Item 5: Draft Traffic
and Parking Bylaw - Deliberations Report
|
|
Council
17 August 2023
|
REPORT R27450
Draft Traffic and Parking
Bylaw - Deliberations Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide
information to assist Council in its deliberations on the Draft Traffic and
Parking Bylaw 2023 (the Draft Bylaw).
1.2 To adopt the
Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023.
2. Summary
2.1 The current
Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 (Bylaw 207) regulates parking and
vehicle control in Nelson. It will expire on 3 November 2023. Council proposes
to replace it with the Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023, which has recently
been consulted on.
2.2 This report is
to assist the Council with its consideration of the written and verbal
submissions received during the consultation process, and to decide what
changes to make to the Draft Bylaw before adoption.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Council
1. Receives
the report Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw - Deliberations Report (R27450)
and its attachments (1862260321-57986 and 1862260321-57989); and
2. Approves
any amendments to the Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 (1862260321-57989);
and
3. Delegates
authority to make any minor changes to the Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw
2023 (1862260321-57989) to the Chief Executive; and
4. Adopts
the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 (1862260321-57989); and
5. Updates
the Officer Delegations Register to reflect the provisions under Clause 28
(temporary discontinuance or restriction of parking spaces).
|
4. Background
4.1 On 13 April
2023, the Council approved a Statement of Proposal for Adoption of a New Traffic
and Parking Bylaw.
4.2 Public
consultation was undertaken from 2 May 2023 to 2 June 2023, and a Council
hearing on the Draft Bylaw was held on 23 June 2023, in accordance with a
special consultative procedure.
4.3 A summary of the
submissions is appended as Attachment One. Full submissions were presented at
the hearing and can be found here: http://meetings.nelson.govt.nz/Open/2023/06/CL_20230623_AGN_5920_AT.PDF
5. Discussion
Draft
Bylaw
5.1 The Draft
Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 is included as Attachment Two to this report.
Submissions
5.2 A total of 73
submissions were received on the Draft Bylaw (including two from the New
Zealand Motor Caravan Association). Six submitters spoke at a hearing on 23
June 2023. There were three other submitters on the original hearing schedule,
but they did not present an oral submission.
5.3 The
key issues raised in the feedback are broadly summarised in the following table
and discussed in this report.
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
The general approach for the overall proposal
|
8
|
|
39
|
Long-term parking of motor homes
|
48
|
|
37
|
Parking on berms
|
22
|
|
33
|
Time restricted parking zones
|
13
|
|
22
|
Restricting use of wheeled recreational devices on
footpaths
|
11
|
|
38
|
Parking for display or sale
|
6
|
|
20
|
Shared paths and cycle paths
|
1
|
|
5
|
State highways
|
4
|
|
25
|
Vehicle crossings
|
2
|
|
40
|
Repairs on vehicles
|
4
|
|
24
|
Engine braking
|
4
|
|
23
|
Cruising
|
4
|
|
-
|
Other matters
|
40
|
6. Overview
6.1 Eight
submissions noted they generally supported the Draft Bylaw in whole.
Restricting long-term parking of motorhomes on roads attracted the most
responses from submitters, followed by proposed restrictions on car parking on
berms. In addition, the use of wheeled recreational devices on footpaths was a
significant issue for some submitters.
Long-term
parking of motorhomes on the road
6.2 Clause 39.1 of
the Draft Bylaw states that a person must not park a motorhome, heavy goods
vehicle, immobilised vehicle or trailer on any road for a continuous period
exceeding seven days without the prior written permission of an Authorised
Officer.
6.3 The Council
currently enforces Clause 6.19 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
which restricts parking of trailers on the road to a maximum of seven days. The
proposed bylaw sought extension of this principle to include motorhomes and
heavy goods vehicles.
6.4 Of the 48
submissions on this topic, 30 opposed this proposal, 12 supported it, and six
discussed alternative approaches, or made other comments. James Imlach of the
Motor Caravan Association and Andy Corbin also discussed this topic at the hearing.
6.5 Matters raised
by submitters who were opposed to this provision included lack of on-site
capacity to park motorhomes on many residential properties, recognition that
the impacts of motorhomes parking on the street were similar to that of SUVs
and other large vehicles, and a preference for case-by-case restrictions on
motorhomes causing safety issues. Submissions in support of the provision noted
traffic safety and access issues caused by motorhomes parked on the street.
