Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

5 May 2020

10.1 Te Papa Indicative Business Case

File Number: A11387270

Author: Carl Lucca, Programme Director: Urban Communities

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide the Council an update on the Te Papa Indicative Business Case process and seek approval to submit the Business Case to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for Approval in May 2020.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Endorses the recommended Te Papa peninsula urban form option.

(b) Agrees in principle to the Te Papa peninsula 30-year multi-modal transport programme to support the recommended urban form option, subject to further investigation and funding availability

(c) Approves the Te Papa Indicative Business Case be submitted to New Zealand Transport Agency for consideration and approval in May 2020.

(d) Notes that investment timing, costs and cost sharing are subject to further investigations and agreement between the project partners and will come before Council for approvals as the programme progresses.

Executive Summary

2. The Te Papa project is made up of two core deliverables – the Te Papa Spatial Plan, and the Te Papa Indicative Business Case (IBC). This report focuses on the Indicative Business Case, including:

(a) An overview of the options considered

(b) The recommended ‘preferred way forward’ for urban form and the supporting multi-modal transport programme

(d) A summary of potential benefits accruing from the recommended urban form and multi-modal transport programme.

3. The Te Papa IBC has been prepared by Tauranga City Council (TCC) in partnership with NZTA and Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The IBC recommends an integrated land use transport strategy that will increase opportunity for higher density living in close proximity to centres, public transport and other amenities along the Te Papa peninsula, supported by a sustained, balanced investment programme in active modes and public transport infrastructure.

4. As outlined on the NZ Treasury’s website, an Indicative Business Case provides decision makers with an early indication of the preferred way forward for high value and/or high risk investment proposals. It outlines how the proposed investment fits within the organisation(s) strategic intentions; confirms the need for investment and the case for change; and recommends an indicative or preferred way forward for further development… The information presented is indicative only. It provides the decision-makers with just enough information to consider change and confirm the options being considered, and an early opportunity to make a decision before too much work is done.

5. Having regard to the above, the purpose of the Te Papa IBC is to set in place an agreed land use transport strategy that will form the basis for ongoing collaboration between Tauranga City Council, Regional Council and central government agencies to deliver an agreed vision for the Te Papa peninsula in Tauranga City. Commitment to funding, timing and cost sharing will be subject to more detailed planning which will come before Council for approvals as the programme progresses.

6. The scale of growth required in Te Papa and the wider city means significant further investment in movement networks is needed. Relative to the recommended way forward, a basic investment package (i.e. the do minimum option) sufficient to ‘just keep pace’ with Te Papa peninsula and wider regional growth pressures and safety management issues will not go far enough to deliver appropriate transport levels of service as the population grows; nor will it avoid sufficiently avoid compounding land use related liabilities and inefficiencies for travel time, housing affordability, health outcomes, liveability or sustainability.

7. The IBC assessment and recommendations recognise Te Papa peninsula as a central element within the wider urban system of Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty. To unlock more than $1billion of community benefits for Te Papa peninsula and the wider region, multi-modal transport investments in the order of $450m are required over the next 30 years.

8. In this regard, and taking into account wider investment that will be required in infrastructure and community amenities, the indicative benefit cost ratio (BCR) associated with the recommended urban form and multi-modal transport programme is estimated to be between 1.5:1 and 2:1.

9. The urban form and multi-modal transport programme recommended will result in far more holistic benefits for the city and community than other options considered, including:

(a) Better and more equitable access to social and economic opportunities

(b) Housing that meets our needs

(d) Neighbourhoods that are more liveable and have a stronger sense of culture and identity

(e) Improvements in environmental quality.

10. In this regard, the IBC will deliver an integrated land use transport strategy that is well aligned with central government policy, as well as local strategic direction for growth. This will also greatly assist in leveraging government investment in other parts of our city such as in Tauriko.

