Agenda of Infrastructure Committee

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

Page No.

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

An apology has been received from Her Worship the Mayor R Reese

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 24 February 2022 9 - 15

Document number M19261

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held on 24 February 2022, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Draft Parking Strategy - Approval to seek public feedback 16 - 90

Document number R26375

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Draft Parking Strategy - Approval to seek public feedback (R26375) and its attachments (A2862519, A2838508, A2838509, A2838510 and A2844394); and

2. Agrees to seek public feedback on the Draft Parking Strategy (A2862519) and the Draft Parking Management Plans (A2838508, A2838509 and A2838510); and

3. Agrees that the Draft Parking Strategy engagement process and public feedback opportunities meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 including the principles of consultation in section 82; and

4. Approves the Draft Parking Strategy (A2862519) and Draft Parking Management Plans (A2838508, A2838509 and A2838510) for public feedback; and

5. Delegates to the Chair, Deputy Chair and Chief Executive to approve any minor amendments required to the supporting information or public feedback materials prior to the start of the consultation process; and

6. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 8 (attachment A2844394) of this report (R26375); and

7. Notes the approach includes sufficient steps to ensure the Draft Parking Strategy and proposed Parking Management Plans will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance.

8. Pride Crossing - Way Forward 91 - 108

Document number R26253

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Pride Crossing - Way Forward (R26253) and its attachments (A2749080, A2773987, A2829334 and A2829335); and

2. Approves either:

a) a pride crossing, as a permanent feature, on the Central Trafalgar Street courtesy crossing (opposite Bank Lane) at an estimated cost of $15,000;

b) Revokes Resolution IC/2021/001 of the Infrastructure Committee meeting held on 25 February 2021:

“Approves the installation of a Progress Pride design on a central city raised courtesy crossing as a permanent feature”; then

3. Approves the installation of a pride decal on either the Trafalgar Street bike rack and/or Montgomery Square bike rack at an estimated cost of $4,000 or $8,000 respectively.

9. Sandbag Policy Options 109 - 120

Document number R26525

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Sandbag Policy Options (R26525) and its attachments (A2840348, A2840350).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Confirms that Council does not support the general provision of sandbags, sand or bags, to private property owners/occupants prior to or during flood events; and

2. Notes that officers are working in conjunction with the Nelson Tasman Emergency Management Group to promote flood readiness to the community, and specifically to those property owners located within the flood hazard/coastal inundation overlay.

10. Hampden Street (west) Intersection with Waimea Road- Long term closure to motor vehicles 121 - 131

Document number R26581

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Hampden Street (west) Intersection with Waimea Road- Long term closure to motor vehicles (R26581) and its attachment (A2846492); and

2. Determines that the intersection of Waimea Road and Hampden Street (west) be closed to vehicular traffic long-term by determining under section 319(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 1974 that part of the Hampden Street road west of Waimea Road is a footpath and cycle track.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves that the intersection of Waimea Road and Hampden Street (west) be closed to vehicular traffic long-term by determining under section 319(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 1974 that part of the Hampden Street (west) road is footpath and cycle track.

11. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan 132 - 154

Document number R26658

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (R26658) and its attachment (A2796488).

12. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan 155 - 173

Document number R26659

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (R26659) and its attachment (A2728794).

13. Tahunanui Catchment 4 Stormwater 174 - 179

Document number R26642

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Tahunanui Catchment 4 Stormwater (R26642) and its attachment (A2847780).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves bringing forward budgeted capital funding of $350,000 from 2024/25 to 2021/22, to allow early completion of the Tahunanui Catchment 4 stormwater project in 2021/22.

Confidential Business

14. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

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:

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 - Confidential Minutes - 24 February 2022	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
2	Walters Bluff Rd extension - strategic land purchase	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
3	Part of Forests Road - proposed road stopping	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Karakia Whakamutanga

Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 24 February 2022

Minutes of a meeting of the

Infrastructure Committee

Te Kōmiti Hanganga

Held via Zoom on Thursday 24 February 2022, commencing at 9.01a.m.

Present: Cr B McGurk (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar, K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Chairperson), P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance Adviser (K McLean), Governance Support Officer (A Bryce-Neumann) and Youth Councillors (C Rainey and A Clarke)

Apologies : Councillor G Noonan

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Resolved IC/2022/001

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives and accepts the apology from Councillor G Noonan.

McGurk/Lawrey Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There were no changes 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 18 November 2021

Document number M19084, agenda pages 8 - 14 refer.

Resolved IC/2022/002

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held on 18 November 2021, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Sanson Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

Document number R26616

There was no Chairperson’s report.

7. Waimea Road/Hampden Street (west) intersection feedback

Document number R24828, agenda pages 15 - 64 refer.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, presented the report, noting background and next steps in the public engagement process. She answered questions relating to the closure as well as the pedestrian crossing.

Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions and provided clarification about the legal risk, noting that the risk would be mitigated through public consultation. He confirmed that staff time would be minimal should Elected Members approve that consultation be undertaken.

7. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved IC/2022/003
	*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:
Edgar/McGurk 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)
7		Waimea Road/Hampden Street (west) intersection feedback	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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege

The meeting went into confidential session at 9.38am and resumed in public session at 10.07am.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.07am until 10.24am.

The Committee agreed (with permission from the mover/seconder) that clause 4 be removed and clause 5 be amended to reflect the engagement of community views.

Resolved IC/2022/004

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Waimea Road/Hampden Street (west) intersection feedback (R24828) and its attachments (A2476129 , A2779496, A2779688 and A2779811); and

2. Determines that there is sufficient information available from the feedback and monitoring process on the Waimea Road and Hampden Street (west) intersection trial summarised in this report (R24828) to enable the Council to seek community views on a proposal to close the intersection to vehicular traffic by determining under section 319(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 1974 that part of Hampden Street is footpath; and

3. Determines under section 342(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1974, that the intersection of Waimea Road and Hampden Street (West) should be temporarily closed to traffic until a decision has been made on the proposal to close the intersection to vehicular traffic long term by determining under section 319(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 1974 that part of Hampden Street is footpath; and

4. Notes a report summarising the community views of the proposal will be brought back to a future Committee for decision.

O'Neill-Stevens/McGurk Carried

8. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan

Document number R26208, agenda pages 65 - 96 refer.

Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis presented the report. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Board Chair (Councillor Judene Edgar) spoke to the Business Plan and General Manager Regional Services, Nathan Clarke, answered questions about fee increase, staffing, monitoring and reduced emissions.

Resolved IC/2022/005

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (R26208) and its attachments (A2808346 and A2796488); and

2. Provides feedback to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business via the General Manager on the draft Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill 2022/23 Business Plan (A2796488).

Skinner/Courtney Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 11.26am until 11.36am.

9. Submission to Ministry for the Environment Te kawe i te haepapa para: Taking responsibility for our waste: Proposals for a new waste strategy; Issues and options for new waste legislation

Document number R26478, agenda pages 97 - 114 refer.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Margaret Parfitt, presented the report and answered questions about low waste, reduction of waste, soft plastic and recycling.

Resolved IC/2022/006

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Submission to Ministry for the Environment Te kawe i te haepapa para: Taking responsibility for our waste: Proposals for a new waste strategy; Issues and options for new waste legislation (R26478) and its attachment A2796115; and

2. Approves retrospectively the submission to the Ministry for the Environment Te kawe i te haepapa para feedback (A2796115) signed by the Infrastructure Committee Chair.

Edgar/Skinner Carried

10. Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2022-2023

Document number R26495, agenda pages 115 - 121 refer.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Margaret Parfitt, presented the report and answered questions about cost recovery, solid waste, greenwaste and hazardous disposal.

Resolved IC/2022/007

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Fees and Charges 2022-2023 (R26495) and its attachment (A2770688); and

2. Approves an increase of 15% to Solid Waste refuse charges, 10% to greenwaste charges, and increased charges for hazardous disposal, at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre as per Attachment (A2770688 of Report R26495), effective 1 July 2022.

Sanson/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

11. Infrastructure Quarterly Report

Document number R26434, agenda pages 122 - 170 refer.

Manager Capital Projects, Lois Plum, presented the report. She along with Manager Utilities, David Light, and Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Margaret Parfitt, answered questions about planting requirements, the NWWTP resource consent renewal, Maitai Dam and inner city recycling bins.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report (R26434) and its attachments (A2830037, A2830767)_.

Recommendation to Council IC/2022/008

That the Council

1. Approves bringing forward budgeted capital funding of $3,205,600 from 2022/2023 to 2021/2022, to allow early completion of the Awatea Place wastewater pump station project in 2022/23; and

2. Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $964,000 for the Rutherford Street Stormwater upgrade project to allow award of a tender, following Tenders Subcommittee approval, ahead of the approval of the Annual Plan, noting that this amount has been included in the 2022/23 Annual Plan.

McGurk/Sanson Carried

12. Exclusion of the Public

Prior to moving into the confidential session, the Chairperson asked that all present for the confidential session confirm that they were in a confidential space where they could not be overseen or overheard. All confirmed this was the case at 12.11pm.

Resolved IC/2022/009

That the Infrastructure Committee

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

Edgar/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 Status Report - Confidential	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

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 Status Report - Confidential

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)(a)

To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

The meeting went into confidential session at 12.11pm and resumed in public session at 2.14pm.

Karakia Whakamutanga

13. Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

1	CONFIDENTIAL: Infrastructure Status Report - Confidential
	1. Receives the report Infrastructure Status Report - Confidential (R26597) and its attachment (A1150333).

