Notice of the ordinary meeting of the
Hearings Panel - Other
Rōpū Rongonga – Aha atu anō
Agenda
Rārangi take
Chair Cr Brian McGurk
Members Cr Rohan O’Neill-Stevens
Cr
Mel Courtney
Pat
Dougherty
Chief
Executive
Nelson
City Council Disclaimer
Please
note that the contents of these Council and Committee Agendas have yet to be
considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by
the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision.
Hearings Panel – Other
Functions:
To conduct hearings and/or determine
under delegated authority applications relating to the Dog Control Act 1996,
all matters relating to Temporary Road Closures pursuant to Schedule 10 Clause
11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974, matters relating to naming features
within the city, and any other matters required for determination by Council
under legislation as determined by Council.
Membership:
All elected members aside from the
Mayor, in rotation. Each Hearings Panel-Other will be made up of three
members.
The Group Manager Environmental
Management may appoint one or more Independent Commissioners to either assist
the Hearings Panel - Other or to hear and determine any particular application,
such as when Council or a Council-Controlled Organisation or Council-Controlled
Trading Organisation is (or could be perceived to be) an interested party,
other than applications made for temporary road closure under Schedule 10
Clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974.
Powers to
Decide:
The power to appoint a panel to hear
and determine with any other consent authority any application requiring a
joint hearing
The power to hear and recommend
appropriate actions from hearings of designations and heritage orders
The power to hear, consider and
attempt to resolve contested road stopping procedures
The power to consider and determine
applications for temporary road closures made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of
the Local Government Act 1974
The power to hear and determine all
matters arising from the administration of the Building Act 1991, and the
Building Act 2004
The power to hear and determine
objections to the classification of dogs, and all other procedural matters for
which a right of objection and hearing is provided for under the Dog Control
Act, 1996
The power to name all features within
the city requiring naming including roads, streets, service lanes, plazas,
parking areas, parks, reserves, gardens and all public facilities or
infrastructure, aside from those impacted by the Naming Rights and Sponsorship
Policy for Community Services Facilities
The power to provide advice to
applicants on appropriate names for private roads, rights of way or other legal
forms of private access to property
The power to make changes to the
schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw that do not require public
consultation
The power to hear submissions and
recommendations on proposed changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle
Control Bylaw requiring public consultation
The power to administer the administering
body functions under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 on proposed rights of
way and other easements on reserves vested in Council
Item 6: Parking and
Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules
|
|
Hearings Panel - Other
25 September 2020
|
REPORT R19258
Parking
and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
approve proposed alterations to Schedules of the Parking and Vehicle Control
Bylaw (2011), No 207, to give effect to installation of bike racks in Montgomery
Square and Trafalgar Street.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Hearings Panel - Other
1. Receives
the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to
Schedules (R19258) and its
attachments (A2461924, A2455192, A2460051, A2460010, A2338098, A2425607); and
2. Approves amendments detailed in
report R19258 to Schedules 4, 5 and 8 of the Parking and Vehicle Control
Bylaw (2011), No 207 to cater for Inner City Covered Bicycle stands and
hubs:
· Montgomery
Square; and
· Trafalgar
Street.
3. Approves an amendment as detailed
in report R19258 to Schedule 8 of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw
(2011), No 207 to facilitate higher parking turnover on the north eastern
periphery of Montgomery Square.
|
3. Background
3.1 The
Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 allows for the Council by resolution, to
add, amend or delete specifications contained within the Schedules. The Council
has delegated this power to the Hearings Panel -Other. To ensure that the Bylaw
is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are clear, easily
understood by the public and updated on a regular basis. The Bylaw Schedules
were last updated in August 2020.
3.2 Alterations
and additions are proposed to Schedules 4 (Special Parking Areas), 5 (Paid
Parking Space areas) and Schedule 8 (Time Limited Parking Areas) of the Bylaw
as detailed in section 7 and 8 of the report.
3.3 The
proposed changes are shown in Attachment 1A and 1B are for indicative purposes
only by plans attached to this report. The purpose of these plans is to assist
the panel to easily and quickly understand the nature of the changes proposed.
These plans will not form part of the final bylaw. The actual changes as they
will be incorporated into the final Schedules of the Bylaw, and with the level
of detail required for enforcement purposes, are set out in the schedule of
changes appended as Attachment 2.
