Item 7: Speed Limit
Review - Deliberations
|
|
Infrastructure Committee
30 September 2020
|
REPORT R18145
Speed
Limit Review - Deliberations
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
summarise and provide analysis on the submissions received on the proposed
speed limit review for the city centre, including Selwyn Place and some
neighbourhood “home zones”.
1.2 To
approve the amendments of the current Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (No. 210)
schedule to reduce the speed limits on certain city centre streets and some
roads in “home zones”.
2. Summary
2.1 Council
approved a Statement of Proposal (SOP) on 2 July 2020 to consider a speed limit
reduction for certain roads in the city centre and home zones. Consultation on
this commenced on 13 July 2020 and closed on 14 August 2020.
2.2 Council
received 101 submissions and hearings took place on 9 September 2020. This
report considers both the written and oral submissions.
2.3 It
is noted that this consultation resulted in several requests for many more
streets to be considered for speed limit reductions. Changing speed limits on
those streets is outside of the scope of this report and cannot be considered
under this Special Consultative Procedure (SCP). However, all of these streets
will be considered when officers prepare the overall Speed Management Plan for
Nelson in the coming year.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Infrastructure Committee
1. Receives
the report Speed Limit Review - Deliberations (R18145) and its Attachments A2475618, A2475743, A2463536,
A2463538 and A2466589.
|
Recommendation to Council
|
That the
Council
1. Determines,
having considered the written and oral submissions received, that:
· a bylaw to set a permanent 30 km/h speed limit is the most
appropriate way of addressing safety and access issues with some roads in the
city centre and home zones; and
· the proposed amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210),
which are set out in Attachments 1 and 2 of this report (A2475618 and A2745743
of Report R18145), 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
2. Agrees to set a
permanent speed limit of 30km/h, with effect from 1 December 2020, for
certain city centre roads (not including Selwyn Place) and, for this purpose,
adopts the amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) set out in
Attachment 1 (A2475618 of Report R18145); and
3. Agrees to set a
permanent speed limit of 30km/h, with effect from 1 May 2021, for Selwyn
Place and certain roads in home zones and, for this purpose, adopts the
amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) set out in Attachment 2
(A2475743 of Report R18145).
|
4. Background
4.1 Speed
limit reduction from 50km/h or 40km/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 Council’s desire
to see a greater uptake of active travel modes. It is also consistent with the
national road safety strategy “Road to Zero”, the Waka Kotahi New
Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) tactical urbanism and innovative
streets approach.
4.2 A
SOP to review the Speeds Limits Bylaw 2011 (No. 210) was developed in response
to multiple calls 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 in
order to improve safety, accessibility and liveability. Summary maps of the
changes outlined in the SOP are appended as Attachment 1.
4.3 The
SOP to amend the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (No 210) was prepared in accordance
with the following legislation:
· Land Transport Act 1998
— s22AB(1)(d)(i) and s22AD;
· Land Transport Rule: Setting
of Speed Limits 2017 — r2.5, r2.6, r2.7 and r4.2;
· Local Government Act
2002 — including s83, s86 and s156.
4.4 The
Infrastructure Committee, resolved on 2 July 2022 as follows:
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 including
Selwyn Place (but excluding the rest of 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 and home zones subject to the following amendments:
· Adding Selwyn Place (but excluding the rest of the ring
roads); and
· Adding “adopting an even lower speed limit than
30km/h” to the list of bullet points under the heading “Scope of
Council decisions following Consultation”; and
6. Delegates to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee to make the
appropriate changes to the Statement of Proposal (A2372939 of Report R13686) to
give effect to the amendments contained in clause 5, specifically:
· Adding Selwyn Place (but excluding the rest of the ring
roads); and
· Adding “adopting an even lower speed limit than
30km/h” to the list of bullet points under the heading “Scope of
Council decisions following Consultation”; and
7. Directs officers to undertake further investigation relevant to the
addition of Selwyn Place; and
8. Approves commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure, with
the consultation period to run from 13 July 2020 to 14 August 2020; and
9. Approves the Consultation Plan (A2379502 of Report 13686); and
10. 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
11.
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.
4.4 The SCP period ran
for four weeks from 13 July 2020 to 14 August 2020.