11. Complex interventions where there is a high level of risk and/or uncertainty will be identified as requiring further work to be undertaken, such as a Detailed Business Case phase. Fast tracking of standard interventions that are relatively low risk will also be enabled by the IBC. These interventions will be derived from existing evidence base (e.g. other business cases) where the evidence and justification for the intervention and standard interventions has already been established.

12. Importantly, the IBC also supports Council’s response to Covid-19 crisis. TCC is working closely with central government to determine potential stimulus packages, including ‘shovel ready’ Crown Infrastructure Projects (CIPs), and short term (0-10year) projects. The Te Papa IBC forms part of the evidence base to move forward a number of these projects, including the Cameron Road Multi-modal Stage 1 project and other transport, infrastructure and community projects that will benefit the city and community.

13. The timing of urban growth and transport investment recommended within the IBC acknowledges the integrated land use transport approach – with growth numbers over time supporting public transport investment, and also acknowledging that walking, cycling and public transport offer a value proposition that will attract people to live in the area as well as making it safer and providing a wider range of other benefits. Accordingly, enabling a number of growth projects is recommended (e.g. Gate Pa regeneration) to assist in catalysing / bringing forward the viability of public transport in particular (with benefits for Te Papa and the wider city); while timing of transport investment includes consistent and ongoing investment in walking and cycling, and public transport investment in line with but slightly ahead of projected population growth.

Background

14. This section provides an overview of the Te Papa IBC and builds on previous reports relating to the Te Papa project.

Overview of the Indicative Business Case

15. The Te Papa project is made up of two core deliverables – the Te Papa Spatial Plan, and the Te Papa IBC (refer Figure 1 below). This report focuses the business case process and outcomes.

Figure 1: Te Papa project – Indicative Business Case and Spatial Plan Components

16. While the IBC focuses on an integrated land use transport strategy, it will also be supported by the broader Te Papa Spatial Plan, which provides for consideration of supporting infrastructure (including 3-waters) and community investment, including community amenities, opens space, environmental, cultural and wider considerations. The Spatial Plan ‘Outcomes and Ideas’ Discussion Document is currently out for engagement (refer https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-future/projects/te-papa-peninsula), and the draft spatial plan will be brought before Council June this year. This will include associated infrastructure and community investment options to support growth, for Council’s consideration.

17. TCC is working with partners including NZTA, Regional Council and Mana whenua to progress both the spatial plan and business case, as well as liaising closely with other central government agencies and key stakeholders including Kāinga Ora, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Accessible Properties Limited.

18. The recommended urban form and multi-modal transport programme promotes an integrated land use transport strategy that has the potential to unlock more than $1billion of community benefits for Te Papa peninsula and the wider region, as well as wider benefits for the city, including:

(a) Better and more equitable access to social and economic opportunities

(b) Housing that meets our needs

(d) Neighbourhoods that are more liveable and have a stronger sense of culture and identity

(e) Improvements in environmental quality.

A full outline of the potential IBC benefits is included within Attachment 4 to this report.

19. A full copy of the Te Papa Indicative Business Case summary is included as Attachment 1.

Strategic / Statutory Context

Central Government Direction on Growth

20. The IBC seeks to deliver an integrated land use transport strategy that is well aligned with central government policy, including the Urban Growth Agenda, NZTA’s Arataki Strategy, the Government Policy Statement on Transport and the draft National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). In addition, it aligns with local strategic direction, including the draft Tauranga Urban Strategy, Future Development Strategy and Urban Form and Transport Initiative.

21. The draft NPS-UD, released in September 2019, stresses the urgency for urban growth areas in New Zealand to grow both up and out, and for district plan rules to become more enabling of intensification. The government has identified Tauranga as a ‘major urban centre’ which will need to meet more stringent growth requirements to be reflected in Tauranga’s planning rules. The NPS-UD identifies a number of options in relation to density requirements in close proximity to centres and public transport. These options place emphasis on providing densities of 60 dwellings per hectare within walking distance of these amenities.