Officer
comments
6.6 The proposed
rule aimed to address safety concerns of large vehicles parked on roads
creating sightline issues for other road users. The seven day time period was
designed to be consistent with the existing rule restricting trailer parking Clause
6.19 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and avoid impacts on other
vehicle users, including drivers of delivery vehicles in the course of
business.
6.7 Access to
parking on public roads is expected to become more contested in future,
particularly as the National Policy Statement on Urban Development does not
allow Council to set minimum on-site parking requirements for new developments.
6.8 Restricting
long-term parking on the road by motorhomes, heavy goods vehicles, immobilised
vehicles and trailers would help to protect roads against their use for long
term storage of items (including vehicles) that cannot fit on private property.
6.9 Other options
(outside of the Bylaw process) to manage this parking demand could include:
· Private enterprise
providing more long-term parking or storage facilities for rent or purchase; or
· Council making
decisions on where long-term parking of motorhomes might or might not be
permitted on selected roads (this would require a new process of consultation).
Officer recommendation
6.10 Officers recommend that on
balance considering the submissions, Council delete clause 39, which would
allow motorhomes, heavy goods vehicles and immobilised vehicles to park within
the rules of the Bylaw like any other vehicle. Trailer parking would continue
to be enforced under Clause 6.19 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.
Parking
on berms
6.11 Clause 37.1 of the Draft
Bylaw restricts parking of vehicles on any part of a berm, kerb, verge, lawn,
garden, or other cultivation adjacent to, or forming part of, a road. This is a
change from the current Bylaw, which only prohibits parking on berms where
signage has been erected.
6.12 Council received 22
submissions on this topic, with 13 opposing and eight supporting it, and one submission
providing a comment. The Tāhunanui Business and Citizens Association also
discussed this proposal at the hearing, raising concerns about impacts of this
restriction on car parking capacity in Tāhunanui Reserve during peak
periods.
6.13 Many of the people who
opposed this proposal were concerned about the traffic safety impacts of cars
parked on the side of narrow roads instead of on berms. Others said parking on
berms shouldn’t be regulated if no damage was occurring.
6.14 The people who supported restrictions
on parking on berms said this approach brought Nelson into line with other
places in New Zealand, and that parking on berms causes damage, and can contribute
to cracked and bumpy footpaths and limit/prohibit access for all users but
particularly those using mobility devices and those suffering and impairment.
This is a particular concern for Blind Citizens NZ Nelson Branch (Submission
72).
Officer
comments
6.15 Submitters’ safety
concerns related to narrow roads need to be considered alongside recognition
that parking on berms also creates a safety and access hazard. Vehicles which
are driven across footpaths to park on berms can break the paving of footpaths,
creating an uneven surface for less able people to negotiate. Vehicles parking
on berms can also impact on people’s use of footpaths in high demand
areas.
6.16 Restricting parking on
berms was also designed to protect road infrastructure including kerbs, buried
infrastructure, and tree roots. Clause 6.2 of the Land Transport (Road User)
Rule 2004 provides that “a driver…in charge of a vehicle must
not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on a roadway if he or she can stop, stand,
or park it on the road margin without damaging ornamental grass plots, shrubs,
or flower beds laid out or planted on the margin.” However,
this clause does not apply if the road controlling authority provides signs or
markings or make a bylaw providing for a different requirement.
6.17 Parking in reserves (including
Tāhunanui) is already restricted by Clause 7.3 of the Amended Urban
Environment Bylaw. However, that Bylaw lacks the enforcement powers under the
Land Transport Act 1998 that will apply to provisions in the Traffic and
Parking Bylaw.
Officer
recommendation
6.18 Officers recommend that
Council adopts clause 37 as proposed.
Time
and payment restricted parking zones
6.19 The provisions under Clause
34 of the Draft Bylaw do not create any new time limited or payment zones.
Instead, they clarify that if someone re-parks in the same car park or the same
parking zone within a 30-minute period, then they are deemed to have remained
parked in the zone throughout that time. If someone leaves a parking zone for
more than 30 minutes and then returns, all time restrictions and fees will
start fresh when they re-park.
6.20 Clause 34.4 is relevant to
the resolution the Council made under the current Bylaw in 2014 in relation to
the 1 hour free parking. The more recent temporary resolution made in June 2023
for free parking between 3.00-5.00p.m. would not be affected by the clause,
because parking is free after 5.00p.m. Staff consider this clause could be
amended further to better reflect that any free parking period also does not
start again when someone reparks their vehicle.
6.21 Seven submitters opposed
these provisions. However, three of these people misinterpreted the provisions
as being a reduction to only 30 minutes of free parking. Three submitters
supported the provisions.