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.15pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date)

Resolved

Item 7: Draft Parking Strategy - Approval to seek public feedback

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26375

Draft Parking Strategy - Approval to seek public feedback

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider and approve the Draft Parking Strategy and Draft Parking Management Plans for community engagement and public feedback.

2. Summary

2.1 Following pre-engagement with stakeholders and workshops with elected members a Draft Parking strategy (Strategy) has been developed. These documents will serve as the 10-year framework for guiding parking in Nelson.

2.2 The Strategy document covers why Council needs to manage parking, what the drivers for change are, and what parking challenges Nelson is facing. It contains objectives and principles that will guide Council decision making about parking and reallocating road space.

2.3 Based on the Strategy, Parking Management Plans (PMPs) have been developed for the Central City/fringe, Tahunanui and Stoke and provide a guide on how parking resources will be managed in areas and key locations that experience high parking demands.

2.4 The Strategy and PMPs are presented to the Committee for approval to proceed with wider community engagement.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Draft Parking Strategy - Approval to seek public feedback (R26375) and its attachments (A2862519, A2838508, A2838509, A2838510 and A2844394); and

2. Agrees to seek public feedback on the Draft Parking Strategy (A2862519) and the Draft Parking Management Plans (A2838508, A2838509 and A2838510); and

4. Approves the Draft Parking Strategy (A2862519) and Draft Parking Management Plans (A2838508, A2838509 and A2838510) for public feedback; and

6. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 8 (attachment A2844394) of this report (R26375); and

4. Background

4.1 The purpose of the Strategy is to provide a framework for Council to make consistent and transparent decisions for managing on-street and off-street parking, and to prioritise road space. The Strategy establishes objectives and principles to guide changes to Council-controlled parking in Nelson. The full strategy is appended as Attachment 1.

4.2 The Strategy contributes to Councils Long Term Plan (LTP) goal of “developing a sustainable transport system as a key triennium focus for the next three years.” It aligns with the overall vision for Councils Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) for a safe and connected region that is liveable, accessible, and sustainable.

4.3 The Strategy is consistent with Council’s endorsement of the Nelson Future Access Detailed Business Case and contributes to NCC’s climate change goals by aligning the future transport system towards a low-carbon multi-modal future with less dependence on single occupancy car movements.

4.4 The PMPs provide a further guide on how parking resources are proposed to be managed in larger centres and other key locations that experience high parking demands.

4.5 The Strategy and PMPs are high level, non-statutory policy documents that do not impose any directly enforceable requirements in relation to parking. Current parking requirements are in Council’s Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw. Any changes to the current parking requirements would require a change to the Bylaw, including any changes proposed to implement a finalised Parking Strategy. Any proposed changes to the Bylaw would follow the statutory process which includes consultation through the Special Consultative Procedure.

4.6 The Strategy has not been developed in isolation and has been developed in close consideration of other Council strategies, including:

4.6.1 Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan (in development);

4.6.2 2022 Future Development Strategy (in development);

4.6.3 Public Transport network plans;

4.6.4 Te Ara ō Whakatū – Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan (since been adopted by Council on 8 December 2020)

5. Engagement

5.1 Parking Strategy city centre engagement was carried out alongside engagement for Te Ara ō Whakatū – Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan. Overall, for the city centre, 81 meetings have been held with over 250 attendees from over 40 community sectors. Meetings were kept intentionally small to enable voices to be heard. Parking was a strong theme.

5.2 In preparing the Strategy and PMP’s for the City Centre, Stoke and Tahunanui the following work has been carried out:

· 2 dedicated meetings/presentations with NMIT and key stakeholders alongside those held for Te Ara ō Whakatū- Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan.

· Meetings with Stoke and Tahunanui businesses and public drop in sessions;

· Shape Nelson page inviting comment and suggestions;

· Demand forecasting;

· Workshops with elected members;

· Parking surveys

5.3 Engagement with Stoke and Tahunanui communities was delayed due to COVID19 alert levels. However, since September 2021 public drop-in sessions have been held and over 80 face to face discussions occurred.

6. Discussion

Challenges

6.1 The Strategy has been written recognising a number of key challenges that will influence how parking is managed in Nelson including limited alternative transport options, current relative costs of travelling by bus vs private vehicle, competition with Richmond, and the overall current rates of car dependency.

6.2 Parking management can be both divisive and personal and needs to balance community expectations for cheap or free parking close to destinations and access needs of multiple users.

Objectives

6.3 The proposed objectives for managing parking outline what Council is seeking to achieve, align with Council’s vision for the city and will guide Council when making decisions about parking. There are unavoidable conflicts between these objectives, and trade-offs will need to be made to balance competing demands.

6.4 The proposed objectives for managing parking in Nelson are as follows:

• Supports mode shift;

• Supports a people-focused city;

• Supports inclusive access;

• Supports economic development;

• Supports a safe and efficient transport system; and

• Is valued and managed efficiently

Principles

6.5 The guiding Principles of the Strategy, which explain how Council will apply the objectives to make decisions about parking and reallocating road space are:

· Street space is prioritised to deliver safety and mode shift outcomes;

· Parking is valued and managed equitably;

· Parking is used efficiently;

· Road users who benefit from parking contribute to the cost of parking provision;

· Parking availability information is accessible;

· Staged implementation of parking management to align with walking, cycling and public transport improvements; and

· Changes to parking are guided by policy and triggered by data

Parking Management Framework

6.6 In order to achieve the proposed objectives, a framework (based on best practice) has been formulated that has guided the development of the PMP’s. This framework, referred to in the draft Strategy as the Parking Road Map, includes:

· How space on our streets is prioritised - balancing movement and place;

· Measuring progress and triggers for change;

· Parking management tools;

- Reserved Parking

- Time restrictions and Paid Parking

- Permits

- Park and Ride

- Managing Parking in Parks and Reserves

- Enforcement and Revenue

- Technology

7. Parking Management Plans

7.1 The PMPs provide a guide on how parking resources will be managed in larger centres and other key locations that experience high parking demands.

7.2 A PMP outlines the existing parking supply and demands in the area and provides an overview of the existing transport network and land use. A PMP also highlights how any proposed changes might influence parking demand or supply in the future. Based on this evidence, PMPs include short, medium and long-term recommendations for improving how parking is managed.

7.3 PMP’s have been developed for the Central City (including the fringe), Stoke and Tahunanui and are discussed in detailed below.

Central City and fringe PMP

7.4 One of the key influences in developing a PMP for the Central City is the development of the Central City Spatial Plan - Te Ara ō Whakatū. This was adopted by Council on 8 December 2021 and aims to create a more people-focused City Centre with enhanced amenity and place value. To achieve this, some on-street parking will need to be removed and reallocated for urban design and streetscape improvements. Te Ara ō Whakatū also seeks to provide more residential development in the inner-city that will create residential parking demand in the Central City. There have been strong synergies between the development of the two projects, including collaboration during engagement and workshops, and coordination of data and information.

7.5 It is recommended that there is no net gain in parking provision in the Central City and fringe areas. This recommendation is based on the objectives within the Parking Strategy and the observations of current levels of parking activity. Recorded occupancy data shows there is sufficient supply within Central City to manage short and medium-term parking demands to provide for visitors and shoppers to the commercial area. Parking controls and travel demand management are recommended tools to manage parking efficiently and equitably and encourage mode shift if City Centre changes result in a potential reduction in parking.

7.6 The data highlights there is already strong demand for long term parking on the fringe. Residential intensification in the Central City and fringe areas, combined with removal of minimum parking requirements, will continue to increase pressure for on-street parking. However, continually increasing parking supply to meeting growing demand erodes the liveability and vibrancy of the Central City and fringe areas and encourages people to drive.

7.7 Short, medium and long-term recommendations have been developed for changes to parking in the Central City and fringe area based on the review of the parking data and community feedback received. Triggers for several recommendations have been identified to align with other major improvements or changes such as the implementation of major changes to bus services, scheduled for 2023. The proposed recommendations for changes to parking in the Central City and fringe area are summarised below and outlined in full in attachment 2.

7.7.1 Short term (1-2 years)

· Remove time restrictions in the Central City (except P10) and manage parking demand using graduated pricing;

· Review parking fees in the Central City, ensuring off-street parking in the Central City is cheaper than on-street parking;

· Increase the use of more flexible parking restrictions to allow for multiple or shared use based on time of day/week (e.g. P10 during business hours only, AM peak loading zones, shared bus stops, and taxi zones based on time of day);

· Develop and implement new residential parking scheme including removing dedicated residential parking bays, increasing cost of permits and changes to eligibility and parking exemptions;

· Introduce or change pricing or restrictions as peak parking occupancy thresholds are reached;

· Explore funding opportunities to provide short-term public EV charging spaces in Central City parking squares;

· Investigate opportunities to establish car share schemes in the City, and provide designated car share spaces in the Central City and fringe areas;

· Investigate opportunities to establish micro-mobility schemes (e.g. shared scooters, bicycles) in the Central City, in consultation with operators and the community;

· Collaborate with NMIT to review their permit scheme and provide travel demand management support such as enhanced bus concessions;

· Review provision of mobility, loading, motorcycle and bicycle (including electric bike charging) parking, considering the quantity, location and quality of facilities in the Central City;

· Review Nelson’s carpooling scheme;

· Increase parking enforcement to manage the larger extent of parking restrictions in the Central City and fringe areas. Consider using technology such as Licence Plate Recognition monitoring; and

· Ongoing monitoring of parking occupancy and duration of stay e.g. every 3 to 6 months

7.7.2 Medium term (3-5 years)

· Introduce combination of paid parking and time restrictions on City fringe streets

· Review provision of 1 hour of free parking;

· Investigate further cordoning parking meter revenue from Central City parking meters and reinvest into improvements in the Central City and public transport;

· Review parking availability wayfinding information from key arterial corridors to the City Centre parking squares. Consider supplementing with real time information to provide information on availability on electronic signage, apps etc; and

· Investigate mechanisms to implement time restrictions and/or paid parking in Rutherford Park and Hathaway Terrace reserves

7.7.3 Long term (5-10 years)

· Investigate opportunities to redevelop Central City parking squares e.g. mixed-use development (residential, commercial and parking)

Stoke PMP

7.8 Based on the objectives within the Strategy and the level of parking activity in Stoke, it is recommended that no additional public parking spaces are provided in Stoke. While there is forecast growth in the surrounding area, increasing parking supply to meeting growing demand further erodes the vibrancy of a town centre and encourages people to drive. Using parking management as well as travel demand management tools to optimise existing parking supply will ensure public parking resources are managed efficiently and equitably and encourage use of sustainable transport modes.