22. As outlined NPS-UD, when cities work well they provide a range of benefits for their residents, the economy and the environment, including:

· Maximising opportunities for people to interact, socially and economically

· Supporting a more diverse and productive economy by bringing together people with varied and complementary knowledge and skills

· Contributing to the well-being of residents and raise living standards for all.

23. Key contributing factors to these outcomes include:

· Enough housing and business space, including housing choices that let people live affordably close to the places they need to travel

· A transport system that allows for the effective and efficient movement of people and goods, and promotes safe, healthy and active lifestyles.

24. In December 2019, NZTA released its Arataki 10-year Strategy. The Arataki Strategy links strongly with the NPS-UD, providing direction on steps required to achieve the government’s short-term priorities and longer-term outcomes, including:

(a) Improve urban form – use transport to improve connections between people, product and places

(b) Transform urban mobility – shift from our reliance on single occupancy vehicles to more sustainable transport solutions for the movement of people and freight

25. The integrated land use transport strategy recommended by the Te Papa IBC is well aligned with above direction.

Strategic Context

26. It is recognised that this project has much broader benefits beyond the Te Papa peninsula. Cameron Road forms the key public transport spine to the western corridor (Pyes Pa / Tauriko area) where significant greenfield urban development in underway and planned. Investment in Cameron Road is required to deliver a high-quality public transport level of service for the western corridor in order to achieve a high public transport mode share instead of continued reliance of private vehicle travel. The proposed urban form approach and supporting multi-modal transport programme for Te Papa will assist in leveraging government investment in other parts of our city such as in Tauriko.

27. In addition, the government is investing close to $1billion in the Tauranga Northern Link and 4-laning to Omokoroa north of Tauranga. This includes managed lanes with priority for buses and high occupancy vehicles. These transport projects will connect to Cameron Road. As such, to provide a high quality and seamless experience for public transport that encourages the use of public transport these proposed improvements to Cameron Road are essential.

Consistency with Current Council Priorities

28. Importantly, the IBC also supports Council’s response to Covid-19 crisis. TCC is working closely with central government to determine potential stimulus packages, including ‘shovel ready’ Crown Infrastructure Projects (CIPs), and short term (0-10year) projects. The Te Papa IBC forms part of the evidence base to move forward a number of these projects, including the Cameron Road Multi-modal Stage 1 project and other transport, infrastructure and community projects that will benefit the city and community.

Options Analysis

29. This section provides a summary of Te Papa IBC options considered, including:

(a) Overview of the options and the recommended ‘preferred way forward’ for urban form and the supporting multi-modal transport programme

(b) A detailed summary of the recommended multi-modal transport programme, including timing

(c) A summary of potential benefits and outcomes accruing from the combined urban form and multi-modal transport programme.

Overview of the options and the recommended ‘preferred way forward’

30. The outcomes of the Te Papa analysis, community ‘values’ engagement, Investment Logic Mapping and design sprint were used to inform the preparation of options for the urban form and supporting transport assessment that followed, undertaken through a two-part process:

(a) Step 1: Option refinement and assessment for urban form (land use); and

(b) Step 2: Option preparation and assessment for strategic transport interventions to support the proposed urban form and wider city outcomes.

31. The option assessment for each step was undertaken through a series of workshops (option development; option assessment; assessment review) including relevant technical experts from TCC, Regional Council and NZTA.

32. The urban form assessment was assessed against the following criteria:

(a) Project Investment Objectives (100% of the assessment criteria):

(i) The built environment will reflect Te Papa’s culture, heritage and identity

(ii) The quality of public life and use of public realm will continuedly improve across Te Papa's neighbourhoods

(iii) Environmental quality across Te Papa will improve by 2050

(iv) Average density of 30 dwellings per hectare across Te Papa, with higher densities in close proximity to centres and public transport by 2050

(v) Employment numbers across Te Papa will increase by 50-60% by 2050

(vi) Walking, cycling, and public transport will represent 40% of all travel movements within Te Papa, and 25% of all travel movements into and out of Te Papa, by 2050

(b) Feasibility (sensitivity testing) e.g. consentability, safety and design, operational and financial

33. The transport assessment was assessed against the following criteria:

(a) Project Investment Objectives (60%), as outlined above

(b) Implementability (20%), e.g. consentability, safety and design, operational and financial

Urban Form Options Considered and Preferred Way Forward

34. Five urban form options were derived from the design sprint process, while also taking into account national direction on urban form. The options considered are summarised below.