4. Background
Inner City Covered Bicycle
stands and hubs affecting Schedules 4 (Special Parking Areas), 5 (Paid
Parking Space Areas) and Schedule 8 (Time Limited Parking Areas)
4.1 It
is accepted nationally that the unavailability of secure bicycle parking
facilities in city centres is one of the barriers to cycling in New Zealand.
Providing secured, covered bicycle stands and dedicated parking for larger
cargo bikes will assist in reducing these barriers.
4.2 The
2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP) has two of its four priorities - Infrastructure
and City Centre Development - that aim to, in the case of:
4.2.1 Infrastructure
- provide safe networks for smart transport options;
4.2.2 City
Centre Development - provide a CBD that is attractive to businesses, residents
and visitors.
4.3 The
Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-28 specifically proposed allocation of capital
spend in years 2 and 3 of the Plan to support infrastructural improvements that
would raise the level of service for active modes of transport and to align
with the Government Policy Statement (GPS) on land transport. The present GPS
focuses on mode neutrality and reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions.
These two goals highlight the Government’s revised directive towards
investing in public and active modes of transport.
4.4 In
addition to this, Council as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan identified three
focus areas for the triennium, one of these being Creating a Sustainable
Transport Culture
4.5 To
give effect to Council’s vision, a project to provide covered stands was
included in the Regional Land Transport Plan and the 2018-28 LTP. This project
will not only cater for the needs of existing bicycle users but also encourage
more people to cycle as a mode of transport in and out of the City Centre. This
project will support Council’s focus on creating a more sustainable
transport culture through mode shift.
5. Proposal
5.1 The
proposed bike stands consist of two tiers that accommodate 60 bicycles as shown
in Attachment 3. The stand and associated parking for cargo bikes and provision
of a bicycle repair station requires a space with a length of 22m. It requires
a width of 4.3m for safe operation.
5.2 Officers
have worked closely with the City Development team to ensure the design of the
stand is in keeping with the proposed city spatial plan and material palette in
place elsewhere such as in Upper Trafalgar Street.
6. Site
selection
6.1 As
part of the selection process officers assessed a number of sites against the
following criteria:
· Available space
(length and depth) for safe operation
· Desirability for
users – i.e. it needed to be proximal to destinations
· No relocation of
any underground services required
· Adequate passive
surveillance and within range of existing CCTV cameras
· Crime Prevention
through Environmental design (CPTED) considerations
· Acceptability to
businesses with shop frontage potentially impacted by the facility
· Sunshine for
powering of solar lighting
· Availability of
nearby parking to offset any parking loss.
6.2 Eight
sites were initially investigated. Preliminary engagement was carried out with
Uniquely Nelson, directly affected retailers and user groups. From the initial
8 sites, two sites were selected as fitting the criteria, namely within
Montgomery Square and Trafalgar Street. Further detail on these two locations
is provided in sections 7 and 8.
6.3 Following
concerns raised by the City Centre Business Task Force Group (CCBTF) a further
nine additional sites were evaluated, but not deemed to be suitable for the
following reasons:
6.3.1 A
number of locations within Buxton Square – available space was limited
and safe operation of the stand was not possible without removal of between 5
and 7 three-hour carparks.
6.3.2 Halifax
Street – underground services prevented kerb side location and putting
the bike stand clear of these services required a phone box relocation, tree
removal and removal of 6 existing carparks from within Millers Acre including 2
accessible carparks.
6.3.3 Bank
Lane Reserve – would require use of the limited green space within the
central city, has complexities with underground services and does not meet
CPTED criteria.
6.3.4 Hardy
Street outside Bank Lane reserve - limited space for safe operation, requires
tree removal and has complexities with underground services.
6.3.5 Trafalgar
Street outside Burger King – has complexities with underground services.
6.3.6 Trafalgar
Street on the existing aprons outside Council and State Cinema – has
complexities with underground services.
6.3.7 Alma
Lane, behind Quest apartments – has complexities with underground
services and CPTED concerns.
6.4 A
map showing the full range of sites considered is appended as Attachment 4.
Although the CCBTF remain concerned about the loss of carparks associated with
the stands, feedback is that they understood why the proposed sites were
selected.
6.5 If,
at a later date, any alternative viable site is identified elsewhere in the
central city, (through the Streets for People Project and city centre spatial
plan), it is possible for the Trafalgar Street facility to be dismantled and
relocated. There would be some cost to reinstating the carparks on Trafalgar
Street.
