Infrastructure Committee Minutes - 23
June 2022
Present: Councillor
B McGurk (Chairperson), Acting Mayor J Edgar, Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M
Courtney, G Noonan, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Chairperson), P Rainey, R Sanson,
T Skinner and Ms N Aporo
In
Attendance: Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis),
Senior Governance Adviser (M Macfarlane) and Assistant Governance Adviser (A
Bryce-Neumann)
Leave of absence: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese
Apology: Apologies
have been received from Councillors K Fulton and M Lawrey
Karakia
and Mihi Timatanga
The Chairperson welcomed recently appointed
Māori representative, Ms Aporo.
1. Apologies
|
Resolved IC/2022/033
|
|
|
That the Infrastructure
Committee
1. Receives and accepts aapologies from Councillors K Fulton and M Lawrey
|
|
McGurk/Bowater Carried
|
2. Confirmation of
Order of Business
There was no change to the order
of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the
Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
4.1 Nelsust Inc. -
Unsafe spots in Nelson for people walking and cycling.
Document number R26895
|
Peter Olorenshaw and Elizabeth
Dooley, representing
Nelsust Inc, spoke about travel justice,
identified road hazards in the draft Active Travel Strategy and requested
that the Tasman District Council take over developing the strategy.
|
|
|
Attachments
1 A2911399 Nelsust - Image 1
2 A2911402 Nelsust - Image 2
3 A2911403 Nelsust - Presentation
4 A2911406 Nelsust - Submission
|
4.2. Feedback on the Parking
Strategy 2022
Document
number R26939, agenda pages 17 - 19 refer.
4.2.2 Gaire Thompson spoke about the need for carparking
in the city centre for businesses to keep the town active and lively.
Attendence:
Acting Mayor Edgar left the meeting at 10.27a.m.
4.2.1
Murray Cameron, representing Nelson Citizens Alliance, spoke in opposition to
no increase in the number of city centre car parks and lack of charges noting
Nelson’s elderly population needs parking. Mr Cameron suggested Locky Docks
should be brought to Nelson and suggested the use of vans to transport people.
Mr
Cameron answered questions on potentially losing car parks for Locky Docks and whose
role provision of car parking should be.
4.2.3
Beven Woodward, representing Bicycle Nelson Bays, spoke to a lack of
recognition for the role parking management has to deliver mode shift, noted free
parking should be reduced and usage of the road space should be maximised.
4.2.4 Kate
Malcolm, representing Nelson Tasman Climate Forum, spoke about the lack of
ambition in the strategy noting the main focus should be reducing car use which
needs proactive leadership. Noted urban hubs shouldn’t have any increase
in council carparking and residents shouldn’t have passes issued. New
alternatives such as electric vehicle sharing schemes should be put in place
instead.
Attendence: Acting
Mayor Edgar returned to the meeting at 10.57a.m.
4.2.5 Jane
Murray, representing Nelson Marlborough Health, spoke in support of the
strategy noting the need to promote active transport, accessibility and
pedestrian safety. Recommended including cycle parking in the strategy and
monitored once implemented. Noted P2 and P5 should be changed to P10 to support
Nelson’s elderly population. Suggested inclusion of ‘Dutch reach’
where motorists look more carefully for cyclists when leaving a parked car.
Ms Murray
answered a question on the potential for Nelson Marlborough Health to advocate
to Health New Zealand for a coordinated national approach to promoting ‘Dutch
reach’.
Attendence: Acting
Mayor Edgar left the meeting at 11.11a.m.
4.2.6 Geoff
Faulkner spoke about needing to assess how the city works now and how it will
work in the future including the development of a car park building on one of
the arterial roads into town to allow short, medium and long term parking
options and that provides charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. This
approach also allows for older buildings to be converted to accommodation
without the need for parking being provided onsite.
4.2.7 Paul
Matheson and John Gibertson, representing Tahunanui Business and Citizens Assocation
and Jac Stevenson, representing Tahunanui Community Hub spoke about the State
Highway 6 Corridor and it’s various associated safety concerns especially
around children’s facilities. Requested Nelson Marlborough Health
undertake a health impact statement on Tahunanui on serious health and
wellbeing issues of residents.
Attendence: Acting
Mayor Edgar returned to the meeting at 11.24a.m.
Attendence: Councillor
Noonan left the meeting at 11.30a.m.
4.2.8 Rob
Pooley wasn’t in attendance.
4.2.9 Rob
Stevenson, representing Nelson City Business Group and Achilles Properties,
spoke about property owners and business owners being side-lined in this
process. Opposes the proposed no increase in the number of central city parking
spaces when Council should be looking to build a car parking building and
thinks there is a lack of data to support the proposed direction. Mr Stevenson
thinks the current bus service isn’t a viable option as Nelson
doesn’t have the scale to support bus service. Mr Stevenson noted
previous legal action taken against Council over removal of parking and if the
current plans progress further legal action may be taken. Mr Stevenson noted
need to have one functional council to look at Nelson and Tasman for car
parking and transport issues and noted that electric vehicles have not been
factored into the current plans.
Mr Stevenson
answered questions on transitioning to electric vehicles and the impact that
will have on climate change, roads between Nelson and Richmond being
insufficient and the approach Queenstown has taken in comparison noting they
have a far more ambitious approach.
|
|
Attachments
1 A2909494 Murray Cameron - Feedback
2 A2911396 Bevan Woodward - Presentation
3 A2911398 Kate Malcolm - Image 1
4 A2911411 Kate Malcolm - Image 2
5 A2911409 Kate Malcolm - Image 3
|
The meeting
was adjourned at 11.47a.m. and reconvened at 11.58a.m.
5. Confirmation of
Minutes
5.1 31
March 2022
Document number M19375, agenda
pages 8 - 16 refer.
|
Resolved IC/2022/034
|
|
|
That the Infrastructure
Committee
1. Confirms
the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, held on 31 March
2022, as a true and correct record.
|
|
Courtney/Brand Carried
|
6. Chairperson's Report
|
There was no Chairperson’s report.
|
7. Draft E tū
Whakatū Nelson's Active Travel Strategy - Approval to seek public feedback
Document number R10453, agenda
pages 20 - 53 refer.
Manager Transport and Solid
Waste, Margaret Parfitt, introduced the report noting minor changes to the
report and the engagement document and requested an additional question be
included in the feedback form.