35. Option 5 – ‘Centres Plus’ was assessed as the preferred way forward. Attachment 2 contains the Urban Form Preferred Way Forward Plan.

Option	Description
Option 1 – Centres approach	Centres based urban form focused on higher densities in close proximity to the city centres and neighbourhood centres. Meets NPS-UD: No Likely increase in housing numbers across peninsula: Moderate
Option 2 – Corridors approach	Corridors based urban form focused on higher densities in close proximity to public transport routes Meets NPS-UD: No Likely increase in housing numbers across peninsula: Low to moderate
Option 3 – Dispersed approach	Dispersed urban form focusing on higher densities distributed in relation to access to open space, schools and other amenities Meets NPS-UD: No Likely increase in housing numbers across peninsula: Low to moderate
Option 4 – Design sprint mixed approach	A mixed group scenario, taking learnings from the first three scenarios over the first two days, which resulted in a largely centres / corridors-based approach. Meets NPS-UD: No Likely increase in housing numbers across peninsula: Low to moderate
Option 5 – Centres ‘Plus’ (preferred way forward)	A refined medium density residential land use pattern that builds on the strengths and commonalities of the design sprint (particularly as they relate to a focus on centres), including: · ‘Heat mapping’ those areas of the four design sprint scenarios identified as appropriate for medium density residential, recognising the ‘broad brush’ approach to line on maps used at the design sprint · Consideration of the draft National Policy Statement for Urban Development, which identifies the need for greater densities in proximity to centres, corridors (public transport) and amenities · Consideration of the above matters in light of residential intensification ‘suitability mapping’, including walking distances from centres, corridors and other amenities Meets NPS-UD: Yes Likely increase in housing numbers across peninsula: High

36. Supported by the proposed transport interventions, wider interventions promoted within the Spatial Plan and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice, over the next 30 years, the Centres ‘Plus’ option will:

(a) Provide opportunity for more houses close to centres and public transport, providing a range of housing types and allowing more people to walk to where they want to go, in line with central government policy for urban development. This includes:

(i) Higher residential densities in close proximity of city centre, Gate Pa / Hospital and Greerton and with good access to a range of amenities, providing for up to 150 dw/ha net (4-6 storeys in height)

(ii) Medium residential densities within areas walking distance to centres and other amenities: 90 dw/ha net (4 storeys in height)

(iii) Opportunity for up to 19,400 new homes and 29,300 new residents.

(b) Provide significant opportunity for employment growth, with up to 14,000 - 15,000 (50-60%) additional employees across the peninsula

(c) Provide ongoing community and infrastructure investment in Merivale area to enable higher densities in the near future.

(d) Provide opportunity to work with the private sector and government agencies to facilitate more residential living opportunities, supported by appropriate public spaces, community facilities and infrastructure

(e) Promote greater diversity of housing supply that supports people remaining in their community as they age.

(f) Support the growth of university and hospital precincts

37. A full outline of the potential benefits of the recommended option is contained within Attachment 4. The total indicative monetised benefit accrued from the combined urban form and multi-modal transport programme is in the realm of $1billion, with significant urban form benefits coming from:

(a) GDP benefits, and avoidance of potential GDP disbenefits

(b) Public expenditure savings / infrastructure efficiencies

(c) Benefits associated with agglomeration economics, including increased retail and business trade and higher local income and employment

(d) Increased property values and rental incomes.

38. Future urban form will be supported by appropriate open space, community facilities and consideration of heritage, culture and sense of place, developed in collaboration with mana whenua and our communities.