7.9 Short, medium and long-term recommendations have been developed for changes to parking in Stoke town centre, based on the review of the parking data and community feedback received. The proposed recommendations for changes are summarised below provided in attachment 3

· Specific recommendations for changes to parking and access in Strawbridge Square.

· Reduce existing P180 restrictions to P120

· Replace all P5 and P15 spaces with P10

· Increase taxi/PSV parking in Strawbridge square near New World

· Introduce EV charging spaces in Strawbridge Square and Greenmeadows community centre car parks

· Introduce motorcycle parking bay in Strawbridge Square

· Review the need for additional loading zones (e.g. within Strawbridge Square)

· Upgrade Strawbridge Square to improve amenity and enhance pedestrian access across entrances

· Review access arrangements to Strawbridge Square and consider implementing turn bans to reduce queuing within the car park.

· Improve signage/linemarking on one-way accesses to Strawbridge Square

7.9.1 Stoke short term (1-2 years)

· Replace existing P180 parking spaces with P60 on Main Stoke Road (retain existing P10 parking spaces)

· Reduce remaining P180 parking spaces to P120 for on-street and off-street parking in vicinity of Stoke shopping area

· Replace all P5 and P15 spaces with P10

· Increase parking enforcement in Stoke

· Replace angle parking with parallel parking on Putaitai Street

· Investigate providing mobility parking bays on Putaitai Street (outside Greypower)

· Ongoing monitoring of parking occupancy and duration of stay (e.g. every six months)

7.9.2 Stoke midterm (3-5 years)

· Consider implementing parking meters (with free parking)

7.9.4 Stoke Long term (5-10 years)

· Consider introducing paid parking

Tahunanui PMP

7.10 Based on the objectives within the Parking Strategy and the level of parking activity in Tahunanui, it is recommended that no additional public parking spaces are provided in Tahunanui.

7.11 Short, medium and long-term recommendations have been developed for changes to parking in Tahunanui, based on the review of the parking data and community feedback received. The proposed recommendations for changes are summarised below provided in attachment 4.

7.11.1 Tahunanui short term (1-2 years)

· Provide mobility parking bays on Beach Road

· Reduce existing P90 time restrictions to P60 on State Highway 6

· Implement P120 parking restrictions in most northern bay of angled parking spaces on Beach Road

· Replace all P5 spaces with P10

· Increase parking enforcement in Tahunanui

· Ongoing monitoring of parking occupancy and duration of stay (e.g. every six months). To include collection of data over summer peak period to understand changes in seasonal demand

7.11.2 Tahunanui Medium term (2-3 years)

· Update Structure Plan for Tahunanui to enhance amenity and access within the town centre and guide future development and growth

· Enhance the place function of Beach Road through landscaping, urban design and traffic calming

· Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian connections through the town centre (between Beach Road and Muritai Street/SH6)

· Provide parking wayfinding from SH6 to Beach Road

7.11.3 Tahunanui Long Term (5-10 years)

· Implement time restrictions for other streets within the town centre

· Implement parking meters (to control length of stay - with free parking)

· Introduce paid parking

7.12 Waka Kotahi plan to reintroduce southbound lanes later this year on State Highway 6 in Tahunanui. Whilst this work by Waka Kotahi is not part of the draft Parking Strategy, separate to the Strategy officers are preparing a business case that will consider off-street parking for the businesses and will be bringing a report back to Council once completed.

8. Community Engagement Approach

8.1 While there is may be high levels of public interest in some changes to parking requirements, it is considered that the decision to adopt a Strategy and the PMPs is of low to moderate significance when assessed under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. For example, these high level policy documents do not impact of levels of service, Council’s debt or the level of rates. Any decisions to change parking requirements themselves will be subject to future decision-making processes, for example amendment of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw or LTP or Hearing Panel-Other processes and consultation at that time as required.

8.2 Given that the draft Strategy and PMPs includes outcomes that will be of interest to the community, officers recommend a consultation process consistent with the principles of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02). This will enable Council to be informed of the views of the community and those affected in deciding to adopt, or not adopt, the Parking Strategy and PMPs.

8.3 It is proposed that a formal public consultation process will commence on 11 April 2022. The public will be encouraged to provide feedback on the Draft Strategy and PMPs with online or physical options including via Shape Nelson, email, phone or hardcopy public feedback form. This public consultation period will close on 16 May 2022 (5 weeks total duration).

8.4 A full list of organisations who will be directly contacted and invited to comment on the draft is appended as Attachment 5. In summary during the 5-week feedback period Council will seek to engage through a range of means including:

· Local media

· Direct engagement with interest groups and key stakeholders. Newsletter updates and direct information will be sent to those listed in the engagement plan

· Our Nelson – early April publication date – Draft Parking Strategy and plans (distribution 20,000)

· Shape Nelson – NCC’s consultation page will reflect the consultation document

· Social media – event scheduling and social media posts using created content

· Iwi partners have been made aware of the Strategy development through a Te Ohu Taiao (Environment) meeting that was held in May 2021

· Note: Face to face events will be dependent on COVID-19 setting.

8.5 Officers will summarise the feedback received and report this to this Committee with recommendations incorporated into the final document.

8.6 The updated Parking Strategy will then be presented at a Council meeting later in the year to seek approval for final adoption.

9. Options

9.1 The Committee can either approve, amend, or not approve the Draft Parking Strategy document and draft PMPs for public feedback and community engagement. Substantive changes may require an amendment to the timeline for feedback and final adoption. Officers recommend Option 1.

Option 1: Approve the Draft Parking Strategy and draft PMPs for public feedback and community engagement (Recommended Option)
Advantages	· Enables Council to obtain and consider the views of the wider community, to inform whether any changes should be made to the Draft Parking Strategy and PMP’s documents before it is finalised. · Consistent with LTP. · While a formal special consultation process is not required, seeking engagement in this way enables Council to fulfil the community engagement requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: Amend the Draft Parking Strategy and draft PMPs prior to public feedback and community engagement
Advantages	· If Committee considers the document and public feedback / engagement approach does not meet its needs or the needs of the community, Council can direct changes ahead of consultation.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Amendments to the document may not reflect the engagement undertaken to date. · Delays to timeframe to progress Draft Parking Strategy community engagement.
Option 3: Do not approve the Draft Parking Strategy and draft PMPs for public engagement
Advantages	· No identifiable advantage.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reputational damage that Council does not promote Smart Little City aspirations. · Cost in developing the Draft Parking Strategy will be sunk.

10. Conclusion

10.1 Officers recommend that the Draft Parking Strategy and draft PMP documents be approved for release for public feedback.

11. Next Steps

11.1 If the Committee agrees to the proposed approach the next steps would be:

11.1.1 To commence engagement in accordance with the Community Engagement Approach outlined in section 8 from 11 April 2022 to the 16 May 2022.

11.1.2 To collate responses and prepare report back to the 4 August 2022 Infrastructure committee.

11.1.3 To update the draft Parking Strategy and PMP’s and to present them at the 25 August 2022 Council meeting to seek approval for adoption.

11.1.4 As changes recommended under the PMPs are phased in further consultation will occur through the LTP, Parking Bylaw or Hearings Panel (Other) as appropriate.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2862519 Draft Parking Strategy March 2022 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2838508 - Draft Central City and Fringe Parking Management Plan ⇩

Attachment 3: A2838509 - Draft Stoke Parking Management Plan ⇩

Attachment 4: A2838510 - Draft Tahunanui Parking Management Plan ⇩

Attachment 5: A2844394 - Communications and Engagement Plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Approving a Draft Strategy for release for community feedback promotes democratic local decision-making. Decisions in this report allow Council to consult the community on whether to adopt the future Parking Strategy. This will allow Council to make decisions on behalf of the community to promote its social, environmental, and economic, well-being that are consistent with the purpose of the Local Government Act.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft Parking Strategy is consistent with Nelson’s urban development strategies. It aligns with Council’s Long-Term Plan, the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan, Future Development Strategy, key Transport Strategies, including Nelson Future Access Strategy (Waka Kotahi), modal shift (walk and cycle), bus public transport and Te Ara ō Whakatū- Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan

3. Risk

The approval of a draft for wider community feedback carries a low risk.

4. Financial impact

No additional funding is sought in this report.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

While a high level of public interest exists for parking the Draft parking Strategy is considered of low to moderate significance when considered against criteria in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It will not require a Special Consultative Process (SCP) as it will not impact on levels of service provided by Council, degree of impact on Council’s debt or the level of rates it charges, and that decisions related to the Draft Parking Strategy are not irreversible.

Given the Strategy includes outcomes that will be of interest to the community, officers have recommended engagement to invite feedback (as outlined I section 5.18 of this report) prior to bringing a final version to Committee for recommendation to Council for adoption.