6.22 Two submitters commented on
the other aspects of time-restricted parking zones:
· One person opposed increasing
time-restricted parking to outlying areas around Nelson because it impacts on
their role as a care worker, as they need to park outside community housing.
· One person supported reducing all
day parking areas in the inner city and periphery to make active travel modes
more attractive.
Officer recommendation
6.23 Adopt clause 34 as
proposed, with a minor amendment to clause 34.4 to reflect any free parking
resolutions as shown below in yellow highlight. Clause 34 defines how the
time restrictions apply when drivers move their vehicles to other spaces within
the time limited parking zone.
“For clarity, if a
vehicle leaves a parking space within a time restricted parking zone and
re-parks in the same zone more than 30 minutes after leaving, the maximum time
period prescribed under clause 34.2(b) starts again
from the time that the vehicle is re-parked, and
any first hour free or other similar resolutions made by the Council under this
clause do not apply”.
Note - The Traffic and Parking
Bylaw gives Council the power to make changes to parking zones – it does
not direct where changes to all day parking areas will be made.
Restricting
use of wheeled recreational devices on footpaths
6.24 Clause 22.1 of the Draft
Bylaw states that Council may by resolution prohibit the use of a wheeled
recreational device on any specified footpath. Clause 12 of the current Bylaw
is a similar provision under which prohibitions have already been made by the
Council.
6.25 Schedule 2 of the 2011
Bylaw prohibits the use of wheeled recreational devices in the following areas,
and will continue in force under the ‘savings and transitional
provisions’ in clause 49 of the Draft Bylaw:
· The CBD, within
these streets: Nile Street, Rutherford Street, Halifax Street and Collingwood
Street
· Tāhunanui,
between Beach Road and Tāhunanui Drive
· Stoke, between
Neale Ave and Main Road Stoke and the Bail Street area
· Victory Square
shopping area.
6.26 Eleven submissions
discussed this issue. At the hearing the Youth Council representatives and one
submitter spoke in favour of allowing wheeled recreational devices to be used
on footpaths to improve safety and avoid crashes with cars, and Blind Citizens
NZ Nelson Branch representatives outlined the need for an expansion of the
prohibited areas (to cover both sides of these streets) and why they would like
motorised devices to be treated as vehicles, and not be allowed to use
footpaths.
6.27 Two written submissions
strongly supported bans in all of the areas listed above. In particular, the
Blind Citizens NZ Nelson Branch (Submission 72) noted that adding wheeled
devices to the footpath “makes shopping and leisure within these areas
even more unsafe and scary for our community”.
6.28 On the other hand, three
submissions were strongly opposed to bans of wheeled devices on footpaths. In
particular, the Nelson Youth Council (Submission 67) noted that scooters and
skateboards are a huge part of how many young people get around. This
submission said the ban is harmful to young people in Nelson by:
· preventing them
from taking positive climate action
· making it harder
to get to school
· making it harder
to get to town.
6.29 The other six submissions
recognised the need to avoid safety risks for both pedestrians and people using
wheeled devices, including the submission from Nelson Marlborough Public Health
(Submission 64) which provided extensive guidance on managing these issues.
6.30 Note that the Police (and
not Council officers or parking wardens) are responsible for enforcing Bylaw
provisions related to the use of wheeled devices on footpaths.
Officer
recommendation
6.31 Adopt clause 22 as
proposed.
6.32 In the future officers can
initiate a review of the areas where wheeled recreational devices are banned.
This will provide Council with an opportunity to consult with the public and to
make any future changes to the areas in which restrictions on the use of
wheeled recreation devices on footpaths apply.
Parking
for display or sale
6.33 Clause 38.1 of the Draft
Bylaw does not allow a person to park a vehicle (including a trailer) on any
road for the purpose of: advertising a good or service; promoting a candidate
for election; or advertising, offering, or displaying the vehicle for sale,
unless they have Council’s prior written permission to do so.
6.34 Six submissions discussed
this issue, with three supporting and three opposing the provision. People who
were opposed to it noted:
· Parking vehicles
on the road for sale should only be banned if the vehicle remains in that space
for more than an hour, as vehicles often have “for sale signs”
painted on.
· This is only
temporary and is no more distracting than hoardings or road signs, which are
often more permanent.
6.35 One of the submissions in
support of the restriction noted that in the age of the internet there is no
need to advertise vehicles for sale on berms or parking spaces. Waka Kotahi
(Submission 68) supported this proposed bylaw change, particularly if the
proposed changes include the Council having the delegated authority to enforce
non-compliance on the state highway.