Ms Parfitt answered questions on the
reasoning for the inclusion of the additional question, if it would include all
arterial routes and if it was too broad and would lead to out of scope
responses.
Attendence: Councillor
Noonan returned to the meeting at 12.14p.m.
Ms Parfitt answered further questions
on potential funding options, the network strategy map, how this strategy will
link with safety assessments and Tasman District Council’s strategies.
Team Leader Transport Activity
Management, Sue Mcauley, answered questions on integration across strategies.
Ms Parfitt answered questions on
the potential to double targets of those walking or cycling to school and work
and the timing of the implementation of 30kph travel zones.
Attendence: Acting
Mayor Edgar left the meeting at 12.25 p.m.
Ms Parfitt answered further questions
on trip end facilities.
An additional resolution was
added to facilitate the additional question in the engagement document.
|
Resolved IC/2022/035
|
|
|
That
the Infrastructure Committee
1. Receives the report
Draft E tū Whakatū Nelson’s Active Travel Strategy - Approval
to seek public feedback (R10453) and its attachments A2899627 A2899571 and
A2903796; and
2. Agrees to
seek public feedback on the Draft E tū Whakatū Nelson’s
Active Travel Strategy (A2899627); and
3. Agrees that the
Draft E tū Whakatū – Nelson’s Active Travel 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 E tū Whakatū Nelson’s Active
Travel Strategy (A2899627) for public feedback; and
5. Approves the
public feedback document (A2903796), amended as necessary; and
6. Agrees that the
Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and Chief Executive be delegated to approve
minor amendments required to the supporting information or public feedback
materials prior to the start of the consultation process; and
7. Approves the
engagement approach (set out in section 5.8 - 5.10 of this report (R10453);
and Attachment 2 (A2899571) and agrees:
a. The approach will result
in the Draft E tū Whakatū Nelson’s Active Travel Strategy
(A2899627) being as widely publicised as reasonably practicable as a basis
for engagement.
b. The approach includes
sufficient steps to ensure the Draft E tū Whakatū Nelson’s
Active Travel Strategy will be reasonably accessible to the public and will
be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance.
8. Agrees
the inclusion of the following additional question in the engagement document
on the topic of the removal of car parking: “Do you support the removal
of parking on streets around Nelson to provide improved and safer walking and
cycling facilities” and approves minor edits to be approved by the
Chairperson.
|
|
McGurk/O'Neill-Stevens Carried
|
8. Submission to
Ministry for the Environment: Te panoni i te hangarua/Transforming Recycling
Document number R26762, agenda
pages 54 - 163 refer.
Environmental Programmes Adviser,
Karen Lee, took the report as read and noted the significant amount of work
being undertaken by central government to reform waste and answered questions
on the container recycling scheme, the focus on beverage recycling and the
impact of legislation on recycling.
|
Resolved IC/2022/036
|
|
|
That
the Infrastructure Committee
1. Receives the report
Submission to Ministry for the Environment: Te panoni i te
hangarua/Transforming Recycling (R26762) and its attachment (A2873225); and
2. Approves retrospectively the
submission to the Ministry for the Environment Te panoni I te hangarua / Transforming
recycling.
|
|
O'Neill-Stevens/Skinner Carried
|
9. Taumata Arowai -
Council Submission to New Standards
Document number R26908, agenda
pages 164 - 179 refer.
Manager Utilities, David Light,
and Activity Engineer, Phil Ruffell, took the report as read.
|
Resolved IC/2022/037
|
|
|
That
the Infrastructure Committee
1. Receives the report
Taumata Arowai - Council Submission to New Standards (R26908) and its attachment (A2859438); and
2. Approves retrospectively the
Nelson City Council submission to Taumata Arowai (A2859438 - Attachment
1 of Report R26908).
|
|
Rainey/O'Neill-Stevens Carried
|
Attendence: Councillor
Noonan left the meeting at 12.59p.m.
10. Infrastructure Quarterly Report
Document number R26702, agenda
pages 180 - 228 refer.
Manager Capital Projects, Lois
Plum, took the report as read noting the quarter had been impacted by COVID-19
on staff, wet weather and ongoing challenges with recruitment. Ms Plum noted
the request for unbudgeted funds in the 2022/2023 period outside of the annual
plan process as a unique situation arose with coal tar being found during works
at a depth never previously experienced.
Officers answered questions on
· why the wastewater
figure was under the income expected and noted a missing figure which impacted
on the total
· why the coal tar
had to be removed and potential Health & Safety issues
· the recycling
contract.
Attendence: Councillor Rainey
left the meeting at 1.10p.m.
Attendence: Councillor Sanson
left the meeting at 1.13p.m.
The meeting
was adjourned at 1.20p.m. and reconvened at 1.27p.m. at which time Acting Mayor
Edgar was in attendance.
Group
Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions on whether the coal
tar work could be funded from any potential savings and the consequences if
more of this material was found in future. Ms Parfitt answered questions on the
waste engagement plan.
The motion was
taken in parts.
|
Resolved IC/2022/038
|
|
|
That
the Infrastructure Committee
1. Receives the report
Infrastructure Quarterly Report (R26702)
and its attachments A2872960 and A2892744; and
2. Notes the
reallocation of budget and potential carry forwards.
|
|
Courtney/McGurk Carried
|
11. Exclusion
of the Public
|
Resolved IC/2022/39
|
|
|
That the Infrastructure
Committee
1. Excludes the
public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
2. The general subject of
each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for
passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds
under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings
Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|
|
Noonan/Bowater Carried
|
|
Item
|
General subject of each matter to be
considered
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation
to each matter
|
Particular interests protected (where
applicable)
|
|
1
|
Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 31
March 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
· Section
7(2)(i)
To enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations
(including commercial and industrial negotiations)
|
|
2
|
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 1.42p.m. and resumed in public session at 1.48p.m.
Karakia
Whakamutanga
There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.48p.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by
resolution on (date)
Item 6: Adoption of
Parking Strategy 2022 and Parking Management Plans
|
|
Infrastructure Committee
4 August 2022
|
REPORT R26376
Adoption
of Parking Strategy 2022 and Parking Management Plans
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
recommend the Parking Strategy 2022 and Parking Management Plans to Council for
adoption.