Public feedback will be sought on the Draft Parking Strategy and proposed PMP’s during a 5-week period (11 April – 16 May 2022).

6. Climate Impact

The strategic vision of the Draft Parking Strategy acknowledges climate change is a risk facing the city and region. The Draft Parking Strategy promoted modal shift and lower carbon emissions.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider approving a Draft Parking Strategy and Parking Management Plans (noting that the approval of the final version of the Strategy will be in the form of a recommendation from the Committee to Council):

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:

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

· Developing, monitoring, and reviewing strategies, policies, and plans, with final versions to be recommended to Council for approval

· Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes, other than final approval

Item 8: Pride Crossing - Way Forward

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26253

Pride Crossing - Way Forward

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present feedback to the Committee following targeted engagement, and for the Committee to consider options and decide on either a pride crossing location or an alternative form and location.

2. Summary

2.1 The 25 February 2021 Infrastructure Committee considered installing a pride crossing on the Bank Lane central Trafalgar Street raised courtesy crossing as a permanent feature.

2.2 The Committee resolved to consider a pride crossing not at that specific location, but at a location somewhere in the central city on a raised courtesy crossing.

2.3 Additional engagement on a location in the central city has been undertaken by the Deputy Mayor and the Chair of the City Centre Engagement Group as well as officers to guide a preferred location and a way forward – the subject of this report.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Pride Crossing - Way Forward (R26253) and its attachments (A2749080, A2773987, A2829334 and A2829335); and

2. Approves either:

a) a pride crossing, as a permanent feature, on the Central Trafalgar Street courtesy crossing (opposite Bank Lane) at an estimated cost of $15,000;

b) Revokes Resolution IC/2021/001 of the Infrastructure Committee meeting held on 25 February 2021:

“Approves the installation of a Progress Pride design on a central city raised courtesy crossing as a permanent feature”; then

3. Approves the installation of a pride decal on either the Trafalgar Street bike rack and/or Montgomery Square bike rack at an estimated cost of $4,000 or $8,000 respectively.

4. Background

4.1 The Chair of the Infrastructure Committee as part of his Chairs Report to the 25 February 2021 Committee supported the idea, suggested by his Deputy Chair, to install a pride crossing on the central courtesy crossing in Trafalgar Street (opposite Bank Lane). The extract from that report is appended as Attachment 1 (A2749080).

4.2 The Committee however agreed that further city centre engagement was required before any works proceeded and resolved as follows:

Resolution IC/2021/002

“Approves the installation of a Progress Pride design on a central city raised courtesy crossing as a permanent feature”.

4.3 The Deputy Mayor and the Chair of the City Centre Engagement Group have engaged with a core group of stakeholders and have proposed an alternative location for the pride crossing. That engagement included several walking tours through the central city and consideration of several locations with the following groups – Police, Q Youth, Lesbian Link, Nelson Pride, Blind Low Vision Citizens, Youth Council, Arts Nelson, and Uniquely Nelson.

4.4 The Committee resolution is very clear – that a pride crossing will be installed on a raised courtesy crossing in the central city as a permanent feature.

5. Discussion

Original suggested location – Across Trafalgar Street opposite Bank Lane

5.1 The cost, as reported to the 25 February 2021 Infrastructure Committee, to install a pride crossing on the central pedestrian courtesy crossing in Trafalgar Street was estimated at between $5,000 and $9,000.

5.2 Whilst that was an estimate at the time, as a result of COVID-19, leading to an increase in costs of materials as well as the high inflation environment, the cost of the crossing in Bank Lane is now estimated to be $15,000.

5.3 For information, the paint to be applied to create a pride crossing (irrespective of its location) is a specialised product – a cold pressed plastic (component resin) - that will have high skid and high slip resistance qualities.

5.4 The cost to install a pride crossing depends on the extent of the work required as well as the extent of temporary traffic management required to undertake the works. The more heavily trafficked the area the greater the traffic management required to facilitate installation and hence the greater the cost. Undertaking the work in the warmer months is essential.

Base assumptions for a pride crossing

5.5 A pride crossing is deemed road art. The Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices (2204) notes that roadway art must be installed in a way that is compliant with the Rule if the art:

a. is installed in a lower risk environment; and

b. does not resemble and is not similar to a marking described in this Rule; and

c. does not mislead road users about the meaning of any traffic control device; and

d. is not part of or visually integrated into a marking specified in Schedule 2.

5.6 What this means, in layman’s terms, is that artwork may be installed on a roadway in New Zealand if it is installed in a lower risk environment (demonstrable vehicle operating speeds of 30km/h or less – not just signposted after the art and any other features have been installed) and cannot be on a zebra crossing.

5.7 With respect to lower risk environments, this excludes intersections such as the Trafalgar/Halifax intersection where the operating speed is above 30km/h. Waka Kotahi has also signalled that it will not support or approve any road art in an environment that has an operating speed greater than 30km/h.

External Funding

5.8 An amount of $2,000 was raised through the “Give a Little” fund and this has been handed over to Council by the organiser. Should the pride crossing not go ahead, this money would need to be returned to the fund so that donated money can go back to the original donors.

5.9 In addition to this, an amount of $5,000 offered by the Youth Council towards this project last financial year has been carried over into the current financial year.

6. Other locations considered

6.1 Halifax/Trafalgar intersection. This location has been suggested by one of the groups engaged with. Officers have priced this at an estimated $50,000, but it is nonetheless deemed unsuitable as the location does not adhere to a 30km/h operating speed and is not supported by Waka Kotahi. This location is not considered further in this report.

6.2 The six alternative locations (refer attachment 2, A2773987), considered for a pride crossing include the following (none included any existing zebra crossings):

6.2.1 Either of the crossings in Trafalgar Street off Bridge Street;

6.2.2 Crossing in Trafalgar Street off Hardy Street;

6.2.3 Trafalgar Street crossing New Street/Achilles Avenue walkway;

6.2.4 Trafalgar Street crossing at Hardy Street end of pedestrian mall;

6.2.5 Trafalgar Street Bank Lane; and

6.2.6 Selwyn Street at Upper Trafalgar Street.

6.3 Whilst there was no unanimous support for a pride crossing, the preferred location, following engagement by the Deputy Mayor and Chair of the City Centre Engagement Group, is at the top end of Trafalgar Street across Selwyn Place between the two existing zebra crossings (refer to Attachment 3, A2829334). It was noted by those who supported this location that engagement would need to take place with both iwi and the Anglican Diocese.

6.4 Officers have major reservations concerning this layout and provide commentary on this later in the report.

7. Concurrent work in Selwyn Place/top of Trafalgar Street

7.1 Before offering specific commentary on the location of a pride crossing, officers for completeness, bring to the attention of the committee planned works along Selwyn Place that have the potential to influence any pride crossing work in that area.

7.2 As part of the inner-city speed reduction to 30km/h, Council resolved to reduce the speed on Selwyn Street to 30km/h. As noted previously merely signposting a street to 30km/h, in itself, is not adequate as the environment needs to be changed to ensure that the 85^th percentile operating speed is in fact 30km/h or less.

7.3 The work proposed for Selwyn Place to effect traffic calming intervention measures to give effect to the Council resolution, includes a new raised pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Fashion Island, raising the two existing zebra crossings either side of the Cawthron Steps and lane narrowing’s in the vicinity of McDonald’s. This work is due to be completed by the end of the calendar year, with budget allowance of $150,000. Heavy surface maintenance on Selwyn Place will be carried out in March/April 2022.

8. Officer commentary

8.1 Of the six alternative locations considered (excluding the Halifax/Trafalgar Street location):

8.1.1 The Selwyn Place proposal as presented, is not supported by officers and that is discussed in more detail later in the report. A variation to what is proposed is offered by officers.

8.1.2 The other locations in Trafalgar Street are options. The costs to install a pride crossing on any of these crossings are similar in cost to the Bank Lane costs.

8.2 No single location, with the groups engaged, received unanimous support. For example, the Blind Low Vision Citizens Group did support the Selwyn Street location if the existing crossing points remained, whilst Police supported the Bank Lane crossing and others were not in support of the New Street/Achilles crossing.

Selwyn Place/Upper Trafalgar Street proposal

8.3 This location includes installing a pride crossing between the two existing zebra crossings. Whilst this location does not breach the View Shaft rule in the District Plan, it does raise serious health and safety (H&S) concerns for officers.

8.4 The pride crossing in this location and format would be deemed road art and cannot be either a formal zebra crossing or a courtesy crossing.

8.5 The main concern with respect to H&S is that having a colourful feature between two legal zebra crossings will be potentially very confusing and dangerous for pedestrians and other users especially as they walk up Trafalgar Street towards the steps. Users may not differentiate that the road art is not a crossing point and could be placing themselves in harm’s way by crossing the road at this point heedless of oncoming traffic. The result of an error by a pedestrian could result in serious injury or death.

9. Officer alternative proposal

9.1 Officers, in keeping with the view that Selwyn Place is a potential location have come up with an alternative layout (refer to attachment 4, A2829335). This proposal involves removing the two existing zebra crossings and replacing those with a single raised zebra crossing (that would also aid slowing traffic speeds down to achieve the 30km/h lower speed environment) in the centre of Trafalgar Street opposite the Cawthron steps, with an at-grade pride area leading into the zebra crossing from Trafalgar Street.

9.2 As noted earlier, budget already exists to undertake works in Selwyn Street including raising the two existing zebra crossings. Replacing these with a central raised zebra crossing can be catered for in the existing budget.