Officer
recommendation
6.36 Adopt clause 38 as proposed
as it enables Council to take enforcement action where there are safety
concerns associated with vehicles parked on the side of the road for display or
sale purposes.
Shared
paths and cycle paths
6.37 Clause 20.1 of the Draft
Bylaw states that Council may by resolution determine: the length, route and/or
location of a shared path or cycle path; and the priority for permitted users
on a shared path or cycle path.
6.38 One submission commented on
this provision, stating that more footpaths should have this classification to
allow more use of active modes of transport.
Officer recommendation
6.39 Adopt clause 20 as proposed
to enable Council to establish more shared paths and cycle paths in future and
for the Police to take enforcement action where safety issues arise on shared
paths.
Note: The minor error in Clause
20.1(a) will be corrected to read “the length, route and/or location of or
a shared path or cycle path”.
State
highways
6.40 Clause 5.1(b) states that
this Bylaw applies to those state highways for which Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency has delegated powers to the Council, being:
(i) the
part of State Highway 6 between Peace Grove Car Park (RS99.15120) and the
Annesbrook roundabout (RS116.5509).
6.41 In effect, this means the
Bylaw provisions apply to State Highway 6 from Peace Grove Car Park, south
along Queen Elizabeth II Drive, Haven Road, Wakefield Quay, Rocks Road and
Tāhunanui Drive, and Annesbrook Drive to where it connects to the
Annesbrook roundabout.
6.42 Clause 5.2 states that
despite Clause 5.1, the Council cannot use the powers in Part 3 of the Bylaw in
relation to any state highways, as these are not within the scope of the powers
delegated to Council by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency. (Part 3 of the Draft
Bylaw relates to vehicle and road use, which includes the provisions under
Clauses 14 to 26).
6.43 Four submissions commented
on the provisions under Clause 5. One supported them, and the other (Submission
13) requested more regulations to support traffic management when the State
Highway is closed, and the traffic between Richmond and the Nelson CBD needs to
travel through Stoke.
6.44 One submission (from Waka
Kotahi) noted that Waka Kotahi must be formally involved if any change to
regulations relating to parking is proposed for, or impacts on, state highways.
6.45 One submission opposed the
provisions under Clause 5 because they will result in a net cost to Council.
Officer
recommendations
6.46 Officers recommend that
Council adopt clause 5 as proposed because they enable consistent regulation of
parking across the city, regardless of road ownership.
Vehicle
crossings
6.47 Clauses 25.1 to 25.11 of
the Draft Bylaw relate to use and maintenance of vehicle crossings.
6.48 Two submitters discussed
these provisions. Waka Kotahi (Submission 68) supported the whole of the
vehicle crossing provisions but noted that they do not override the Waka Kotahi
Limited Access Road approval process under the Government Roading Powers Act
1989, which applies to State Highway 6 from Trafalgar Street to Lud Valley
Road. Waka Kotahi will also still be involved (as an affected party) in
assessing any new accesses to State Highway 6.
6.49 The other submission
related specifically to Clause 25.7 (which gives Council the power to require
landowners to upgrade vehicle crossings) and said that landowners should not
have to maintain these unless it is clear that the landowner's activities, or
activities on their property, have significantly contributed to the degradation
of the crossing.
Officer
recommendation
6.50 Adopt clause 25 as proposed.
The provisions of this clause provide a mechanism to follow up with adjacent
property owners when vehicle crossings have been damaged, as this can create
safety issues for other road and path users. (Note: Maintenance and renewal of
footpaths is a Council responsibility so there is some overlap of
responsibilities related to vehicle crossings).
Repairs
on vehicles
6.51 Clause 40.1 of the Draft
Bylaw does not allow people to carry out repairs or modifications to a vehicle
on a road unless this is minor in nature and doesn’t impede traffic or
cause a safety issue; or if the repairs are necessary to enable the vehicle to
be moved.
6.52 Four people submitted on
this provision. Three supported it and one person opposed it because it
unfairly punishes poor people.
Officer recommendation
6.53 Adopt clause 40 as proposed
because it addresses safety concerns related to people working on or around
vehicles on roads.
Engine
braking
6.54 Clause 24.1 of the Draft
Bylaw states that Council may by resolution prohibit or restrict engine braking
on any road where the permanent speed limit does not exceed 70km/h.
6.55 Four submissions supported
this provision. One asked Council to make Tāhunanui Drive an engine
braking restricted area because there are high volumes of heavy vehicles, and
residents living close to the road.