2. Summary
2.1 The
Draft Parking Strategy 2022 (Strategy) is a key strategy – along with the
Parking Management Plans (PMP’s) - that will provide a framework for
Council to make consistent and transparent decisions for managing on-street and
off-street parking, and to prioritise road space.
2.2 Following
pre-engagement, the Strategy was approved by the Infrastructure Committee for
public engagement and those requesting to be speak directly to elected members
were afforded that opportunity at the 23 June Infrastructure meeting.
2.3 The
purpose, objectives and principles of the Strategy are not replicated in this
report and are covered in detail in the previous report to this Committee
(Attachment 6).
2.4 This
report addresses the public feedback and recommends that the Strategy (as
amended where appropriate) be adopted by Council.
2.5 The
Draft Strategy and Draft Parking Management Plans have been updated and are
provided as Attachments 1-3, with recommended changes shown in revision
marking. A summary of feedback on the Draft Parking Management Plans is
provided in Attachment 4, and a summary of feedback on the Draft Parking
Strategy is provided in Attachment 5. Council consideration of the feedback and
the recommended changes to the Draft Strategy and Parking Management Plans will
enable Council to adopt a Parking Strategy and associated Parking Management
Plans.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Infrastructure Committee
1. Receives
the report Adoption of Parking Strategy 2022 and Parking Management
Plans (R26376) and its
attachments (1862260321-14578, 1862260321-2021, 1862260321-2026,
591542420-177, 591542420-178, Previous Report – Draft Parking Strategy
– approval to seek public feedback (R26375) ; and
2. Approves the Parking Strategy 2022
be adopted by Council.
|
Recommendation
to Council
|
That the
Council
1. Adopts the Parking Strategy and
associated Parking Management Plans ; and
2. Delegates responsibility for any
minor amendments of the Strategy and Parking Management plans to the Chair of
the Infrastructure Committee and the Group Manager of Infrastructure.
|
4. Background
4.1 The
Infrastructure Committee approved the Draft Parking Strategy for public
feedback on 31 March 2022. Community engagement on the Strategy and Parking
Management Plans has been carried out.
4.2 Based
on feedback received some changes have been made to the Strategy and
PMP’s and these are appended to this report. Officers note that feedback
received illustrates that parking management can be both divisive and personal.
The revised Strategy seeks to balance community
expectations for cheap or free parking close to destinations and access needs
of multiple users with the Council overall focus on achieving a low carbon
multimodal transport future.
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.
5. Discussion
Feedback received
5.1 Council
received feedback on the Strategy and PMP’s from 145 individuals and
groups, with 8 speakers at the public forum of the 23 June 2022 Infrastructure
Committee. The Central City and Fringe Parking Management Plan attracted the
most feedback, as discussed below.
5.2 To
avoid confusion between the recommendations in the PMP’s and the recommendations
in this report, the PMP recommendations have been renamed as proposals.
6. Central
City Parking
Proposal 1: Central City
Parking – New developments ineligible for Residential Parking
Permits. The purpose of this proposal is to reduce
reliance on, and future demand for, on-street parking. This will be implemented
when the Strategy is adopted.
6.1 Feedback
summary: Feedback from 23 people/groups supported this proposal with none
opposing.
6.2 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal.
Proposal 2: Central City
Parking – Establish a position of no net gain of public parking in the
Central City. The purpose of this proposal is to reduce further erosion of
the place value of the Central City. This will be implemented when the Strategy
is adopted.
6.3 Feedback
summary: Feedback from nine individuals/groups supported this proposal, one
supported it in part, and 35 opposed it.
6.4 Of
the nine in support of the proposal, seven wanted the Council to go further, by
actively decreasing car parks. Of the 35 individuals/groups opposed to this
proposal, the key concerns were negative impacts on businesses as it was felt
lack of affordable or available parking will mean Nelson will be overlooked in
favour of more car friendly areas; and the need for our ageing population, and
other people with mobility and health issues to have easy access to shops and
facilities. (See page 1 of Attachment 4 for more details.)
6.5 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and manage the impacts on businesses
utilising the parking hierarchy as described in table 1 of the Strategy that
gives high priority for bus facilities, mobility parking, loading zones, rapid
transactions and customer parking in commercial areas.
Proposal 3: Central City
Parking - In the short term (1-2 years) remove time restrictions in the Central
City (except P10) and manage parking demand using graduated pricing. This
provides flexibility for visitors to pay for parking as long as they need while
deterring long term/commuter parking. The following example of how this might
work in Nelson was included in Appendix A of the Plan and is replicated below:
|
1.
Time and
day
|
2.
On-street
parking
|
3.
Off-street
parking
|
|
4.
Mon – Fri
(8am to 5pm)
|
5.
1st
hour free
6.
$2/hour for
next 2 hours
7.
$5/ hour
thereafter
|
8.
1st
hour free
9.
$2/hour for
next 2 hours
10.
$5/hour
thereafter
|
|
11.
Sat (9am to
1pm)
|
12.
1st
hour free
13.
$2/hour for
next 2 hours
14.
$3/hour
thereafter
|
15.
1st
hour free
16.
$2/hour for
next 2 hours
17.
$2 /hour
thereafter
|
6.6 Feedback
summary: 10 individuals/groups supported this proposal and an additional
nine who sent feedback specifically supported retaining one hour of free
parking. Two submitters requested a longer period of free parking. 35
individuals/groups who sent feedback opposed this proposal.
6.7 The
main concern of the 35 who opposed this proposal was for the viability of
Nelson businesses, when it is free to park near the Richmond Mall. Nine
individuals/groups wanted to retain the use of time restrictions – two
wanted time restrictions to remain on Trafalgar Street to allow easy access for
the quick visits our retailers need. There was some concern that the people who
could afford it, would park all day in the areas with graduated pricing. (See
page 2 of Attachment 4 for more details.)
6.8 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal for most areas but retain some time
restricted parking on Trafalgar Street. Undertake extensive consultation with
City Centre businesses on the details and possible change in timeframes due to
the ongoing impacts of Covid.
Proposal 4: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) review parking fees in the
Central City, ensuring off-street parking in the Central City is cheaper than
on-street parking. The purpose of this proposal is
to encourage use of off-street parking resources, which reduces vehicles
circulating in the Central City and reduces demand for the most convenient
spaces.