Timing of growth and supporting investment

39. Growth and change will be incremental, evidence suggesting that residential change in intensification areas generally occurs at a rate of about 10% every 10 years[1]. Recent commercial development feasibility testing undertaken to support the Te Papa and Housing Choice Plan Change projects acknowledges existing constraints (e.g. existing land values, development costs) in the market that will need to be responded to, to speed up development opportunities. However, we also know that there is significant demand by Tauranga’s largest developers and other key stakeholders (e.g., Accessible Properties and Kāinga Ora) to enable development in these areas now. Input from development economic experts has also emphasised the need for supporting investment (i.e. movement and community infrastructure) as a significant factor in changing the value proposition for investment in areas such as Te Papa.

40. Within those areas where opportunity for higher densities is enabled through Plan Change 26, the speed of development will also be impacted by supporting investment in infrastructure, community amenities and catalyst projects (including residential development), and factors such as the ebb and flow of economic wellbeing and migration, impacted by national and global trends. Similarly, the speed of supporting infrastructure delivery will also be tied to key development milestones (as below).

41. In this regard, the timing of the urban form and multi-modal transport programme delivery remains subject to funding availability (at a local and national level) and the uptake of residential development (by both the private and public sectors). While the indicative timing proposed may change due to these factors, the general order of investment should remain constant. Indicative timeframes for those areas where development investment can be made to catalyse change are recommended as follows:

(a) Immediate focus on on-going city centre regeneration

(b) Gate Pa / Pukehinahina: 5-15year focus on residential / community regeneration (reliant on central government and key stakeholder collaboration)

(c) Merivale: 10+ year focus on residential / community regeneration (reliant on central government and key stakeholder collaboration)

(d) Greerton: 20+ year focus on potential racecourse redevelopment (open space and housing; subject to ongoing engagement with existing users, community, stakeholders and mana whenua).

Transport Options Considered and Preferred Way Forward

42. The confirmation of a recommended Te Papa Peninsula urban form enables integration opportunities between current and future land use, and necessary transport investments and measures to accommodate growth forecast for Te Papa peninsula and the wider Western Bay of Plenty.

43. To support and integrate with the Te Papa peninsula and wider region’s urban form, a suite of higher effectiveness multi-modal (walking, cycling, micro-mobility and public transport) options were generated. These generally require investment between $400m and $500m over 30 years but unlock significantly higher (>1$billion) of urban system benefits long term.

44. Multi-modal transport option development and testing by a Project Partner Technical Working Group, has drawn in further domain and specialist inputs to inform the assessments. Within the transport options developed, consideration was given to:

(a) Quick wins / standard interventions (0-3 years)

(b) Short term interventions (0-10 years)

(d) Minimum, ambitious and most ambitious outcomes

45. The four options considered are outlined below, derived significantly from the commonalities and approaches identified through the design sprint process. A workshop held on 3 April 2020 identified Option 4, the ‘balanced’ active mode / public transport investment option (walking, cycling, micro-mobility and public transport interventions), as performing best against the Te Papa peninsula Investment Objectives, critical success factors and related transport metrics commonly used by the Project Partners. A full description of the ‘balanced’ active mode / public transport investment option is provided further below.