5. Discussion
Public Consultation Process
5.1 The
public consultation process was publicised through a media release,
Council’s website and via social media. Submission information was also
made available in Nelson’s public libraries and at Council’s
Customer Service Centre.
5.2 Letters
were also sent out to the complete list of stakeholders identified in the
previous Infrastructure Committee report as well as the additional stakeholders
added to the list by the Committee (Accessibility for All Forum, Age Concern
and the Positive Ageing Forum).
5.3 The
Infrastructure Committee heard verbal submissions at a hearing on 9 September
2020. Eight submitters spoke at the hearing, and this report considers both the
written and oral submissions.
Summary of Submissions
5.4 A
total of 101 written submissions were received. The table below summarises the
submissions received.
|
All
|
Inner City
|
Residential
|
Selwyn
|
Total
|
|
34 in support
|
4 in support
|
36 in support
|
1 in support
|
75
|
|
12 opposed
|
1 opposed
1 queried the need
|
4 seeking specific
additions
1 opposed to the
criteria used to select the streets
5 opposed
|
1 support in part
1 opposed
|
26
|
|
46
|
6
|
46
|
3
|
Total 101
|
5.5 The
complete package of proposed speed limit changes included in the proposal was
supported by 34 submitters and 12 opposed all aspects of the proposal.
5.6 A
further four submissions specifically supported the proposed changes to the CBD
speed limits.
5.7 Specific
discussion of the proposed change to Selwyn Place attracted one submission in
support, one in partial support, and one in opposition.
5.8 The
proposed speed limit changes in the residential areas attracted the most
attention, and many of these submissions focused on one or two particular
streets (with most in support of proposed changes and six in opposition).
Further comments and requests related to specific streets are discussed in
Attachments 2 and 3 of this report.
5.9 No
submissions were received from Fire Emergency New Zealand or from the St John
Ambulance service. Feedback was invited by phone to inform this report and it
can now be reported that all local Emergency Services support the Proposal in
its entirety. Emergency services advise that if travelling under urgency there
is no legal impediment to the speed they travel at as long as they are
proceeding safely.
Selwyn Place
5.10 At
the 2 July meeting officers were instructed to undertake additional speed
counts on Selwyn Place to inform deliberations. These counts were carried out
the week beginning 7 July and indicate that:
5.10.1 between
Church Street and Rutherford Street the mean speeds were 35.9km/h and 37.8 km/h
east bound and west bound respectively; and
5.10.2
between Collingwood Street and Trafalgar Street the mean speeds were 38.6km/h
and 38.2 km/h eastbound and west bound respectively.
5.11 Clause
4.4(2)(c) of the Speed Limit Setting Rule requires Council to aim to achieve a
mean speed of no more than 33km/h when setting a 30km/h speed limit. The
monitored speeds are slightly in excess of that, but they indicate that a mean
speed of no more than 33km/h is a feasible goal for Selwyn place. This is
discussed further in 6.14 and 6.15 of this report.
6. Summary
analysis
General
support
6.1 Of
the submissions in support of all aspects of the proposal, the reoccurring
themes were that it would encourage walking and cycling, and enhance the
amenity and liveability of central Nelson. Also mentioned was the reduction of
risk of noise including that related to night time racing.
6.2 The
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board submission included the following
feedback:
- A
2008 survey found that Nelson respondents identified feeling unsafe on and
around roads (29.7%) as the major barrier to being more physically active.
Lowering urban speed limits is a key way in which NCC can encourage walking and
cycling in Nelson.
- When
vehicles move at or below 40km/h, potential conflicts take place at lower
speeds, dramatically increasing the chances of survival in the case of a crash.
- Residents
in neighbourhoods with good street environments tend to walk and cycle more,
take public transport more and drive less than comparable households in areas,
which has environmental impacts.
- Lowering
speed limits is expected to have positive economic benefits. Achieving mode
shift would result in fewer vehicles on the road, improving travel times for
the remaining cars and freight.
6.3 Bicycle
Nelson Bays (BNB) supported the reduced speed limit, noting that efforts to
reduce speed in general will have a beneficial impact on air quality and
climate change as well as being vital to reduce road traffic deaths and
injuries.