6.9 Feedback
summary: Feedback from 19 individuals/groups supported this proposal and
one opposed it. (See page 2 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.10 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and work with City Centre businesses in
conjunction with Proposal 3 above.
Proposal 5: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) increase the use of more flexible
parking restrictions to allow for multiple or shared use based on time of
day/week (eg P10 during business hours only, AM peak loading zones, shared bus
stops and taxi zones based on time of day). The purpose of this proposal is
to encourage more efficient use of parking resources.
6.11 Feedback
summary: 19 individuals/groups supported this proposal, 9 supported it in
part and none opposed it. (See page 3 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.12 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal. In addition, it is proposed to:
· liaise with
businesses on loading zone requirements
· meet with taxi
companies to discuss a taxi/rideshare hub near Bridge Street, and combined use
parks for set down/pick up areas in Stoke and Tahunanui
· use of clear
signage regarding use of parking shared spaces to avoid confusion.
Proposal 6: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) develop and implement a
new residential parking scheme, including removing dedicated residential
parking bays, increasing the cost of permits, and changes to eligibility and
parking exemptions. The purpose of this
proposal is to provide more efficient use of parking resources. To be
introduced when paid parking and time restrictions are introduced in the City
Fringe.
6.13 Feedback
summary: Of the individual/groups who sent feedback one supported
this proposal, four opposed it, and two additional comments were made on the
topic. (See pages 3–4 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.14 Officer
recommendation: Adopt the proposal and factor the comments outlined in the
feedback summary into the development of the new residential parking scheme.
Proposal 7: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) introduce or change pricing or
restrictions as peak parking thresholds are reached. The purpose of this
proposal is to manage parking demand and encourage turnover. This would be
implemented when parking occupancy exceeds 85% at peak times.
6.15 Feedback
summary: No feedback received supported this proposal, 18 opposed it, and
one extra comment was made on this topic. (See page 5 of Attachment 4 for
details.)
6.16 Officer
recommendation: Adopt the proposal in principle recognising a potential
change in timing of this proposal from short term to medium term (3-5 years),
to reflect the delay requested by the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce in the
light of COVID-19 business recovery. Officers note it is important that the
future pricing and time limits are carefully managed. This review should be
undertaken in conjunction with 3 and 4 above. These 3 proposals should be
developed into a full proposal in time for implementation after the
introduction of the new public transport services in July 2023 and take into
account the developing details and timeframes of Te Ara o Whakatu.
Proposal 8: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) explore funding opportunities to
provide short-term public EV charging spaces in Central City parking squares.
The purpose of this proposal is to provide convenient ‘top up’
charging for the growing number of EV vehicles.
6.17 Feedback
summary: Feedback from 22 individuals/groups supported this proposal, one
opposed it, and two extra comments were made on this topic. (See pages 5–6
of Attachment 4 for details).
6.18 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal.
Proposal 9: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) investigate opportunities to
establish car share schemes in the City, and provide designated car share
spaces in the Central City and fringe areas. The purpose of this proposal
is to provide convenient access to car share vehicles for members. It would be
implemented if car share operators committed to establish operations in Nelson.
6.19 Feedback
summary: Six individuals/groups supported this proposal, 14 supported it
subject to tighter rules, and none opposed it. Two extra comments were
provided. (See page 6 of Attachment 4 for details).
6.20 Officer
recommendation: Investigation into this has already commenced. Adopt this
proposal.
Proposal 10: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) investigate opportunities to
establish micro-mobility schemes (eg shared scooters, bicycles) in the Central
City, in consultation with operators and the community. The purpose of this
proposal is to provide convenient access to micro-mobility transport options
for members, and it would be implemented when micro-mobility operators
committed to establishing operations in Nelson.
6.21 Feedback
summary: 18 individuals/groups supported this proposal, one supported it in
part, and none opposed it. (See pages 5–6 of Attachment 4 for
details).
6.22 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and develop a policy to avoid scooters
becoming a hazard for pedestrians, as requested by those providing feedback.
Proposal 11: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) collaborate with NMIT to review
it’s permit scheme and provide travel demand management support (eg
public transport concessions). The purpose of this proposal is to address
high parking demand in and around the NMIT campus and encourage use of
alternative transport choices.
6.23 Feedback
summary: 20 individuals/groups supported this proposal, and none opposed
it.
6.24 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal.
Proposal 12: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) review the provision of mobility,
loading, motorcycle and bicycle (including electric bike charging) parking,
considering the quantity, location and quality of facilities in the Central
City. The purpose of this proposal is to provide safe and convenient
parking for multiple users and modes.
6.25 Feedback
summary: Five supported this proposal, 16 supported it in part, none
opposed it, and 11 extra individuals/groups made comments on this topic. (See
pages 7–9 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.26 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and use the comments provided on pages
7-9 of the feedback summary to inform this review.
Proposal 13: Central City
Parking - In the short term (1-2 years) review Nelson’s carpooling scheme
to assess the demand for these spaces.
6.27 Feedback
summary: 17 individuals/groups commented on this proposal. Four were in
general support, and another 12 made duplicate comments which supported the
proposal subject to tighter rules but did not indicate what that would look
like. (See pages 9-10 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.28 Officer recommendation: Adopt this
proposal
Proposal 14: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) 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.
The purpose of this proposal is to encourage compliance with restrictions and
turnover of parking spaces.
6.29 Feedback summary: Seven
individuals/groups were in general support for this proposal, and another six
specifically supported the use of technology – for both payment and
enforcement systems. Two individuals/groups specifically supported increased
enforcement. Three opposed this proposal, and two extra individuals/groups made
comments on this topic. (See pages 10–11 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.30 Officer recommendation:
Adopt this proposal and use the comments provided on pages 10–11 of
the feedback summary to inform the investigation and implementation of it.
Proposal 15: Central City
Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) carry out ongoing monitoring of
parking occupancy and duration of stay (eg every 3 to 6 months). The
purpose of this proposal is to assess demand for parking resources and identify
trends that may trigger changes to parking management.
6.31 Feedback
summary: Eight individuals/groups supported this proposal, one opposed it,
and three extra made comments on this topic. (See page 11 of Attachment 4 for
details.)