Option	Description
Option 1 – Low investment scenario	Balanced investment in public transport and active modes. Provides a level of safety for active modes given the likely increases in traffic and buses and to provide the basic level of connectivity for cycle routes that is currently lacking. For public transport (PT), the interventions seek to maintain a similar travel time to current, using clearways and signal priority. Service frequency would be increased to reflect the increased number of residents in Tauranga as a whole.
Option 2 – Active and micro-mode focus	Provides safe and connected facilities throughout the peninsula that people can access within a short distance from their homes and destinations. Recognises that the majority of trips within the peninsula are in range for many walking trips and most cycle and micro mode trips. With most origins and destinations located a short distance from an arterial cycling / micro-mobility arterial and high standard pedestrian connections, seeks to maximise the uptake of active and micro-modes. With the majority of mode shift expected to be to active modes, the PT interventions reflect option 1. PT seeks to maintain a similar travel time to current, using clearways and signal priority. Service frequency would be increased to reflect the increased number of residents in Tauranga as a whole with the view of moving people who can’t use active modes or those travelling between the peninsula and other parts of the city.
Option 3 – PT Focus	Provides a level of safety for active modes given the likely increases in traffic and buses and to provide the basic level of connectivity for cycle routes that is currently lacking, as for option 1. For PT, the interventions seek to achieve a significant shift to PT for trips within the Peninsula and for those originating elsewhere. Fare policy, infrastructure, priority measures and service design and frequency would be focused on PT taking a high proportion of both shorter and longer trips.
Option 4 – Active and PT Balance (preferred way forward)	This option recognises that a balanced investment in both PT and active/micro modes could have the best potential to move both internal and external trips away from single occupancy vehicles and create the best mode shift scenario. For active and micro-modes it looks to provide safe and connected facilities throughout the peninsula that people can access within a short to medium distance from their homes and destinations. This recognises that the majority of trips within the peninsula are in range for many walking trips and most cycle and micro mode trips. The PT interventions look to create frequent high quality PT facilities and services, that attract users travelling within the peninsula as well as those originating elsewhere.

46. The scale of growth required in Te Papa and the wider city means significant further investment in movement networks is needed. Relative to the recommended way forward, a basic investment package (i.e. the do minimum option) sufficient to ‘just keep pace’ with Te Papa peninsula and wider regional growth pressures and safety management issues will not go far enough to deliver appropriate transport levels of service as the population grows; nor will it avoid sufficiently avoid compounding land use related liabilities and inefficiencies for travel time, housing affordability, health outcomes, liveability or sustainability.

47. Transport networks strongly influence and underpin urban systems. The relative emphasis accorded to walking, cycling, micro-mobility, public transport, freight and general vehicles strongly shapes the character, performance and long term sustainability of urban areas. The urban form and multi-modal transport programme recommended as part of the IBC will result in far more holistic benefits for the city and community than other options considered, well aligned with central government policy in this direction, as well as local strategic direction for growth.

Detailed summary of the recommended multi-modal transport programme

48. The summary below is supported by the Te Papa multi-modal transport programme 10-year investment plans (walking, cycling, public transport and combined) contained in Attachment 3.

49. Further detail on the Transport Programme Indicative Costs is outlined in Attachment 5.

Walking

50. This option seeks to create a balanced transport network of public, active and micro modes. It was deemed that a much-improved active network is required to support this balanced approach. With a high coverage of improvements, it was considered to provide a medium level of service that focused around centres, corridors and activity hubs.

51. The approach seeks to upgrade approximately 75% of the footpaths sounding each of the commercial, medium density and suburban residential zone areas to enable a higher level of service (primarily footpath width and quality upgrades).

52. Within each option the City Centre is considered vital to invest in streetscape through footpath and urban realm improvements. On this assumption, the entire area will see upgrades with 60% delivered to a very high quality and the remaining 40% to a high quality.

53. Indicative walking costs: $110m, including:

(a) Higher quality city centre and commercial area paths to 3m wide

(b) Residential area paths to 2m wide

(d) Total of 110km of footpaths.

Cycling

54. Overall, this programme aims to reduce the distance that people travel from their home or destination to access high quality routes.

55. As for option 2, this option identifies two continuous and safe north-south connector for bikes and micro-mobility between the city centre and Greerton connecting the land-use nodes along the peninsula and recognising that one route does not serve all of the nodes well. Since it is likely that both would be on busy routes, they are expected to be separated from traffic to provide for safety and an adequate QOS. Optioneering on specific routes and whether the cycleways would be bi-directional or single direction would be determined through subsequent stages of work.

56. Even though the key arterial cycle corridors would be separated from traffic they are likely to be on busy routes, with trucks, buses and private cars. The separation between north-south routes towards the southern end of the peninsula is greater, with less scope to link people east to west. On this basis, one further north-south route away from traffic is proposed to provide an alternative link for recreational and less confident users and a logical link for trips originating outside the peninsula.