6.4 BNB
requested that Council signal its support for implementation of 30km/hr as the
default for urban streets where vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists mix. This
organisation noted that implementing safer speeds will soon become easier for
Council with the Government making substantial changes to the speed management
rules as per its recently enacted ‘Tackling Unsafe Speeds’
legislation and related programme. This is outside the scope of the SCP and
will be dealt with when officers prepare the overall Speed Management Plan for
Nelson in the coming year.
6.5 BNB
also noted the roading environment may require treatment to support the lower
speed limit. It commented that this is an opportunity to beautify and enhance
neighbourhoods and retail precincts, through low-cost treatments such as street
furniture, planting and road markings.
6.6 BNB
noted that a 30km/h speed limit is the nearest thing to a silver bullet in the
transport world. Mode shift would result in less traffic on the roads, making
travel quicker for remaining car users — in other words “slower can
be faster”. Once 30km/h speed limits become normal, BNB suggests very
little policing will be required of these limits.
6.7 Another
submission supported lower speed limits as per the review and on all
non-arterial route streets.
General opposition
6.8 Of
the submissions in opposition to all aspects of the proposal, the comments
included that lowered speed limits would increase congestion, pollution,
confusion due to varying limits, frustration and poor decision making by
drivers. Comment was made about the safe and appropriate speed varying
depending on the time of day and a blanket 30km/h speed limit being extremely
anti-car and would unnecessarily inhibiting progress through and across town at
quieter times when there is little need or justification for such measures.
CBD speed limits
6.9 NZTA
complemented Council on the proactive approach to speed management detailed in
the proposal and supported the City Centre proposals.
6.10 Another
submitter commented that a 30km/h limit is a natural next step toward a
pedestrian friendly CBD.
6.11 BNB
requested that Council includes the city centre’s ring roads (of Halifax,
Rutherford and Collingwood streets) in the areas with a 30km/h speed limit in
order to facilitate safe cycling access. This is outside the scope of the SCP,
but will be considered with when officers prepare the overall Speed Management
Plan for Nelson in the coming year.
6.12 In
contrast, one submitter said 30 km/h is too slow for the roads around the city
centre — 30km/h is acceptable in the inner roads of Bridge, Hardy and
Trafalgar, but not for the surrounding roads.
Selwyn Place
6.13 The
Police submission stated that they were initially concerned that Selwyn Place
would not be included, but upon its inclusion in the SOP now support the
proposed changes in their entirety.
6.14 Council
must aim to achieve a mean speed of no more than 33km/h when setting a 30km/h
speed limit. As mentioned, the monitored speeds on Selwyn Place are slightly in
excess of that. It is open to the Council to aim to reduce these monitored speeds
where it considers that appropriate for road safety. Helpfully, the
current monitored speeds indicate that a 33km/h mean speed is feasible and not
substantially different to current speeds used on Selwyn Place.
6.15 NZTA
was silent on Selwyn Place in their submission. It is NZTA’s view that
having current speeds that are higher than 33km/h does not prevent the Council
from complying with Rule 4.4(2)(c), and that the Council could help ensure new
speed limits are appropriate and work well by installing traffic control
devices.
6.16 Officers
will continue to investigate improved crossing facilities on Selwyn Place in
conjunction with development of the City Spatial Plan. Once the summer
pedestrian counts are available this planning work will continue, as counts
were not carried out throughout the winter months. Temporary speed control
measures could be installed on Selwyn Place as an interim measure until a
longer term treatment for the area is determined. Examples of speed control
measures are shown in Attachment 4. Installation of these tactical measures is
estimated to cost $12,000, they are quick to install and can be funded from
within existing subsidised low cost-low risk (LCLR) budget allocations.
6.17 Officers
consider that in setting a 30km/h speed limit on Selwyn Place Council can meet
the requirement of aiming to achieve a mean speed of no more than 33km/h. The
installation of some traffic control devices, while not strictly necessary,
should help ensure the 30km/h speed limit works well.
6.18 The
Automobile Association (AA) partially supported the inclusion of Selwyn Place.
This organisation said theoretically Selwyn Place should remain at 50km/hr to
facilitate use of the ring-road system and deter traffic from using the central
city streets. It noted however that there is conflict with pedestrians crossing
from Trafalgar Street across to the Church Steps and comment that considering
the volume of pedestrians crossing Selwyn Place they believe the proposed lower
speed limit of 30km/hr for Selwyn Place is warranted for the section of Selwyn
Place from Church Street to Collingwood Street. Additionally, now that upper
Trafalgar Street is permanently closed, the AA would like Council to consider
redesigning the crossing points. Options suggested are:
- remove the
two existing pedestrian crossings at the Church Steps and provide one wide
centralised crossing point;
- delineate
the crossing point so that it is differentiated from a normal road surface in a
way that makes the crossing point highly visible, obvious to drivers they are
entering a changed environment and induces a natural slowing of traffic
approaching this zone;
-
use a combination of a different coloured surface at the crossing point,
different textured materials and/or a raised table crossing point.
6.17
One submitter opposed a speed reduction for Selwyn Place because it forms part
of the City’s ring road system and they felt it warrants a speed limit
higher than that proposed. This submitter would prefer the speed limit in Selwyn
Place to be the same as the other three legs of the system but with a
‘gateway’ entrance and other treatments between Trafalgar Square
east and west to provide a ‘self-explaining’ reason for the need
for drivers to slow down in this significant area.
Residential streets
6.19 There
was significant support (14 submissions) for streets in the Monaco suburb
having a 30km/h speed limit, and one of these submissions including a petition
of 38 residents.
6.20 The
initial NZTA submission supported all the home zone proposals except Point Road
and Omaio Village. In those locations NZTA was of the view that that mean
speeds in these areas are 40-44 km/h and well in excess of the 33 km/h mean
speed, as required under Clause 4.4(2)(c), which Council aims to achieve. Further
investigation identified some confusion about the exact locations of proposed
limit changes and upon clarification NZTA fully understand the locations and
now endorses all proposed changes.
6.21 One
submitter supported a lower speed limit, but said 35km/h was more realistic
than 30km/h. They were concerned about people accidentally breaking the law by
travelling slightly over the limit. Officers note that 35km/h is not a lawful
option for a speed limit under Rule 3.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of
Speed Limits Rule 2017.The submitter also requested less home zone signage
(visual pollution), and said signage should not be at the edge of the water and
beach, sticking out like a “sore thumb”. This feedback was a
response to a recently installed sign on Point Road Monaco which has since been
repositioned.
6.22 One
submitter, who spoke at hearings, mistakenly understood that the speed limit on
Teal Valley Road would be reduced to 30km/h and spoke in support of this.
However it is not proposed to change the limit on Teal Valley Road which is
rural and has a current speed limit of 60km/h.
6.23 A
summary of comments for specific streets, either in support or opposition of
the proposal, is appended as Attachment 3.
6.24 A
number of requests were made to include additional streets in the 30km/h
category, and for increased signage, education and enforcement. It is not
possible to now add roads that were not identified in the statement of proposal
into this current process, but these submissions can be taken into account when
officers prepare the wider Speed Management Plan next year and within the
ongoing road safety action plan programme. These requests are appended in
Attachment 4.
6.25 NZTA
drew Council’s attention to the requirement to sign these speed
restrictions with approved signage, and advised that the proposed ‘Home
Zone’ is not a formally approved sign format. Officers will ensure any
signage that supports lower speed limit is compliant.
6.26 NZTA
also stated that Council should note that the majority of the proposals adjoin
roads that have under new speed limit guidance have safe and appropriate speeds
of less than 50 km/h, yet will require 50 km/h signage to be posted. This will
be particularly apparent for Fountain Place and Hampden Street West where the
30 km/h proposal starts partway down the street, meaning 50 km/h will be posted
on the balance of the street which is not the safe and appropriate speed for
those environments. NZTA encourage Council to set area-wide safe and
appropriate speed limits on Nelson City’s residential street network.
This suggestion is being considered as part of the larger Speed Management Plan
in 2021 being bought to Council next year.
6.27 Outside
of the scope of this deliberations report it is noted that the scheduled wider
Speed Management Plan will also report detail on overall crash patterns and
break down the percentage where speed is a causal factor and will provide
commentary on the impact of changing speed limits for mental health outcomes
(eg from noise pollution) as well as physical health benefits
7. Timing
7.1 Presuming
that the Council wishes to proceed with the proposal to set new speed limits
(whether in whole or in part), the question of when these speed limits would
come into effect needs to be considered.
7.2 For
the central city roads (other than Selwyn Place), new 30km/h speed limits could
take effect as soon as practicable after Council has provided public notice of
the amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210). These changes can be made
quickly with minimal disruption as the signs are already in stock due to the
emergency speed limit that was temporarily introduced under Covid 19 Alert
level 4.
7.3 The
situation is not so straight-forward for neighbourhood home zones and Selwyn
Place. For these roads, a later implementation date will almost certainly
be necessary. Officers understand that the supply of appropriate signage is
uncertain due to strong national demand. Delaying implementation for roads in home
zones and Selwyn Place until 1 May 2021 should allow sufficient time for necessary
signage to be purchased and supplied.
7.4 A
benefit of the delay in implementation for roads in home zones and Selwyn Place
is that it would allow time for technical assessment regarding exactly what
speed control devices might best be deployed in certain locations to support
the new speed limits for home zone roads and Selwyn Place. Examples of possible
speed control devices are shown in Attachment 5.
8. Options
8.1 The
Committee has five options;
1.
adopting the proposal in its entirety and setting 30km/h permanent speed limits
for all roads identified in the proposal (with staged implementation as
described in the timing section above);
2. retaining
the current speed limits for all roads identified in the proposal;
3. adopting
a 30km/h speed limit for only some of the roads identified in the proposal;
4. adopting
a 40km/h speed limit for all or some of the roads identified in the proposal;
5. adopting
an even lower speed limit than 30km/h for some or all of the roads identified
in the proposal.
8.2 Officers
recommend Option 1 - adopt the proposal in its entirety (with staged
implementation).
|
Option 1:
Adopt the proposal in its entirety and set a 30km/h permanent speed limit for
all roads identified in the proposal (with staged
implementation as described in the timing section).
|
|
Advantages
|
· Decreased speeds will result in less severe crashes.
· Decreased speeds will improve the “feeling” of safety
and may result in higher uptake of active modes in line with Council desired
direction.
· Incorporates the majority public view. Of submissions relating to
all aspects of the proposal 74% favour this option including the major
stakeholders (NZTA, Police, AA, Nelson Marlborough Health, and the Bicycle
Nelson Bays Cycling Action Network).
· Aligns well with central government GPS’s focus on safety
and access.
· Aligns well with the NZTA’s Setting of Speed Limit Rule,
intent of the Speed Management Guide and the Safer Journeys Risk Assessment
Tool.
· Staged implementation allows time for more certainty in supply of
required equipment for home zones and Selwyn Place, and for engagement and
technical assessment of what, if any, speed control devices should be
deployed and where.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Cost of advertising and signage to support speed limit changes
· May result in a small increased travel time on the local network
· Delays in implementation for Selwyn Place and home zones
|
|
Option 2: Retain the current speed limits
|
|
Advantages
|
· Does not require any advertising about speed limit changes
· No costs incurred on signage
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· Does not address safety risk of more severe injury if crashes
occur.
· Does not support encouragement of active modes
· Is not supported by submitters view including the major
stakeholders (as listed above).
· Does not align with NZTA’s Setting of Speed Limit Rule,
intent of Speed Management Guide and the Safer Journeys Risk Assessment Tool.
· Does not align well with central government GPS’s focus on
safety and access
|
|
Option 3: Adopting a 30km/h speed limit for only some of
the roads identified in the proposal
|
|
Advantages
|
· May satisfy some of the submitters who did not support adoption of
the SOP in its entirety
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Is not supported by many submitters including the major
stakeholders (as listed above).
· Will result in inconsistent approach to the network
|
|
Option 4: Adopting a 40km/h speed limit for all or some
of the roads.
|
|
Advantages
|
· May satisfy some of the submitters who did not support adoption of
the SOP in its entirety
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Is not supported by many submitters including the major
stakeholders (as listed above).
· Will result in inconsistent approach to the network
|
|
Option 5: Adopting an even lower speed limit than 30km/h
for all or some of the roads.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Decreased speeds will result in less severe crashes.
· Decreased speeds will improve the “feeling” of safety
and may result in higher uptake of active modes in line with Council desired
direction.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Risk of challenge if not compliant with Clause 4.4(2)(c) of the
Speed Limit Setting Rule which requires Council to aim to achieve a mean
speed no more than 10% higher than the posted speed limit.