6.32 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and carry out a review of how parking
occupancy is monitored. Officers recognise there is a probable cost implication
which would be included in the next Transport Activity Management Plan.
Proposal 16: Central City
Parking – In the medium term (3-5 years) introduce a combination of paid
parking and time restrictions on City Fringe streets. Appendix A of the
Draft Plan recommends paid parking and parking restrictions during business
hours for streets where there are high commuter parking demands, such as Grove
Street. Introducing paid parking on one side of the street (such as $5 per day)
and P120 restrictions on the other side will provide some space for commuters,
short term parking for visitors and parking for residents overnight. Existing
residents without off-street parking will be eligible to purchase a residential
parking permit that provides an exemption to time restrictions.
6.33 Options
to charge for parking in residential areas include the use of coupons or
introducing parking meters in these areas.
6.34 This
proposal would be implemented after major public transport improvements
(scheduled for 2023) and would be applied to City Fringe streets based on parking occupancy exceeding 85% at peak times, in
conjunction with community consultation.
6.35 Feedback
summary: Three individuals/groups supported this proposal, 22 opposed it,
and 12 extra comments were provided on this topic. (See pages 11–14 of
Attachment 4 for details.)
6.36 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal noting that it is timed to be at least
3-5 years away, allowing time for public transport improvements to be
established and only when parking occupancy exceeding 85% at peak times, in
conjunction with community consultation.
Proposal 17: Central City
Parking – In the medium term (3-5 years) review provision of 1
hour of free parking. Regularly reviewing the provision of one hour of free
parking is recommended once the planned improvements to bus networks are
introduced, and when TDC introduces paid parking in the Richmond town centre The
purpose of this proposal is to ensure those who use parking contribute to the
cost of parking provision.
6.37 Feedback
summary: One individual/group supported this proposal and 19 opposed it.
(See page 14 of Attachment 4 for details.)
6.38 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal noting it only provides opportunity to
review one hour free parking and would still require Council approval. Officers
note that feedback is one hour free parking is very popular and long term
certainty on parking fees is important to businesses confidence, but feel it is
important that future ability to review this is retained.
Proposal 18: Central City
Parking – In the medium term (3-5 years) investigate cordoning parking
meter revenue from Central City parking meters and reinvest it in improvements
in the Central City and to public transport. The purpose of this proposal
is to ensure local businesses directly benefit from parking charges.
Implementation would be linked to a review of the policy to provide one hour of
free parking.
6.39 Feedback
summary: One individual/group supported this proposal and 19 opposed it.
Two of those in opposition included comments (see page 14 of Attachment 4 for
details).
6.40 Officer
recommendation: Delete this proposal to reflect the current lack of support
for it, noting this can be revisited in a future strategy review.
Proposal 19: Central City
Parking – In the medium term (3-5 years) review parking availability
wayfinding from arterial corridors to the City Centre parking squares. Consider
supplementing with real time information to provide information on availability
on electronic signage, apps, etc. The purpose of this proposal is to
contribute to reducing vehicle circulation and to provide information for
visitors. It would be implemented alongside cordoning off parking revenue (as
described in Recommendation 18).
6.41 Feedback
summary: 18 individuals/groups supported this proposal, and none opposed
it.
6.42 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal, in conjunction with City Centre car
parking access change proposals as part of Bridge St Active travel corridor and
Te Ara o Whakatu. Timing may be brought into the shorter term as part of the
Bridge St work.
Proposal 20: Central City
Parking – In the medium term (3-5 years) investigate mechanisms to
implement paid parking in Rutherford Park and Hathaway Terrace reserves.
The purpose of this proposal is to manage parking demand in reserves and ensure
those who use parking contribute to the cost of parking provision.
6.43 Feedback
summary: One individual/group supported this proposal and nine opposed it
(see pages 15–16 of Attachment 4 for details).
6.44 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal. Officers note that management of the
use of these parking areas is essential to the overall management of the City
and City fringe parking resources. The details and timing of the Riverside
Development proposals will also impact on this parking.
Proposal 21: Central City
Parking – In the long term (5-10 years) investigate opportunities to
redevelop the Central City parking squares (eg mixed use development of
residential, commercial and parking). The purpose of this proposal is to
use valuable land more efficiently, enhance the place value of the Central City
and consolidate parking.
6.45 Feedback
summary: Five individuals/groups supported this proposal, 17 opposed it,
and one extra comment was made on this topic. (See pages 16–17 of
Attachment 4 for details.)
6.46 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal.
7. Tahunanui
Parking
Proposal 1: Tahunanui Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) provide mobility parking bays on Beach
Road. The purpose of this proposal is to support inclusive access for
visitors to the town centre.
7.1 Feedback
summary: There were six individual/group responses on this proposal, with
two in full support, and one seeking more input into the number and location of
these mobility parking bays. One of those who provided feedback made requests
for mobility parking bays in other Tahunanui locations. (See page 18 of
Attachment 4 for details).
7.2 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and work with the local Tahunanui
Business and Citizens Association, including medical facilities to improve
signage to existing private mobility parking.
Proposal 2: Tahunanui Parking
- In the short term (1-2 years) reduce existing P90 time restrictions on SH6 to
P60. The purpose of this proposal is to encourage turnover and provide
short term customer parking for the most convenient spaces in Tahunanui. Reduced
parking on SH6 due to changes arising from the Nelson Future Access project
will increase demand for convenient short term customer parking.
7.3 Feedback
summary: Two individual/group responses supported this proposal, and two
queried whether 60 minutes was enough time for parking in this area. (See page
18 of Attachment 4 for details.)
7.4 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal and combine with Proposal 1 to work
with local community.
Proposal 3: Tahunanui Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) implement parking restrictions in the
most northern bay of angled parking spaces on Beach Road, eg P120. The
purpose of this proposal is to provide convenient medium-term parking for
customers visiting the centre and to minimise use of these parking spaces for
long term parking by commuters or staff.
7.5 Feedback
summary: Four individuals/groups opposed this proposal, with two of them
raising concerns about staff access to parking, particularly for those working
in hospitality industry in this area at night. (See page 18 of Attachment 4 for
details.)
7.6 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal, and work with the community on proposals 1
and 2. Amend the Plan to clarify that the parking restrictions on Beach
Road will only apply from 9am to 5pm and explain how much long-term parking
will remain available along the remainder of Beach Road.