Officer recommendation
6.56 Adopt clause 24 as
proposed.
Note: Officers will follow up
with Waka Kotahi and New Zealand Police about engine braking noise on Tāhunanui
Drive.
Cruising
6.57 Clause 23.1 of the Draft Bylaw
states that Council may by resolution specify any section of road on which
cruising is controlled, restricted or prohibited.
6.58 Three submissions supported
the cruising provisions, and one suggested using traffic calming measures on
local roads instead of ‘no cruising’ restrictions (e.g. between
Waikare Street and Tāhunanui Drive, Beach Road and Golf Road).
Officer comment
Officers will consider the
requests for traffic calming in specific areas through the Minor Works
Programme and speed management plans.
Officer recommendation
6.59 Adopt clause 23 as
proposed.
Other
matters
6.60 Other matters raised in
submissions are listed below, with any relevant officer recommendations and/or
comments.
· Replace references to the
‘New Zealand Fire Service’ with ‘Fire and Emergency New
Zealand’ to be consistent with national legislation.
Officer
recommendation: Replace all references in the Draft Bylaw from the
‘New Zealand Fire Service’ with ‘Fire and Emergency New
Zealand’.
· Parking on public
land should generally not be a free activity, and use of road reserve as
private property should not be allowed to happen (two submissions).
· It should be legal
for an owner to park across their own garage entrance or for a visitor to park
there with the owner’s knowledge and permission.
Officer
comment: Parking across garage entranceways is not covered by the Bylaw. It
is covered in Clause 6.9 Land Transport (road user) Rule 2004 and Council has
an enforcement role.
· Council decisions
on subdivisions affect the amount of space available for on-site parking
– this needs to be considered when developing the Parking Bylaw.
Officer
Comment: As noted earlier in this report (in relation to long-term parking
of motorhomes), the National Policy Statement on Urban Development does not
allow Council to set minimum on-site parking requirements for new developments.
· The driving and
parking of vehicles on parks and reserves should be banned as it is already in
many other NZ cities, e.g. driving and parking on Miyazu Reserve churns up the
turf.
Officer
comment: As noted earlier in this report parking in reserves is already restricted
by Clause 7.3 of the Amended Urban Environment Bylaw. However, that Bylaw lacks
the enforcement powers under the Land Transport Act 1998 that will apply to
provisions in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.
· Nelson Girls
College lacks a safe drop off/pick up area. Replace the five angle car parks
behind the bus stop with a loading zone, with restricted times and visitor
parking outside of those times.
Officer
Comment: Parking at Nelson Girls College can be assessed and consulted on
after the new Bylaw is adopted and as part of the Long Term Plan.
· The bike lanes on
Vanguard and St Vincent Streets need to be reviewed nothing that they are very
dangerous as cars parked between the bike lane and road obscure pedestrians and
bikes from turning traffic.
Officer
Comment: The St Vincent Street bike
lane layout and adjacent parking is under review and any parking changes will
be assessed and consulted on after the Draft Bylaw is adopted.
· Support for the
provisions under Clauses 32 and 33 – other reserved parking and time
restricted parking zones.
· Where it is
proposed to change maximum parking times, or to establish limited parking
zones, the Tāhunanui Business and Citizens Association (Submission 55)
requests that meaningful consultation occurs with affected residents and
businesses before the change is made and signs are erected.
· What, if any,
mobility parking is proposed for the Tāhunanui business area, and how can
checks be made on use of disability parks by able-bodied people?
Officer
Comment: Any requested changes to the designation of Mobility Parking areas
are managed through a resolution process. Restrictions can be reviewed where
they are no longer considered appropriate. Council relies on the parking
enforcement process, and for people to be honest, rather than monitoring who
makes use of disability parking areas.
· The Tāhunanui
Business and Citizens Association asked the Council to consult the community
about the proposal to establish a bus interchange on Muritai Street
Officer
Comment: The proposal to establish two new shelters at existing bus stops
in Muritai Street will be consulted on separately.
· Opposition to any
future charging for car parking at Nelson Marina.
Officer
Comment: This Bylaw does not create parking restrictions at the Marina. It
does however create a framework where this can be done by resolution if it is
required in the future.
· A request to place
warnings on parking signs stating that vehicles must remain within the marked
parking area (rather than extending onto the adjacent footpath or cycleway).
Officer
Comment: Officers will investigate the option of including advisory signs
at the entrances to car parks to warn that parking over footpaths is an offence
under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.