9.3 The estimated additional cost of incorporating the pride area into the new crossing would be in the order of $13,000.

Engagement on alternative option – Upper Trafalgar/Selwyn

9.4 Officers have engaged further with the groups previously engaged with by the Deputy Mayor and Chair of the City Centre Engagement Group, as well as with iwi, Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce, and the Anglican Diocese on this alternative option. Feedback is as follows:

9.4.1 Iwi – Supportive of a pride crossing but not in support of a Selwyn location due to the significance of piki mai.

9.4.2 Anglican Archdiocese – note that whatever is undertaken needs to complement the Cathedral, the steps and piki mai as these are important visual features and are unique to Trafalgar Street; that any pride crossing in this area should it go ahead would need regular maintenance to ensure that it remains fresh; and finally, that the Upper Trafalgar Street Plaza seems to be becoming congested with all the recent work compared to other parts of the city.

9.4.3 Chamber of Commerce – No fixed position on any location but do support any new investment initiatives that support the inner city.

9.4.4 Police – Whilst would support the alternative, prefer Bank Lane.

9.4.5 Q Youth – Not in support of this location.

9.4.6 Lesbian Link – No problem with the proposal.

9.4.7 Nelson Pride – Not supportive of crossing in this location and have suggested other locations at Founders or Tahunanui; note that they are less concerned about the location than they are about ensuring that the visible support of flags and crossings be supported by active inclusion policies within Nelson City Council.

9.4.8 Blind Low Vision Citizens – Do not support having coloured artwork on any type of crossing used by pedestrians including courtesy crossings, controlled mid-block crossings or intersections; do not support coloured art work immediately adjacent to any of these crossings to avoid confusion which could lead to unsafe situations for people who are blind or have low vision; do not support the use of coloured artwork in the clear accessible path of travel 1.8m out from the building line on footpaths.

9.4.9 Blind Citizens NZ – Support the Blind Low Vision Citizens position.

9.4.10 Youth Council – Mixed views with no firm view on this location.

9.4.11 Arts Council – Selwyn location supported; provides for an elegant solution that maintains pedestrian safety, while giving visibility to local LGBTQIA+ communities right in the heart of the city in a high foot traffic area; great step in the right direction.

9.4.12 Uniquely Nelson – Note that Selwyn is acceptable but would prefer a mural on the recently installed bike rack in lower Trafalgar Street.

9.4.13 NCC City Centre Development Team – Supports the Bridge Street option as this receives the highest footfall numbers and slowest vehicles speeds.

10. Ongoing maintenance

10.1 Irrespective of where the pride crossing goes, it will need to be maintained and refreshed to ensure it is fit-for-purpose. This was also raised by several of those engaged noting that it is important to maintain the vibrancy of the colours.

10.2 It is likely that the crossing will need to be refreshed every two years at an estimated cost of $5,000 plus temporary traffic management costs of around $2,000 (both at today’s cost).

11. Consultation

11.1 Wider consultation with the public has not been undertaken other than with the key groups previously engaged with.

11.2 No consideration has been given to any location in the wider city in line with the Infrastructure Committee resolution, other than in the inner city.

12. Alternative consideration

12.1 Officers accept that the issue of a pride crossing is topical, unfortunately contentious and with respect to the location in the city centre is not universally supported by key stakeholders nor members of the public.

12.2 To reflect the spirit of the original intent from the Infrastructure Deputy Chair, officers have considered an alternative form and location - that being decals on the bike rack in Trafalgar Street and/or Montgomery Square – a suggestion proposed by Uniquely Nelson.

12.3 The costs of this would be around $4,000 for one or $8,000 for two.

12.4 It is likely that the decals will need to be refreshed every three to five years and the cost of this will reflect the cost at the time and will also attract temporary traffic management costs.

13. Options

13.1 Six options are presented to Council as to a possible location for a pride crossing as detailed below. The Trafalgar/Halifax has been excluded as previously discussed. In addition, a further option (option 7) has been included, which offers a different form and location to a pride crossing.

13.1.1 Option 1: Do nothing i.e., no pride crossing; or

13.1.2 Option 2: Pride crossing in original proposed location – Bank Lane; or

13.1.3 Option 3: Pride Crossing on other locations in Trafalgar Street; or

13.1.4 Option 4: Pride crossing between the two existing zebra crossing – Selwyn Street; or

13.1.5 Option 5: Pride crossing leading into a new raised zebra crossing - Selwyn Place; or

13.1.6 Option 6: Some other location outside the CBD.

13.1.7 Option 7: Consider something other than a pride crossing such as a decal on an existing feature such as the Trafalgar Street and/or Montgomery Square bike racks.

13.2 Officers note that whilst options 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are options to be considered, officers support either option 2 (if the decision was made for a crossing within the inner city) or option 7 (if the decision was made for an alternative form and location).

Option 1: Do nothing
Advantages	· No additional funding required
Risks and Disadvantages	· This topic is in the public arena, very topical, with potential for high reputational damage if a decision is made not to install a pride crossing
Option 2: Pride crossing on the central courtesy crossing in Trafalgar Street (Bank Lane)
Advantages	· Will attract a cost (additional albeit minimal cost to February 2020 estimate) · Complies with Waka Kotahi road art guidance · Supported by officers and Police · Most likely will not be affected by any future inner-city work
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not widely supported by those engaged · This topic is in the public arena, very topical, and could result in reputational damage if any decision is made to progress with a pride crossing no matter the cost. · Will incur ongoing maintenance costs
Option 3: Pride crossing on any one of the other locations in Trafalgar Street
Advantages	· Additional, albeit minimal cost · Complies with Waka Kotahi road art guidance · Most likely will not be affected by any future inner-city work
Disadvantages	· Not widely supported by those engaged · This topic is in the public arena, very topical, and could result in reputational damage if any decision is made to progress with a pride crossing no matter the cost · Will incur ongoing maintenance costs
Option 4: Pride crossing between the two existing zebra crossing – Selwyn Street
Advantages	· Preferred view from those engaged by Deputy Mayor and Chair of the City Centre Engagement Group · Most likely will not be affected by any future inner-city work
Disadvantages	· Incompatible with Waka Kotahi road art guidance due to existing zebra crossings · Very high risk to health & safety to users · Not supported by officers on health and safety grounds · This topic is in the public arena, very topical, and could result in reputational damage if any decision is made to progress with a pride crossing no matter the cost · Will incur ongoing maintenance costs
Option 5: Pride crossing leading into a new raised zebra crossing - Selwyn Street
Advantages	· Support from a few groups · Complies with Waka Kotahi road art guidance · Most likely will not be affected by any future inner-city work · Similar cost over central Trafalgar Street Bank Lane crossing
Disadvantages	· Not universally supported by all groups – in fact some groups oppose this location · Whilst not the preferred officer option, it is workable · This topic is in the public arena, very topical, and could result in reputational damage if any decisions is made to progress with a pride crossing no matter the cost · Will incur ongoing maintenance costs · No engagement with businesses has been undertaken
Option 6: Pride crossing elsewhere other than central city
Advantages	· May be less contentious than in a central city · Will attract cost to implement
Disadvantages	· This topic is in the public arena, very topical, and could result in reputational damage if any decisions is made to progress with a pride crossing no matter the cost or location · Will require further officer input to explore options - time they do not have · Will incur ongoing maintenance costs
Option 7: Consider decal on existing Trafalgar Street and/or Montgomery Square bike racks
Advantages	· May be a less contentious option than on a crossing · Will still attract cost to implement (estimated at either $4,000 for one or $8,000 for two)
Disadvantages	· This topic is in the public arena, very topical, and could result in reputational damage if any decisions is made to progress with any sort of pride representation no matter what form that takes, cost or location

14. Conclusion

14.1 A proposal for a pride crossing on the central courtesy crossing in Trafalgar Street (Bank Lane) by the Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Committee was not supported by the Infrastructure Committee. Further engagement by the Deputy Mayor and the Chair of the City Centre Engagement Group has resulted in a preferred location at the top of Selwyn/Upper Trafalgar Street.

14.2 Officers do not support the original preferred location (option 4) in Selwyn Street for the reasons provided in the report and have suggested an alternative layout in that location (option 5) and have undertaken further targeted engagement.

14.3 This alternative, following further officer engagement, has received mixed feedback from several groups. Some are not in support, others partly in support but favouring a different location with only two giving their support for the Selwyn location – the Arts Council and Lesbian Link.

14.4 A deciding factor in officers not supporting their alternative Selwyn Street location is that there is no overwhelming support for this location with iwi signalling their opposition.

14.5 Based on this, officers suggest and would support either:

14.5.1 Should a crossing be favoured - a pride crossing in Trafalgar Street (Bank Lane); or

14.5.2 Should an alternative form be favoured - decals on the new bike stands on the Trafalgar Street and/or Montgomery Square bike racks. This option will require the original resolution to be rescinded to reflect the alternative not being a crossing.

15. Next Steps

15.1 The next steps, following a decision by this Committee on this matter, will be for officers to progress the works when weather allows.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2749080 - Extract from Report ⇩

Attachment 2: A2773987 GIS - Options Consulted for Location of Proposed Pride Crossing ⇩

Attachment 3: A2829334 - Selwyn Place 1- Crossing ⇩

Attachment 4: A2829335 - Selwyn Place 2 - Crossing ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposal to install a pride crossing supports the social well-being by demonstrating Nelson’s support for its diverse communities.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposal is consistent with the following community outcomes:

“Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”;

“Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”

“Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity”;

“Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement”.

3. Risk

The community is divided on a pride crossing in the inner city. Some are in support other very much against. In either case whatever decision is made some individuals and/or groups will be unhappy.