Proposal 4: Tahunanui Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) replace all P5 spaces with P10. The
purpose of this proposal is to provide consistent time restrictions for
locations where rapid transactions and high turnover is required.
7.7 Feedback
summary: Five individuals/groups supported this proposal, and none opposed
it.
7.8 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal.
Proposal 5: Tahunanui Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) increase parking enforcement in
Tahunanui. The purpose of this proposal is to encourage compliance with
restrictions and turnover of parking spaces.
7.9 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups supported this proposal and two opposed it.
(See page 19 of Attachment 4 for details.)
7.10 Officer recommendation: Adopt
this proposal.
Proposal 6: Tahunanui Parking
6 – In the short term (1-2 years) carry out ongoing monitoring of parking
occupancy and duration of stay (e.g. every 3–6 months). Monitoring to
include collection of data over summer peak period to understand changes in
seasonal demand. The purpose of this proposal is to assess demand for
parking spaces in the town centre and identify trends that may trigger changes
to parking management in the centre.
7.11 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups supported this proposal (and suggested
consulting the community to identify the best times to monitor to gain a good
understanding of parking demand) and two opposed it.
7.12 Officer recommendation:
Adopt the proposal and consult with the Tahunanui Community Hub and the Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association before
finalising the monitoring plan.
Proposal 7: Tahunanui Parking
– in the medium term (3–5 years) review the previous 2004 Structure
Plan for Tahunanui to enhance amenity and access within the town centre and
guide future development and growth. The purpose of this proposal is to
guide future direction and identify opportunities for land use and transport,
and give certainty to residents, businesses and developers.
7.13 Feedback
summary: Four individuals/groups commented on this proposal. One supported
it, but said they lacked confidence that it would happen, given there was such
little progress in implementing the 2004 Structure Plan. Two others asked
Council to implement the current plan.
7.14 Officer
recommendation: Ensure an implementation budget and timeframe is included
in the review of the 2004 Structure Plan. Progress through the Long Term
Plan process.
Proposal 8: Tahunanui Parking
– in the medium term (3–5 years) review opportunities to enhance
the place function of Beach Road through landscaping, urban design and traffic
calming. The purpose of this proposal is to create a more attractive
destination that will contribute to enhancing the vibrancy and economic activity
of the town centre.
7.15 Feedback
summary: One individual/group supported this proposal, and two supported it
in part. (See pages 19–20 of Attachment 4 for details.)
7.16 Officer
recommendation: Adopt and progress through the LTP process.
Proposal 9: Tahunanui Parking
– in the medium term (3–5 years) investigate opportunities to
create pedestrian connections through the town centre (between Beach Road and
Muritai Street/SH6). The purpose of this proposal is to enhance pedestrian
access between Beach Road and SH6, which can contribute economic activity and
vibrancy.
7.17 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups supported this proposal in part, and one
extra commented on this topic. (See page 20 of Attachment 4 for details.)
7.18 Officer
recommendation: Adopt and progress through the LTP process.
Proposal 10: Tahunanui
Parking – in the medium term (3–5 years) provide parking wayfinding
from SH6 to Beach Road. The purpose of this proposal is to contribute to
reducing vehicle circulation and provides information to visitors to the area.
7.19 Feedback
summary: Three individuals/groups support this proposal. (See page 20 of
Attachment 4 for details.)
7.20 Officer recommendation: Adopt
this proposal
Proposal 11: Tahunanui
Parking – in the long term (5–10 years) implement time restrictions
for other streets within the town centre. The purpose of this proposal is
to ensure customers retain convenient access to local businesses.
7.21 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups commented on this proposal. (See page 21 of
Attachment 4 for details.)
7.22 Officer
recommendation: Adopt this proposal
7.23 Proposal
12: Tahunanui Parking– in the long term (5–10 years) implement
parking meters (with free parking). The purpose of this proposal is to use
pay and display meters to monitor duration of stay, improve the efficiency of
enforcement and minimise long stay parking by staff or commuters.
7.24 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups noted this is not currently needed, and one
of these said this is something to be looked at if Tahunanui Drive has six
storey apartments in future.
7.25 Officer recommendation: Adopt
this proposal.
Proposal 13: Tahunanui
Parking – in the long term (5–10 years) introduce paid parking. The
purpose of this proposal is to manage increasing demands on parking in the
centre if average parking demand exceeds 85% occupancy at peak times. Reducing
time restrictions further (eg to P60) could also be considered. However, this
may not align with customer or business needs.
7.26 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups commented on this proposal.
7.27 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal as a future parking management tool if
required.
8. Additional
comments
Nelson Marlborough Health
8.1 Feedback
summary: Nelson Marlborough Health pointed out that further work needs to
be done to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road in the Tahunanui
shopping/medical centre area, especially if there will be more mobility parking
bays on Beach Road.
8.2 Officer
recommendation: Officers to work with businesses to improve signage to
existing mobility carparks on private land at their facilities
Biking facilities
Tahunanui
8.3 Feedback
summary: Nine individuals/groups made comments about Tahunanui parking
which were unrelated to the recommendations in the Tahunanui Parking Management
Plan. (See pages 21–22 of Attachment 4 for details.)
8.4 Officer
recommendation: Officers will investigate improved bike parking facilities
in Tahunanui in conjunction with proposed bus super stop.
9. Strawbridge
Square
Proposal 2: Strawbridge
Square Parking – In the short term (1-2 years) reduce existing P90 time
restrictions on Main Road Stoke to P60. The purpose of this proposal
is to provide consistent time restrictions for locations where rapid
transactions and high turnover is required.
9.1 Feedback
summary: One individual/group supported this proposal.
9.2 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal.
10. Stoke
Parking Proposal
Proposal 1: Stoke Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) replace existing P180 parking spaces with
P60 on Main Road Stoke (retain existing P10 parking spaces). The purpose of
this proposal is to improve efficiency and increase turnover of premium spaces
on this key corridor.
10.1 Feedback
summary: One individual/group opposed this proposal (see page 23 of
Attachment 4 for details).
10.2 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal.
Proposal 5: Stoke Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) replace angle parking with parallel
parking on Putaitai Street. The purpose of this proposal is to improve
safety for vehicles travelling on Putaitai Street.