· Parking needs to
be provided in Nelson, as the bus schedule doesn’t suit everyone’s
commitments.
· Support for the
process requirements for making resolutions (in Clauses 10.1 and 10.2 of the
Draft Bylaw)
· Waka Kotahi noted
that an update to the delegations’ register will be required if the
provisions under Clause 28 (temporary parking restrictions) is adopted.
Officer
Recommendation: Update the delegations register to reflect the provisions
under Clause 28 (temporary discontinuance or restriction of parking spaces).
· Support for the
provisions under Clause 42 (by two submitters).
· Support for the
provisions under Clauses 44, 45, 46 and 47.
· Opposition to the
provisions under Clause 30 – reserved parking for residents –
because it may lead to parking spaces being left empty even though there is
minimal parking and there is a need for more parking.
· Opposition to the
proposal of banning parking and access on unformed roads, as this will affect
some residents’ access to their garages, etc.
Officer
Comment: Access to property via an unformed road is expected to be covered
in the Road Encroachment Policy, which is in the work programme and will be
consulted on.
· Opposition to the
provisions under Clauses 27, 28 and 29 (parking restrictions). Extending powers
to regulate parking in public places such as parks and reserves, the beach and
marina is too much and may affect the enjoyment of these recreational
treasures.
· Support for Clause
36.2 which enables oversized vehicles and vehicles with trailers to use more
than one park but not to overhang the footpath. Blind Citizens NZ Nelson
branch (Submission 72) would like scooters and bicycles to be recognised as
vehicles in relation to this provision to avoid cluttering the footpath.
Officer
comments The definitions for ‘cycle’ and ‘wheeled
recreational device’ in the Bylaw are the same as in clause 1.6 of the
Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, where both are referred to as vehicles.
7. Options
7.1 Council has three
options, either adopt or adopt with amendments or not adopt the Bylaw.
|
|
|
Advantages
|
· Ensures
a new bylaw can be in place before the current bylaw expires.
· Provides
a reasonable level of control over traffic and parking.
· The
Draft Bylaw is similar in substance to the existing bylaw, so customers will
not experience major change, but the improved drafting and formatting should
make the proposed new bylaw more accessible to customers.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Fails
to respond to any of the concerns raised by submitters during the
consultation process.
|
|
|
|
Advantages
|
· As for Option 1; and
· Enables Council to
respond to issues raised by submitters during the consultation process.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· No
significant risks and disadvantages.
|
|
Option
3: Do not adopt the Draft Bylaw
|
|
Advantages
|
· Nil.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· The
existing bylaw will be revoked in November 2023, after which there would be
less control over traffic and parking control, increasing the risk of
infrastructure damage and safety issues.
|
8. Conclusion
8.1 The Council has
used the special consultative procedure to gain public feedback on the Draft
Bylaw. The next step is to make decisions on what amendments to make to the
Draft Bylaw, and then to adopt the Amended Bylaw.
8.2 Officers
recommend that Council adopts the Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 (as
amended) to reflect Council’s decisions on submissions.
Author: Drew
Bryant, Team Leader Transport Activity Management
Authoriser: Alec
Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure
Attachments
Attachment 1: 1862260321-57986
- Summary of Submissions ⇩
Attachment 2: 1862260321-57989
- Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
Fit with Purpose of
Local Government
The proposed bylaw supports the social, economic and
environmental wellbeing of the Nelson community by putting in place the
regulatory controls for traffic and parking control on the roading network.
|
|
Consistency with
Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The Traffic
and Parking Control Bylaw supports the following community outcomes;
• Our
unique natural environment is healthy and protected.
• Our urban and
rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.
• Our
infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future
needs.
• Our
communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.
|
|
Risk
Not adopting the draft Bylaw
would leave Council relying on its existing bylaw, which is due to expire in November
2023. If no new bylaw is made before then, Council would not have local
enforceable controls over traffic control and parking on our network.
This would create a risk to safety, and infrastructure.
|
|
Financial impact
There are no immediate funding
implications over and above current costs of administration and enforcement.
|
|
Degree of
significance and level of engagement
This matter is of high
significance because impact a wide range of residents. Consultation with the
community has occurred through the special consultative procedure, in
accordance with both sections 83,86 and 156 of the LGA.
|
|
Climate Impact
Climate change has not been
considered directly in the draft bylaw.
|
|
Inclusion of
Māori in the decision making process
No direct engagement with Māori has been
undertaken in preparing this report.
|
|
· Delegations
This is a matter for Council
decision.
|