4. Financial impact

This work is unbudgeted. Depending on the options chosen the degree of cost will vary and could be absorbed into existing operational budgets. Any installation will attract ongoing maintenance costs.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Providing a pride crossing in the scheme of things is deemed of low significance, however the community is divided on this issue. Targeted engagement has been undertaken by elected members as well as officers and that feedback has been included in this report.

6. Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

Iwi views on this matter have been sought and theses are discussed in the report.

8. Delegations

The matter was discussed at the Infrastructure Committee and rests with this committee.

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.

Item 8: Pride Crossing - Way Forward: Attachment 4

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26525

Sandbag Policy Options

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider options for provision of sandbags to protect private property prior to/during flood events.

2. Summary

2.1 Council currently does not provide sandbags (either bags or sand) to protect public property prior to or during flood events. Instead, priority is given to the protection of key public assets (such as pump stations), and to measures to reduce the general flood risk (to shore up weak points along riverbanks).

2.2 Different councils around the country take different approaches although generally there is no commitment made to providing sandbags to protect specific properties unless there is known recurring flooding.

2.3 The general provision of sandbags to private property owners is not supported by the Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Management Group.

2.4 Providing sandbags for general use has cost implications relating to purchase and storage of sandbag materials and presents some risk to Council relating to community health and safety, liability and reputation.

2.5 Maintaining a policy of not providing sandbags for individual use sends a clear message that individuals need to take responsibility for making arrangements to protect their property. This needs to be accompanied with clear messaging to all ratepayers and clear information to those potentially affected property owners on actions that they can take to prepare for flood events.

3. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Sandbag Policy Options (R26525) and its attachments (A2840348, A2840350).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Confirms that Council does not support the general provision of sandbags, sand or bags, to private property owners/occupants prior to or during flood events; and

4. Background

4.1 Prior to 2011, Council’s contractors used to hold and supply two pallet loads of sandbags which would be delivered and deployed on request to private properties. In December 2011, the region experienced an extreme weather event, with conditions and demand on resources (council officers, Civil Defence and contractors) making it impossible for Council and its contractors to provide sandbags to all those who requested help.

4.2 During subsequent events, priority was given to protecting Council assets. Public requests for help to protect private property were declined.

4.3 At the Deliberations Meeting for the Long Term Plan 2018-2018 held on 15 May 2018, Council considered a submission that identified the risks of flooding and coastal inundation due to sea level rise. After deliberating on the issue, Council resolved as follows:

Requests that officers investigate potential options to store sand and bags to make available for community use prior to an emergency and report back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee.

4.4 Whilst some preliminary investigative work did start in the 2018/19 year, it has been treated as a lower priority issue by staff given other pressures on staff resource, particularly in the Infrastructure group.

5. Discussion

5.1 The provision of sandbags immediately prior to, or during, flood events presents some significant logistical challenges. These include:

5.1.1 Resource Constraints

· Council and its contractors prioritise the protection of Council assets including pump stations, buildings and roads and the clearing of watercourses, bridges, stormwater intakes, culverts and sumps through sandbagging as necessary. Providing sandbags prior to an event diverts effort away from critical preparation works and providing sandbags during an event diverts effort away from critical focussed response. The time and effort required to set up, deliver and place sandbags to private properties would take key workers away from that primary focus.

· Storage of sand and bags or filled sandbags needs to be located in areas accessible by those at risk of flood. Filled bags are perishable and have limited lifespan.

· In 2011 the extent of the damage from the extreme rainfall event to the wider area was such that is was impossible for contractors to move around the city to deal with critical assets let alone private property.

5.1.2 Confused Public Messaging

· People’s individual safety is paramount during significant flood events, with property being a secondary consideration. People should not be endangering their safety trying to protect property. Key messages should refer to moving valuables and pets to higher parts of their property and on ensuring they can evacuate safely and in keeping sumps clear to facilitate proper drainage.

· Determining appropriate trigger levels as to when to potentially provide sandbags could be confusing and create a heavy workload for both Council officers and contractors.

5.1.3 Effectiveness

· Sandbagging is not always effective. It may give people a false sense of security when they should be preparing to evacuate.

· Poorly constructed barriers are prone to failure.

· Sandbags that have been wet or exposed to UV light will start to disintegrate and become less effective.

· A comprehensive review (The Pitt Review^{^[1]}) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency following the 2007 floods found:

Strategic sandbagging can be successfully used alongside roads or adjacent to important buildings to prevent them from flooding, but the work needs to be done properly by experts. The Review was unable to obtain any significant evidence that sandbags were particularly effective during the 2007 summer floods in providing protection to individual households

5.1.4 Health and Safety

· Multiple people trying to access a distribution site whilst there is a flood warning in place has the potential to cause congestion, putting those people at risk.

· Filling and carrying sandbags can be hazardous, particularly to people who are less physically able.

· In severe floods, evacuation may be delayed whilst people try to protect their property.

· Post-flooding, sandbags that have often been in contact with contaminated water, pose handling risks and contamination to the wider public.

5.1.5 Equity

· Use of sandbags requires access to them, physical ability and knowledge of how to use them. Where sandbags are provided, it is on a first-come first-served basis. Some people will miss out.

6. Civil Defence Emergency Management Group (NTEMG)

6.1 The NTEMG appreciates the reasoning behind the current approach. It supports that more could be done across agencies to provide readiness messages in relation to flood preparedness. However, key messages during flood events should focus on ensuring people are safe.

6.2 There may be situations (e.g. under a declared State of Local Emergency) where sandbags (or other flood prevention devices) are deployed as conditions dictate. However, the general provision of sandbags to private property owners is not supported.

7. Other Councils’ Approaches

7.1 Different Councils around the country take different approaches to the provision of sandbags during flood events. The majority spoken to have a similar position to that currently used by Council, i.e. whilst sandbags may be deployed by Councils to protect assets, they are not made available for individual use. These include Auckland City Council, Tasman District Council, Napier City Council, Timaru District Council and Stratford District Council.

7.2 A few exceptions were found:

7.2.1 Marlborough District Council will provide a pallet of sandbags to streets likely to be affected by flooding within the urban area. Individuals can use these to protect their own properties.

7.2.2 Dunedin City Council makes sandbags available to those potentially affected by flooding. There have been several flood events in South Dunedin over the last eight years.

7.2.3 Christchurch City Council has provided sandbags to residents, most recently when stormwater infrastructure was damaged.

7.2.4 Buller District Council, operating under a State of Emergency, supplied over 20,000 bags and sand for volunteers to fill during the February 2022 rainfall event.

7.3 No other Council was found to have a formal sandbag policy. However, examples of information provided by Ōpōtiki District Council (webpage) and Auckland Council-Emergency Management (flyer) are attached (Attachments 1 and 2).

8. Costs

8.1 The key costs relate to purchase of sand and bags, storage facilities and labour associated with distribution and collection of sandbags (or their components) before, during and after a flood event. Whilst costs could be reduced if Council and/or its contractors did not have to deliver sandbags to private properties, additional costs would be incurred for traffic management and post clean-up of any storage and distribution sites.

8.2 Standard sandbags cost around $5 each at retail outlets. Council could purchase empty sandbags (around $1 each) and sand in bulk ($30/tonne – one tonne fills 50 sandbags). Labour costs for filling the bags would be additional.

8.3 Council could rely on volunteers to fill bags, but this would involve additional health and safety responsibilities for and management from Council. Alternatively, it could ask contractors to fill the bags, but as previously indicated, this will take them away from other key priority flood prevention activities.

8.4 Whilst Council could identify storage and distribution sites for Nelson and Stoke, such as Trafalgar Park and Saxton Field, work would be required on developing traffic management plans for use in an emergency event and there would be costs incurred for any post clean-up works.

9. Alternatives to Council Provision of Sandbags

9.1 Those Councils that do not provide sandbags generally make clear information available to property owners on their responsibilities and options (see also Attachments 1 and 2).

9.2 Co-ordination with NTEMG is ongoing to ensure general readiness messages, similar to those provided for earthquakes and tsunamis. Supporting information (e.g. retailers, how-to guides) is planned for the Council website.

9.3 Council knows which properties are located within its flood and inundation zones within the Nelson Resource Management Plan. It could provide additional targeted communication with those properties to enhance awareness and enable those property owners to make their own arrangements prior to a flood event taking place.

10. Options

10.1 Council can either continue with its existing position of not providing sandbags, or could develop a policy setting out when and how sandbags would be provided. Officers support Option 1: Status quo

Option 1: Status quo – do not provide sandbags to individual property owners/occupants
Advantages	· Doesn’t divert key resource and focussed effort away from higher priority flood response activities · No additional costs to Council or resource required · Allows messaging during events to focus on keeping people safe · Avoids health and safety and general liability risks associated with the provision of sandbags
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some people may see Council contractors sandbagging Council infrastructure during a flood event, and feel that their property should also be protected by the Council · May result in some properties being flooded during an event. This can be partially mitigated by encouraging occupants to make plans in advance to protect their key valuables/pets etc.
Option 2: Develop a policy setting out when and how sandbags will be provided to individual properties
Advantages	· Community feels Council is being supportive · May decrease impacts of minor floods on some households
Risks and Disadvantages	· Focus on sandbags can displace resources from other priority flood protection work · Can raise unrealistic expectation that properties can be protected from flood events · Some additional costs to Council from storing/distributing sand and bags · Potential liability if Council commits to providing a service but then fails to deliver · Health and Safety of volunteers, contractors and individuals involved in filling, carrying and stacking sandbags · Undermines message that individuals should take responsibility for preparing for natural hazard events

11. Conclusion

11.1 Council does not currently provide sandbags to protect individual properties during a flood event. To do so would take key resources away from other, higher priority activities, and could lead to an unrealistic expectation from the community that the Council will always step in to protect their properties from floods.