10.3 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups supported this proposal.
10.4 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal.
Proposal 6: Stoke Parking
– In the short term (1-2 years) investigate providing mobility parking
bays on Putaitai Street (outside Greypower). The purpose of this proposal
is to support inclusive access for visitors to Greypower.
10.5 Feedback
summary: One individual/group supported this proposal.
10.6 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal.
Proposal 8: Stoke Parking
– In the medium term (3–5 years) consider implementing parking
meters (with free parking). The purpose of this proposal is to use pay and
display meters to monitor duration of stay, improve the efficiency of
enforcement and minimise long stay parking by staff or commuters.
10.7 Feedback
summary: One individual/group opposed this proposal.
10.8 Officer
recommendation: Adopt proposal.
11. Summary of
additional feedback on the Draft Parking Strategy
General direction of the
Draft Parking Strategy
11.1 Feedback
summary: Eighteen individuals/groups supported the general direction of the
Strategy, 26 supported it in part, and 31 opposed it. See pages 1–2 of
Attachment 5 for details.
Other areas not currently
included in the Draft Parking Strategy
11.2 Feedback
summary: Twelve individuals/groups made comments (including multiple
comments from some individuals) about parking in areas which are outside the
current scope of the draft Parking Strategy. See page 2 of Attachment 5 for
details.
11.3 Officer
comment: The first step is adoption of the overall strategy which will
provide a framework for Council to make consistent and transparent decisions
for managing on-street and off-street parking, and to prioritise road space
going forward. This will guide future PMPs for areas highlighted such the Port/
Health New Zealand hospital redevelopment and the surrounding area, including
schools.
12. Additional
suggestions
12.1 Feedback
summary: Twenty five individuals/groups made additional suggestions (and in
some cases multiple additional suggestions). See pages 2–4 of Attachment
5 for details.
12.2 Officer comment: All feedback
has been read and noted.
Potential partnership
12.3 Feedback
summary: Mr Tony Bowater, of Bowater Toyota, has expressed interest in
partnering with the Council on installation of EV charging units and a ride
sharing scheme or subscription model usage for mobility. See page 4 of
Attachment 5 for details.
12.4 Officer
comment: Officers will meet with Mr Bowater to discuss these opportunities.
Consultation process
12.5 Feedback
summary: Ten different comments were made on the consultation process,
expressing a mix of positive and negative views on how well this has been
carried out. (See pages 4–5 of Attachment 5 for details.)
12.6 Officer
comment: Officers to reflect on this feedback during their review of the
Engagement Plan for this project.
Public transport
12.7 Feedback
summary: 33 individuals/groups commented on the need for good public
transport in order to successfully implement the Parking Strategy. (See page 6
of Attachment 5 for details.)
12.8 Officer
comment: The new public transport contract, which will commence 1 July
2023, is a vast improvement to the existing levels of service and includes
increased coverage, frequency and lower fares.
Cycling lanes and facilities
12.9 Feedback
summary: 28 individuals/groups linked the Parking Strategy and cycling,
with many commenting on the need for a safe cycling environment and good
cycling parking facilities in order to successfully implement the Parking
Strategy. Six of these raised concerns about the risks to cyclists of car
parking activities (particularly angle parking).
12.10 Officer
comment: The relationship between parking and safe active transport
corridors is acknowledged. This relationship will be strengthened with
additional material to be included in this Strategy and similarly in the draft
Active Travel Strategy currently receiving public feedback and subject to a
future report to the committee.
Link with the City Centre
Spatial Plan
12.11 Feedback
summary: Three unique comments (from five individuals/groups) discussed the
linkage between the Parking Strategy and the Spatial Plan. The Uniquely Nelson
Board would like to meet with the Council to discuss the CBD inner city plan
and how that matches up with transport planning. The other individuals/groups
sought more information on how many parking spaces would be removed to
implement the Spatial Plan.
12.12 Officer
comment: Officers will meet with the Uniquely Nelson Board to discuss the
link between the Parking Strategy and the City Centre Spatial Plan.
Carbon reduction
12.13 Feedback
summary: Three comments discussed the linkage between the Parking Strategy
and carbon reduction. The
Nelson Transport Strategy Group noted that changing over to electric vehicles
is not enough on its own to reduce emissions, and Nelson Marlborough Health
supported Council’s proposed direction towards a low carbon transport
network.
12.14 Officer
comment: The Strategy acknowledges the positive role electric vehicles can
play in reducing Nelson’s emissions, but notes that parking management is
still required to address congestion, urban amenity, and reallocation of road
space for active travel and public transport.
Changes to parking
requirements for new development, as required by the NPS–UD
12.15 Feedback
summary: The Nelson Transport Strategy Group queried the assumption in the
Parking Strategy that removal of off-street parking minimums would result in
more demand for on-street parking, because people aren’t going to buy
into an apartment building if there isn’t enough parking available to
suit their needs.
12.16 Officer
comment: The NPS-UD is government policy outside of Council control of
which developers are well aware. It is likely that developers will respond to market
demands of the time which may include voluntary provision off street
carparking.
Competition with Richmond
12.17 Feedback
summary: Seven of the 10 unique comments (from 10 individuals/groups) about
competition with Richmond were concerned that more people would choose to shop
in Richmond, due to access to free parking. One noted that even if charges come
in for parking on TDC land, most of the parking will always be free, as most of
it is owned by the malls. (See pages 7–8 of Attachment 5 for details.)
12.18 Officer
comment: - Based on a survey from 2019 officers believe the perception of
Richmond being attractive due to free parking is overstated. The 2019 survey of
400 Nelson residents and 100 Richmond questioned residents regarding their
choices and experiences of the Nelson City Centre and Richmond Town Centre. The
survey revealed the following trends:
· Residents of both
Nelson and Richmond are highly influenced by their proximity to a centre when
choosing which to visit. For example, Stoke residents are more likely to choose
to visit Richmond than those living in Nelson North, Nelson Central or
Tahunanui.
· Residents of all
areas are unlikely to visit either centre more than a couple of times a week if
their place of employment is not there.
· The mix of
products or stores available is the factor that most attracts residents to
Nelson City Centre other than for residents of the Nelson Central area who are
more likely to be attracted by their proximity.