· Does not reflect feedback from submitters including the major
stakeholders (as listed above).
|
9. Financial
9.1 Should
Council approve these changes, the cost to implement signage and consultation
is $60,000 and this can be covered within existing budgets. Cost of speed
control devices can be funded through the existing LCLR NZTA subsidised budget.
10. Conclusion
10.1 Public
consultation has been completed, with the majority of submitters in support of
reducing the speed limits either in their entirety or on specific streets as
outlined in the statement of proposal for the city centre and home zones.
10.2 This
recommendation is in line with central government’s GPS focus on safety
and access as well as NZTA’s Setting of Speed Limit Rule, the intent of
the Speed Management Guide and the Safer Journeys Risk Assessment Tool.
10.3 Feedback
received on this proposal has indicated a strong desire for wider speed limit
reductions to be considered. NZTA has changed the way speed limits are set and
further speed limit guidance is due out later this year. Utilising that
guidance officers will be bringing a Speed Management Plan to Council for
consideration in 2021 that will cover the entire local road network including
the additional streets mentioned in feedback received.
11. Next Steps
11.1 If
the recommendations are approved, it is suggested that Stage 1, the new central
city speed limits (within the ring road) take effect on 1 December 2020, and
Stage 2 covering roads in home zones and Selwyn Place take effect on 1 May
2021.
11.2 A
public notification process for the bylaw amendments and public education/media
campaign will be carried out to ensure members of the public are informed of
the changes before they come into effect.
11.3 Officers
will work to determine and install traffic control devices on the affected
roads to assist with making the new speed limits work well.
11.4 Work
will continue to develop a larger network wide Speed Management Plan and that
process will address many of the requests made in the submission process for
wider reaching speed limit changes. It is expected that this will be bought
back to Council mid-2021.
Author: Margaret
Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2475618
Amendments to Speed limits Bylaw to take effect from December 1st 2020 ⇩
Attachment 2: A2475743
Amendments to Speed limits Bylaw to take effect from May 1st 2021 ⇩
Attachment 3: A2463536
Specific Streets Summary of Feedback ⇩
Attachment 4: A2463538
Additional requetss for streets or actions to be considered ⇩
Attachment 5: A2466589
Temporary speed control devices - examples ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
The Speed Limit Bylaw supports the social and
economic wellbeing of the Nelson community by enabling the movement of people
and goods around the network in a way that creates a safer, more accessible,
better connected and more resilient transport system.
This deliberation report forms part of a special
consultative procedure which enables democratic local decision-making on
behalf of the community.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
This report supports the community outcome:
“Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.”
|
|
3. Risk
Providing the opportunity for feedback by the
community on the matter reduces the risk of making a decision which is not
supported by the public. Officers consider that the correct consultation
processes have been followed. However, if Council was to choose an
alternative option that is significantly different from those that were
consulted on, there would be risk in proceeding without further consultation.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
Changes to traffic speed limit signage for the areas
outlined in the statement of proposal can be completed within existing
budgets.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This matter has been assessed as having high
significance and Council has followed a Special Consultative Procedure.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
The report recommendation has considered the
potential impacts and risks climate change presents to the City.
Encouragement or support of active travel modes which may result in reduced
transport emissions and is an example of adaption and leadership.
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
Iwi were specifically contacted with individual
letters.
|
|
8. Delegations
The Infrastructure Committee has the following
delegations to consider this matter.
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 exercise of Council’s responsibilities,
powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters includes (but
is not limited to):
· Reviewing
and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a
bylaw is appropriate
· Undertaking
community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative
Procedures or other formal consultation processes
Powers to Recommend to Council:
In the following situations the committee may
consider matters within the areas of responsibility but make recommendations
to Council only (in accordance with sections 5.1.3 - 5.1.5 of the Delegations
Register):
· Matters
that, under the Local Government Act 2002, the operation of law or other
legislation, Council is unable to delegate
Making (and amending) a bylaw is one of the matters
that, under the Local Government Act 2002, the Council is unable to
delegate. Accordingly, the Infrastructure Committee has only the power
to make recommendations to the Council on this matter.
|