11.2 Officers recommend that the current position be maintained, and that better information is provided to the community to enable them to take responsibility for their own flood preparations.

Author: David Light, Manager Utilities

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2840348 - Opotiki District Council - About Sandbags Webpage - 16Feb2022 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2840350 - Auckland Council-Emergency Management - Guide to sandbag use for properties at risk from king-tides - Dec2018 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Providing sandbags to protect private properties is not a core function of local government. Property owners/occupants are able to source sandbags and sand from specialist retailers and landscape companies. Council does have responsibility for providing flood protection, and an efficient stormwater network. Sandbags provided to individual property owners do not contribute to that activity.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with the community outcome ‘Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs’ and ‘Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.’

3. Risk

The recommended option is the least risk option identified. If Council were to commit to providing sandbags, it raises increased health and safety, liability and reputational risks, as identified in the report.

4. Financial Impact

There is no financial impact from maintaining the current position. If Council were to change that position, there would be some additional costs. The main impact is on availability of contractors to carry out other flood protection work during an event.

5. Degree of Significance and Level of Engagement

This matter is of low significance because the current policy position has been clearly articulated and there is low expectation that Council will provide sandbags in an emergency event. The recommended option includes providing increased information to the community.

6. Climate Impact

Climate change is likely to result in increased flood hazard across Nelson. Providing sandbags is not an effective or efficient way of mitigating this risk. There is a risk that Council creates an unrealistic expectation that it will provide sandbags to protect property from these events.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the Decision-making Process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

8. Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations to consider this issue

Areas of Responsibility:

· Stormwater and flood protection

The Infrastructure Committee has the following power to recommend to Council:

· Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans

Item 10: Hampden Street (west) Intersection with Waimea Road- Long term closure to motor vehicles

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26581

Hampden Street (west) Intersection with Waimea Road- Long term closure to motor vehicles

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present to the Committee the results of the final community feedback regarding the long-term closure to vehicular access through the intersection of Waimea Road and Hampden Street (west).

1.2 To approve the long-term closure of the Waimea Road and Hampden Street (west) intersection to vehicular traffic under existing powers of the Local Government Act (section 319).

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Hampden Street (west) Intersection with Waimea Road- Long term closure to motor vehicles (R26581) and its attachment (A2846492); and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

3. Background

3.1 The background to this matter is not replicated in this report but is covered through the latest report presented to the 24 February 2022 Infrastructure Committee, linked here.

3.2 In February 2022 the Infrastructure Committee:

Resolved IC/2022/001

4. Notes a report summarising the community views of the proposal will be brought back to a future Committee for decision.

Discussion

3.3 Council has power under the s319 Local Government Act to determine what part of a road shall be a carriageway, and what part a footpath or cycle track.

3.4 Based on the data and early public feedback since the beginning of the temporary closure, officers recommend that this part of Hampden Street (west) is closed to vehicular traffic long-term by way of determination under s 319 LGA 1974 that this part of the road is footpath and cycle track, and in February/March 2022 sought final community views on this.

3.5 In preparing this report, Council officers have sought final feedback on long term closure from previously identified key stakeholders including Victory and Hampden Street Schools, Nelson Intermediate, Nelson College, the AA, Nelsust, Bicycle Nelson Bays, Fire and Emergency NZ, NMDHB and the Police. Support for long term closure of Hampden Street had previously been signalled by the AA, NZ Police, Nelsust, Bicycle Nelson Bays, FENZ, St John Ambulance and the NMDHB. The AA, Bicycle Nelson Bays and NMDHB responded a second time reaffirming their support for the closure. Hampden Street school replied supporting the closure, but still favour traffic signals at the intersection.

3.6 Additional public feedback since February 2022 has been gathered through Shape Nelson, social media posts, an email to all previous submitters and a dedicated mail drop to approximately 350 residents/homeowners and business owners’ letterboxes. A copy of the letter is appended as Attachment 1.

3.7 Overall feedback supports the long-term closure by determination under s319 LGA that part of the road is footpath and cycle track. A total of 68 responses were received and 81% of the responses supported the closure, many commenting on the improved feelings of safety as a result. Another 15% opposed the long-term closure and 4% did not know.

3.8 Suggestions were received about the placemaking aspect of the closure requesting trees, art and a safe waiting area for parents collecting or dropping off school children. An improved parking layout and turning head, and separate facilities for cyclists and pedestrians were also requested. Some concerns were raised about provision of seating in the area. If long term closure is approved and that part of the road is determined to be footpath and cycle track, work will begin on design, taking these suggestions into consideration.

3.9 A small number of Kawai Street residents raised concerns about the effect the current temporary closure has had (increased volumes between Alfred and Franklyn Street) and called for additional traffic calming and controls including Compulsory Stop signage at the Hampden Street and Kawai Street intersection. These suggestions will be considered by officers as part of the ongoing safety and speed control improvements on the network.

3.10 Three submitters, including Hampden Street School, requested traffic signals at the intersection. As stated in the 24 February 2022 report to the Infrastructure Committee, officers advise further investigation is required to understand the wider area impacts of signalising the Hampden Street intersection and how to accommodate or mitigate the changes in traffic flows and a business case made. The current recommendation does not prohibit traffic signals as a future option.

4. Options

4.1 Having considered the monitoring results presented and final public and key stakeholder feedback, two options for the intersection have been identified –close the intersection long-term by determining under s 319 LGA 1974 that the road is footpath and cycle track, or do nothing in which case the temporary closure will lapse and the road will remain carriageway and be re-opened to vehicles. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Close the intersection by exercising power under Section 319 LGA 1974 to determine the road is footpath and cycle track
Advantages	· Removes known high crash risk at this location · Supports safer walking and cycling routes to the local schools · Responds to the public and stakeholder support for the permanent closure of the intersection to motorised vehicles · Opportunity for placemaking · Provides a safer intersection as part of the broader ‘Cross Town Links’ active mode route being developed by Council · The area retains its road reserve status which has required flexibility and mechanisms for operating utility operators’ licenses and access
Disadvantages	· Some residents may feel aggrieved that the long-term closure of the intersection to vehicles following a determination that part of the road is footpath and cycle track will negatively impact them.
Option 2: Do nothing – temporary closure lapses, road at Hampden Street (west) remains carriageway and is opened to vehicles
Advantages	· Allows reallocation of funding · Meets calls from some residents to reopen intersection.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reopening of road to vehicles would reintroduce known high safety risk for vulnerable users, such as cyclists and pedestrians. · Loss of opportunity to support modal shift. · Lost opportunity for place making. · Encourages inappropriate use of the network. · Requires removal of increased parking on Waimea Road that was gained when the intersection was temporarily closed. · Negative feedback from those that support the closure · Reputational risk

5. Conclusion

5.1 Based on the data, extensive engagement, and public feedback since the beginning of the temporary closure, officers recommend that vehicle access to Hampden Street (west) from Waimea Road is closed long-term by determination under s 319 LGA 1974 that part of the road is footpath and cycle track. Council has powers under the 319 Local Government Act to determine what part of a road shall be a carriageway, and what part a footpath or cycle track only. Officers have completed a final round of engagement giving public notice of proposal to close the intersection to vehicular traffic for the long-term by determining under s 319(1)(f) Local Government Act 1974 that part of Hampden Street is footpath and cycle track and this is supported by the majority of respondents.

6. Next steps

6.1 If Council determines that part of the road at Hampden Street (west) is footpath and cycle track, the temporary planter boxes will remain in place while officers will carry out final design with planned implementation planned next financial year.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2846492 Resident letter inviting feedback on long term closure of Hampden Street ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Closing the road to vehicles by determining that part of the road at Hampden Street (w

est) is footpath and cycle track will meet the current and future needs of the Nelson Community in a cost effect manner for the ratepayers. This decision fits with the purpose of local government by providing support for social and environmental well-being by demonstrating Nelson’s support for active transport.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This recommendation supports the following community outcomes:

· “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.”

· “Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”

· “Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities’.

In addition, it supports the Council priority to create a sustainable transport culture and supports the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-31 (RLTP) vision to have a safe and connected region that is liveable, accessible, and sustainable.

Risk

Risk to Council is low. Council has power under section 319 of the LGA 1974 respect of roads to determine what part of a road shall be a carriageway, and what part a footpath or cycle track. The final round of engagement and public notice has provided the opportunity for community to provide feedback on a section of Hampden Street (west) that is currently carriageway being determined as a foot and cycle path.

Financial impact

Long term closure to motor vehicle traffic will incur cost to design and install but this is provided for within existing budgets.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This decision to close the intersection of Waimea Road and Hampden Street (west) to motor vehicle traffic for the long term and determine part of Hampden Street west is a foot and cycle path, is a matter of medium significance to the community. A great deal of data and information about the effectiveness of the intervention and the views and preferences of affected parties has been collected. To enable the Council to consider exercising its General powers under section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974 with confidence, officers have carried out a further final round of engagement on the specific proposal to close the intersection to traffic on a long term basis.

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 may result in reduced transport emissions and is an example of leadership.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegations

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):

§ 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

· Decisions regarding significant assets

Item 11: Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26658

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill (NTRLBU) 2022/23 Business Unit (Business Plan).

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (R26658) and its attachment (A2796488).

3. Background

3.1 The NTRLBU was established by the Nelson City Council (NCC) and Tasman District Council (TDC) in April 2017 and became operational from 1 July 2017.