6.6 It
is worth noting that there have been concerns raised by the public about the
location of the Trafalgar Street stand. It has been suggested that this stand
was selected to provide secure bicycle storage for Council staff. This was not
a factor in selecting the location as Council staff already have covered
bicycle parking available within the old state advances Building. It is
intended to replace this when the building is sold. This said Council staff may
well use the new bike stands.
7. Montgomery
Square
7.1 Proposed
changes in Montgomery Square include provision for the covered bike stand, the
relocation of an accessible carpark, addition of a motorcycle park, converting
two carparks on the northern periphery from P180 to P60 time limit. These are
shown in Attachment 1.
7.2 Officers
sought feedback from surrounding businesses regarding the installation of the
bicycle shelter and hub, and subsequent loss of parking though targeted letter
drop (Attachment 5), consultation with Bicycle Nelson Bays, and later
engagement with the RTFG.
7.3 The
proposed bike stand requires relocation of an existing accessible carpark and
the loss of 3 three-hour carparks.
7.4 Verbal
feedback received from retail outlet staff spoken to on the day of the letter
drop (12 February) was positive. The following day contact with made with a
retailer at the Manna Christian store which was also positive. A subsequent
telephone call was received from the manager of Adult Learning Support (which
has an office in the Square) which was also supportive.
7.5 This
bike stand will also go towards addressing a need raised by the Nelson Member
of Parliament who has previously petitioned Council requesting additional bike
parking be made available in Montgomery Square due to very high demand,
particularly on a Saturday when the Nelson market is operating.
7.6 The
proposal provides an opportunity to add a motorcycle park on the northern edge
of the Square in space that would otherwise be unoccupied. The existing
motorcycle park on the western edge is unavailable to users when the Saturday
Market is in operation.
7.7 As
part of the engagement with the CCBTF, a request was made to consider time
limited parking for two peripheral carparks on the northern edge of Montgomery
Square. This request was made to support high turnover of the parks
particularly when the Saturday Market is operating. These parks are outside of
the Market lease area and officers propose a 60 minute time limit for
consistency with Wakatu Square peripheral parking.
7.8 A
contracted Total Mobility Operator approached Council in August 2020 suggesting
the existing accessible carpark behind the MSD building is relocated closer to
Trafalgar Street. This location has since been socialised with CCS which
administers the parking permit scheme and has met with their approval.
7.9 The
CCBTF did not voice any objection to the location for this bike stand.
8. Trafalgar
Street
8.1 Officers
sought feedback from surrounding businesses regarding the installation of the
bicycle shelter and hub, and subsequent loss of parking though targeted letter
drop (Attachment 6), consultation with Bicycle Nelson Bays and later engagement
with the CCBTF. This site requires the loss of 7 one-hour carparks
8.2 The
bike stand will be situated directly in front of Council so no retail frontages
are directly affected. The potential buyer of the next building along on
Trafalgar Street, the old State Advances building, has been consulted and they
were supportive of the proposed location cation. They were supportive of
cycling facilities and did not oppose the location of the shelter as it does
not impinge on the direct frontage of the building. Other nearby retailers
spoken to on the day the letter was delivered were generally supportive of the
bike stand.
8.3 Subsequent
correspondence from State Cinema indicated that it preferred not to have the
car parks removed as these were often used by cinema patrons after hours
(Attachment 7).
8.4 Subsequent
correspondence from Cephas Property which owns the building at 126 Trafalgar
Street also raised concern about the loss of carparks across the City generally
(Attachment 8).
9. Options
9.1 Officers
have considered 17 site location options. The two locations as presented in
this report are supported by officers.
9.2 The
Committee has four options – either approve these two locations, not
approve the two locations, or approve either one of the two locations.
|
Option 1: Adopt changes to
Schedules 4, 5 and 8 for bike stands in Montgomery Square and Trafalgar
Street
|
|
Advantages
|
· Will
provide secure bicycle parking facility in the city centre.
· Improving
the level of service for cyclists
· Additional
motorcycle parking on Saturday in Montgomery Square
· Removes
a known barrier to uptake of active travel
· Supports
retailer request to facilitate some high turnover parking in part of
Montgomery Square
· Aligns
with Government’s GPS, Council’s priorities and key focus area
· Consistent
with Council focus on supporting a sustainable transport culture.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Loss
of 2 three-hour car parking spaces in Montgomery Square and 7 one-hour spaces
on Trafalgar Street
|
|
Option 2: Do not adopt changes
to Schedules 4, 5 and 8 for bike stands in Montgomery Square and
Trafalgar Street
|
|
Advantages
|
· No
net loss of carparks.
· No
expenditure of budget
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Failure
to provide secure bicycle parking facility in the city centre
· No
change to current level of service for cyclists
· Missed
opportunity to relocate accessible parking and motorcycle stand as part of
the project.
· Ignores
retailer request to facilitate some high turnover parking in part of
Montgomery Square
· Lack
of secure bike parking remains a known barrier to uptake of active travel
· No alignment
with Government’s GPS, Council’s priorities and key focus area
· Inconsistent
with Council focus on building a sustainable transport culture.
|
|
Option 3: Adopt changes to
Schedules 4, 5 and 8 for bike stands in Montgomery Square only
|
|
Advantages
|
· No
loss of car parks on Trafalgar Street.
· Reduced
expenditure of budget
· Supports
retailer request to facilitate some high turnover parking in part of
Montgomery Square
· Additional
motorcycle parking on Saturday in Montgomery Square
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Loss
of 2 three-hour car parking spaces in Montgomery Square
· Failure
to provide secure bicycle parking facility in the city centre, namely
Trafalgar Street.
· No
increase to level of service for cyclists in Trafalgar Street
· Lack
of secure bike parking in part of the Central city remains a known barrier to
uptake of active travel
· Limited
alignment with Government’s GPS, Council’s priorities and key
focus area
· Inconsistent
with Council focus on building a sustainable transport culture.
|
|
Option 4: Adopt changes to
Schedules 4, 5 and 8 for bike stands in Trafalgar Street only
|
|
Advantages
|
· No
net loss of car parks in Montgomery Square.
· Reduced
expenditure of budget
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Loss
of 7 one-hour spaces on Trafalgar Street
· Missed
opportunity to relocate accessible parking and motorcycle stand as part of
the project.
· Ignores
retailer request to facilitate some high turnover parking in part of
Montgomery Square
· Failure
to provide secure bicycle parking facility in the city centre, namely
Montgomery Square.
· No
change to current level of service for cyclists in Montgomery Square.
· Lack
of secure bike parking remains a known barrier to uptake of active travel
· Limited
alignment with Government’s GPS, Council’s priorities and key focus
area
· Inconsistent
with Council focus on building a sustainable transport culture.
|
10. Next
Steps
10.1 Building
consent has been obtained and resource consent is being sought. If approved by
the Committee, the project is ready for construction before the start of
summer.
Author: Margaret
Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2460010
Descriptive locations and changes to schedules ⇩
Attachment 2: A2461924
Schedule for proposed changes ⇩
Attachment 3: A2455192
Bike Shelter description ⇩
Attachment 4: A2460051
Bike hub summary map of sites investigated ⇩
Attachment 5: A2338098
Letter and Location Montgomery Square ⇩
Attachment 6: A2425607
Letter and location Trafalgar Street ⇩
Attachment 7: A2466426
State Cinema correspondence ⇩
Attachment 8: A2466425
Cephas Inward/outward Correspondence ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
The report recommendations meet current and future
needs of communities in contributing to the safe use of the roading and
parking network in the City.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The content and recommendations of this report are
consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our
Infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future
needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and
effective infrastructure and transport networks. This report is directly
aligned to the requirements of the Parking Policy, the Parking and Vehicle
Control Bylaw and with Council’s strategic direction through the
Regional Land Transport Strategy.
|
|
3. Risk
To ensure that the Bylaw is clear, easily understood
by the public and enforceable, it is important to ensure that the Schedules
to the Bylaw are updated on a regular basis. Failure to update Schedules to
the Bylaw will open enforcement up to challenge.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
Costs are within allocated annual budgets for road
maintenance or capital projects.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This matter is of medium significance. Nearby
businesses that could be affected, have been consulted. User groups have been
engaged with and meetings have been held with the wider inner City Retailers
Task Force.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
This proposal support Council’s leadership
towards reduction in carbon emissions by making alternative modes of travel
competitive and attractive when compared to private car travel. Providing a
higher level of service for active modes and increasing safety perceptions
and amenity of our supporting transport infrastructure 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.
|
|
8. Delegations
The Hearings Panel - Other has the following delegations
to consider changes to the Parking and vehicle Control Bylaw.
Powers to Decide:
· The
power to make changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control
Bylaw
|