· The survey showed
that of those residents that identified car parking as a factor that attracts
them to Nelson City Centre, the first hour free scheme is very popular across
all areas. On average, around one third of those surveyed stated that they
thought the availability of parking in Nelson is ample and easy to use.
Residents of Nelson North and Stoke found the parking to be most ample of all
the areas.
· The hospitality
offering of Nelson City Centre (Restaurants, cafes and cinema) is the second
most attractive factor.
Car parking building
12.19 Feedback
summary: Ten individuals/groups discussed the option of a car parking
building – eight in support, and two in opposition. (See pages 8–10
of Attachment 5 for details.)
12.20 Officer
comment: The current strategy, recommended for adoption, does not support
provision of additional public carparking but does not preclude development of
a car parking building.
Angle parking and parking
layout
12.21 Feedback
summary: Nine individuals/groups discussed this topic. Four of these
requested the status quo – with reasons including older people struggling
with parallel parking and less parks being available in Trafalgar Street if it
changes to parallel parking. Another individual requested wider and longer
parking spaces to accommodate large vehicles.
12.22 Nelson
Marlborough Health discussed the benefit of having a variety of angle and
parallel mobility car parks to meet different needs.
12.23 Three
individuals/groups expressed concerns about the impact of angle parking on
cyclists’ safety. (See pages 10–11 for details.)
12.24 Officer
comment: Comments are noted
Link to the Nelson
Future Access Project
12.25 Feedback
summary: Waka Kotahi noted that the outcomes Council are
jointly seeking through investment in the Nelson Future Access (NFA) project
and the Richmond Programme Business Case rely on changes to parking management
and increased uptake of sustainable transport.
12.26 Officer
comment: Discussions will continue with Waka Kotahi to maintain alignment
between the Strategy and the Nelson Future Access project.
Link with the Future
Development Strategy
12.27 Feedback
summary: Two individuals/groups discussed the implications of the Future Development
Strategy (FDS) for the Parking Strategy. One noted that intensification is
proposed in Tahunanui, which will affect parking demand. The other noted that
greenfields development is proposed in the wider region, which will inevitably
result in higher car dependency (not less), make the provision of public
transport inefficient, and increase demand for car parking, which is not
aligned with the proposed direction in the Parking Strategy. (See details on
pages 11–12 of Attachment 5.)
12.28 Officer
comment: The FDS has been based on access to public and active transport
and is not focused on the provision of parking.
13. Options
13.1 Three
options are presented below for consideration. Either Adopt with minor changes,
Do not adopt or Adopt with changes. Officers recommend Option 1
|
Option 1: Recommend Council
adoption of the Parking Strategy and Parking Management Plans. Recommended option
|
|
Advantages
|
· Provides
guidance through objectives and principles that will guide future Council
decision making about parking and reallocating road space.
· The
Strategy provides the community with a clear direction of what parking management
tools are proposed for future consideration, which has had input from
stakeholders and the wider community.
· The
Strategy is a key building block to achieving the overall vision for Councils
Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) for a safe and connected region that is
liveable, accessible, and sustainable.
· 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.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Does
not reflect the views of some who provided feedback.
|
|
Option
2: Do not recommend Council adoption of the Parking Strategy and Parking
Management Plan
|
|
Advantages
|
· Would
be supported by some in the community who did not agreed with the Strategy
direction .
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Rejection
of the Strategy will hinder achievement of a low carbon transport future and sustainable
management of the road network.
· Reputational
risk due to a community expectation that Council will work toward reduction
of transport related emissions.
· Delaying
Strategy would likely require re-engaging with the community and fails
to recognise community input already received.
· Cost
in developing the Draft Parking Strategy will be wasted.
|
|
Option
3 : Recommend Council adoption of the Parking Strategy and Parking Management
Plans with further changes
|
|
Advantages
|
· Allows
for continuation of work toward achieving the overall vision for Councils
Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) for a safe and connected region that is
liveable, accessible, and sustainable
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· May
not reflect the views of some who provided feedback.
· May
result in uncertainty about the direction of what parking management tools
are proposed for future consideration.
· Delaying
and making significant changes to the Strategy would likely require
re-engaging with the community.
|
14. Conclusion
14.1 A
draft Parking Strategy and associated PMP’s have been developed.
14.2 The
community has provided feedback on the draft Strategy and PMP’s. Key
feedback was mixed and related to community expectations for cheap or free
parking close to destinations, access needs of multiple users and enabling
accelerated achievement of a low carbon multimodal transport system.
14.3 Officers
have considered feedback received and the draft Strategy and PMP’s
including timelines in relation to ongoing effects of COVID-19 have been
amended in places.
15. Next Steps
15.1 Following
adoption of the Strategy, it will be published on Nelson City Council’s
website.
15.2 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.
15.3 The
Parking strategy will be due for review 5 years from adoption.
Author: Margaret
Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste
Attachments
Attachment 1: 1862260321-14578
Parking Strategy with changes highlighted. ⇩
Attachment 2: 1862260321-2021
Central City and Fringe Parking Management Plan with edits ⇩
Attachment 3: 1862260321-2026
- PMP’s for Tahunanui and Stoke ⇩
Attachment 4: 591542420-177
Summary of Feedback on the Draft Parking Management Plans ⇩
Attachment 5: 591542420-178
Summary Of Feedback on the Draft Parking Strategy ⇩
Attachment 6: 1862260321-14582
Previous Report - Draft Parking Strategy- approval to seek public feedback ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Subsequent to community engagement and feedback,
adopting the Strategy promotes democratic local decision-making and supports
the social and environmental wellbeing of the community.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The Parking Strategy is consistent with
Nelson’s urban development strategies. It aligns with
Council’s Long-Term Plan, the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson
Plan, Draft Future Development Strategy , Climate Action Plan , 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 adoption of the Strategy is a low risk.
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. Financial
impact
No additional funding is sought in this report.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This matter is of some significance due to the level
of public interest, particularly in the wider community. For this reason
feedback was sought through a number of channels outlined in the previous
report including letters to stakeholders, a Shape Nelson webpage and webinar.
|
|
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 promotes 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 however Iwi partners have been made aware of the
Strategy development through a Te Ohu Taiao (Environment) meeting held in May
2021.
|
|
8. 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:
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
Powers to Recommend (if applicable):
· Approval
of final versions of strategies, policies and plans
|