3.2 The approved Terms of Reference (TOR) require that the Draft Business Plan be presented annually to each Council by 31 October each year and allow for each Council to provide feedback on the draft Business Plan.

3.3 The Draft 2022/23 Business Plan was prepared by the NTRLBU General Manager and was presented to the Board who resolved on 10 December 2021 as follows:

Approves the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Business Plan 2022/23 (A2796488) for presentation to the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council with the following amendments as agreed by the NTRLBU on 10 December 2021:

· a 17% increase in landfill charges from 2021/22 to 2022/23

· amended financials to reflect fee changes

· amended Unique Emissions Factor

· expanded Emissions Management Improvements section

· amended Strategic Goals section to reflect whole-of-life management approach

· Clarification of Deed of Agreement and Terms of Reference review.

Delegates all further minor amendments to the Business Plan 2022/23 to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Chairperson and General Manager.

Recommendation to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

3.4 The Business Plan was presented to the Infrastructure Committee (refer to report R26208) on the 24 February 2022 where it was resolved as follows:

Provides feedback to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit via the General Manager of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit on the draft Nelson Regional Sewerage Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (A2796488)

3.5 There were no changes provided by the Committee on the Business Plan.

3.6 The NTRLBU 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 31 May for inclusion in each Council’s draft Annual Plan.

3.7 The Board considered the comments and the Business Plan on the 25 March 2022 and resolved as follows:

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (R26658) and its attachment/s () and its attachment (A2796488); and

2. Approves the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/2023 Business plan (A2796488) subject to minor changes approved by the Chairperson; and

3. Recommends the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Business Plan 2022/23 (A2796488) be presented to the Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council.

Recommendation to Nelson City and Tasman District Councils

That the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils

1. Receive the Nelson Tasman Regional landfill Business Unit Business Plan 2022/23 (A2796488).

4. Discussion

4.1 The NTRLBU Business Plan is appended as Attachment 1 and the General Manager and Board Chair 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 (of which there was none) to the General Manager, who has addressed that feedback in the revised Business Plan and presented that back to the Board. 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 TOR.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The NTRLBU Business Plan 2022/23 has been approved by the NTRLBU Board and is now presented to the two Councils.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2796488 - NTRLBU Business Plan 2022-2023 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NTRLBU is a joint committee constituted pursuant to the provisions of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002. A regional landfill 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 TOR 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 of not receiving the Business Plan is that this could delay the NTRLBU implementing their Business Plan for 2020/21.

4. Financial impact

The NTRLBU 2020/21 Business Plan signals an increase in landfill fees and charges, and this has been included in the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The NTRLBU 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

The draft Business Plan includes a long-term objective on greenhouse gas emissions with the commitment to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill.

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 Tasman Regional Landfill Business Plan:

5.6.1 Relevant Areas of responsibility:

• Regional Landfill

5.6.2 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

Item 11: Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan: Attachment 1

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26659

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) 2022/23 Business Plan (Business Plan).

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2022/23 Business Plan (R26659) and its attachment (A2728794).

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 2022/23 Business Plan was prepared by the NRSBU General Manager and was presented to the Board, who resolved on 17 September 2021 as follows:

“Approves the Draft Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan (A2728794) for submission to Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council for their consideration and feedback”.

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Councils

Receive the Draft Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Unit Plan 2022-2023 (A2728794) for review and provide feedback to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit if required.

3.5 The Business Plan was presented to the Infrastructure Committee (refer to report R26207) on the 18 November 2021 where it was resolved as follows:

3.6 That report noted that the Draft Business Plan varied very little compared to the programme and budgets outlined in the approved NRSBU AMP and in Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP) and that there were no implications to the NCC budget. The General Manager was advised accordingly.

3.7 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.

3.8 The Board considered the Business Plan on the 11 March 2022 and resolved as follows:

That the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit

1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan Feedback report. (R26681) and its attachment (A2728794); and

2. Approves the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2022/2023 Business plan (A2728794) subject to minor changes approved by the Chairperson; and

3. Recommends the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2022/23 (A2728794) be presented to the Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council.

That the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils

1. Receive the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2022/23 (A2728794).

4. Discussion

4.1 The NRSBU Business Plan 2022/23 is appended as Attachment 1 and the General Manager and Board Chair 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 the required feedback to the General Manager (of which there was none). The General Manager has presented that feedback to the Board. 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 2022/23 has been approved by the NRSBU Board and is now presented to the two Councils.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2728794 - NRSBU Business Plan 2022-2023 ⇩

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 Business Plan is required under the MoU to be received by Council following comment and consideration by the Board.

3. Risk

This report is of low risk as the Committee has already considered the Business Plan and provided comment back to the General Manager. The risk not receiving the Business Plan is that this could delay the NRSBU implementing their Business Plan for 2022/23.

4. Financial impact

There is no change to the 2022/23 Business Plan to that in the AMP and LTP.

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

Item 13: Tahunanui Catchment 4 Stormwater

Infrastructure Committee

31 March 2022

REPORT R26642

Tahunanui Catchment 4 Stormwater

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To recommend to Council to bring funding forward from 2024/25 into 2021/22 to allow physical works to be undertaken on the Tahunanui Catchment 4 stormwater upgrade.

2. Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee

1. Receives the report Tahunanui Catchment 4 Stormwater (R26642) and its attachment (A2847780).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves bringing forward budgeted capital funding of $350,000 from 2024/25 to 2021/22, to allow early completion of the Tahunanui Catchment 4 stormwater project in 2021/22.

3. Background

3.1 Council has been carrying out a multi-stage study of the risk to and from the public stormwater system within the Tahunanui Slump – an area of deep-seated instability in Tahunanui that experiences ongoing and episodic periods of accelerated movement in response to elevated groundwater levels and seismic events. This movement has the ability to damage below ground infrastructure such as concrete pipes.

3.2 The Tahunanui Catchment 4 stormwater upgrade project is a multi-year project and is a key project for this Council that will improve stormwater management in the Tahunanui hills. Once completed, the new pipe will provide both primary and secondary flow capacity for the catchment. Refer to Attachment 1 for location.

4. Discussion

4.1 Due to the developed nature of the area, many services run through private property. The owner of the property, through which the stormwater pipe runs, is intending to rebuild their house (including demolition) and this creates an ideal opportunity for Council to upgrade the stormwater pipe through their property at the same time.

4.2 The project is tracking ahead of schedule with:

4.2.1 Negotiations with landowners progressing faster than originally planned.

4.2.2 consultation with key stakeholders complete including iwi, local businesses, residents, community groups, utility providers, Waka Kotahi, and emergency services.

4.2.3 detailed design plans complete.

4.2.4 resource consent application lodged.

4.2.5 easement agreed in principle with the property owner.

4.3 Early contractor engagement has been undertaken with a local contractor at an early stage of the design to understand risk, constructability, methodology and optimisation of the design.

5. Financial

5.1 Funding of $542,000 has been provided in the Long-Term Plan in 2024/25 for constructing this project and this is a key project to improve stormwater management in the Tahunanui area.

5.2 Officers had included $350,000 in the draft 2022/23 Annual Plan to construct this project, but now anticipate this money is required in 2021/22 for the reasons described in this report.

5.3 Timing of construction is dependent on the property owner’s house demolition timeline. There is a risk of delays beyond council officer’s control, which could lead to a subsequent full or partial carry over request.

6. Options

6.1 Two options are presented as detailed below – approve or not approve bringing funding forward from 2024/25. Officers support option 1.

Option 1: Approve bringing funding forward. Recommended option
Advantages	· Work is ready to go · Good understanding of the risks by all parties. · Work can be coordinated around timing of house demolition · Reduced flooding in private properties
Risks and Disadvantages	· Construction timeline is dependent on house demolition timeline, risk of delays beyond council officer’s control could lead to a full or partial carry over request.
Option 2: Not approve the transfer. Not recommended
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Project costs substantially increase after the house construction is complete due to risk of damage · Property owner not allowing work to proceed for fear of damage to new building.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Officers recommend bringing forward $350,000 from 2024/25 to 2021/22 to allow award of the physical works and enable progress of this important work.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Once approved, work will get underway as soon as practicable.

Author: Joel Felber, Team Leader Capital Projects

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2847780 - Tahunanui Drive - Catchment 4 - Location plan - 25 February 2022 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This construction project is part of the Council’s LTP and meets the purpose of local government to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation in this report aligns with the following Council’s community outcomes – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”, “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”, and “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected”. The project aligns with Council’s Annual Plan and LTP.

Risk

If approval is not given, it is unlikely the works can be completed within the LTP funding that is available due to increased costs if the physical work was done after the property is developed.

Construction timeline is dependent on house demolition timeline, risk of delays beyond council officer’s control could lead to a full or partial carry forward request.

Financial impact

Adequate funding exists to deliver this stage of the project.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance as the project has been signalled in several LTP’s and Annual Plans. There will be ongoing local consultation with businesses and residents, as per the formal Public Consultation Plan developed for this project.

Climate Impact

The impact of climate is considered in all projects.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. Iwi have been consulted from an early stage of this project to identify their requirements in respect to any areas of potential cultural interest. An iwi monitor will be formally employed on site during construction.

Delegations

The Infrastructure Committee has the following delegation:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Water

· Wastewater, including Bell Island Wastewater Treatment Plant

· Stormwater and Flood Protection

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.

Powers to Recommend to Council:

· Unbudgeted expenditure relating to the areas of responsibility, not included in the Long-Term Plan or Annual Plan

Excerpt from Nelson City Council Delegations Register (A11833061)

Infrastructure Committee

Areas of Responsibility:

Delegations:

Powers to Recommend to Council: