
for People Options 1 to 3 Concepts A2444112 ⇩
Attachment 2: Streets
for People Hybrid Option A2448998 ⇩
Attachment 3: Streets
for People Waka Kotahi Co-Design Process A2444109 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
The recommendations in this report support the
purpose of local government to play a broad role in promoting the social,
economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of their communities, taking a
sustainable development approach.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The City Centre Programme Plan
supports the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (LTP) which makes the City Centre one of
the Council’s top four priorities to support the Council’s vision
of a Smart Little City.
The LTP CBD (City Centre)
Development priority states “Our aim for Nelson’s central
business district is for it to be attractive to businesses, residents and
visitors, with an exceptional mix of events, civic facilities and retail. We
are working to build an environment that supports commerce, encourages inner
city living and is a catalyst for private sector investment. The top of the
South, Te Tau Ihu, needs a strong commercial centre to thrive. We want our
city centre to enrich and build our local culture - the bustling meeting
place for everyone who lives, works and visits here”
The options proposed in this report enable Council
to give effect to its community outcomes and strategic priorities of its Long
Term Plan and supports the objectives of its Six Key Moves work programme, in
particular the outcome “Our urban and rural environments are
people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”.
|
|
3. Risk
Public feedback has been sought on a range of
options to improve pedestrian safety and activation in the city centre.
A decision on options 1 to 4 is within the bounds of the public feedback
process that Council undertook, however there is no clear preference provided
in that feedback for one option over another.
There is a potential risk that some stakeholders
will not support Council’s decision if the hybrid option 5 is selected
as this was not one of the possible options that was included in the feedback
survey. This risk is assessed as low because the hybrid option includes
aspects of all four options in the feedback survey, alternative designs were
proposed by a number of respondents, further consultation has been undertaken
on the hybrid option with the retailer’s taskforce and the design will
be subject to a co-design process. There is no formal requirement
for Council to consult on the minor changes to road layout proposed by the
hybrid option in the city centre.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
The financial impact of the recommended option 4 is
low and can be accommodated within business as usual.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This matter is of low significance because the
recommended option is to retain the status quo. If Council was to adopt
other than the recommended option the matter would be of medium significance
as it would result in the removal of car parks. Council has undertaken
a consultation process on the options in recognition of this level of
significance to the community. A co-design process would be required to
entered into which would assist in reducing risk associated with any final
design through further engagement.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
Climate change impact has not been specifically
considered as part of this report however the design and materials of any
tactical place making projects in the city centre would consider this, should
Council decide to approve one of options 1, 2, 3 and 5.
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in
preparing this report.
|
|
8. Delegations
The relevant extract from the delegations register
is in section 5.1.1 as follows:
Council retains all responsibilities, powers,
functions and duties in relation to governance matters for
the following items:
· City
Centre Programme Plan
Delegation for preparation of the public feedback
process, its method and documents to the City Centre Working Group was
approved by Council at its meeting 23 April 2020.
|
Nelson City Council