57. In terms of east west connectors, an arterial standard connector would be provided approximately every 1- 1.5km, linking the north-south connectors to key land uses. Again the specific routes and type of intervention would be identified through the next stage. It is likely that routes would be predominantly separated cycleways, recognising the volumes and potential speed of traffic. An east-west connector between the suburbs of Gate Pa and Merivale is considered as one of these key connectors. Due to the unsuitability of existing road routes through industrial areas between the suburbs, this requires inclusion of a connector from or around church road, which will likely require bridging of a gully.

58. High quality end of trip facilities would be rolled out at key centres, and also be a requirement of developments as they occurred.

59. In summary the option delivers:

· 2 North South commuter corridor

· 1 Coastal Recreational Shared Path

· 4 East West priority cycling corridors

· 2 Active transport bridges

· 23.061 KM of Primary cycling facilities

60. Indicative cycling costs: $150m

Public transport

61. This programme will provide a lift in the level of service for public transport within and through the peninsula to support active mode uptake by catering for longer distance trips and allowing seamless connections. It will be supported by priority measures, stops, and more frequent services.

62. Bus lanes are provided on Cameron Road creating a strong corridor that can readily be accessed by active modes. Clearways are provided on the secondary network to improve network reliability and allow easy travel away from the peninsula. Signalised intersections will be prioritised to reduce delay for public transport where required.

63. Wayfinding and real time information will be provisioned within the corridor to make services more user friendly. A programme to deliver shelters at each bus stop will be developed with high quality enclosed or semi enclosed shelters provided at key stops on the primary and secondary networks to support active mode interchange.

64. The Tauranga city centre public transport hub will be completed as a priority project allowing interchange between bus, ferry, and potentially inter-regional rail services. This will be a high-quality facility that allows access to e-mobility hire schemes to support the last-mile journey. Enclosed transport hubs will be constructed at Greerton and Tauranga Hospital which will include toilet facilities, bike lockers and sites for stalls or mobile food and coffee vendors.

65. Service frequency throughout the peninsula will steadily increase with services on Cameron Road (in proximity to transport hubs) running up to every 2.5minutes by 2050. New routes will provide strong connections to the rest of the city. City and Regional services will connect the peninsula to the rest of the Region and beyond. This will give households viable public transport options, allowing a significant increase in no-car and one-car households. Fares will be set at affordable levels but not so low as to discourage active mode transport for short trips (less than 5km).

66. In summary the option delivers:

Priority on Bus network
Primary network:	All Day
Secondary network	Peak Periods
Tertiary network	minimal
Bus Fares	Encourage demand for longer trips
Bus Service Frequencies	In proximity to transport hubs
Primary network	Up to 2.5mins[2]
Secondary network	5mins
Tertiary	10mins
Non-priority Infrastructure Projects
City Centre and Hospital Transport Hubs	Year 5, higher quality, contributes to civic function and amenity
Greerton and Hospital bus facilities	Year 10
Turret Road 4-lane + managed lanes*	To be confirmed through Transport System Plan project
Improvements to public transport access and connections to the Windermere education facility (Detailed Business Case required to consider options further).	Year 30
Shelter Programme	High Quality
Real time infrastructure + Wayfinding	Year 2

67. Indicative public transport costs: $138m Capex; $52m Opex

General interventions and soft side measures

68. Intersection improvements:

· Focused on improving actual and perceived level of safety for active users at key locations

· Focus on a high level of priority at intersections for public transport with high quality facilities for active and micro-modes,

· Restrict turning movements to left-in/left-out at uncontrolled intersections on key routes and some secondary routes to improve conditions for vulnerable users and improve reliability for buses

· Improve local road intersections and intersections around schools and centres with a focus on active and PT users

69. Neighbourhood greenways and street improvements:

· Early investment is upgrades of local routes to meet new street design guide

· Identifying sense of place around key centres and PT hubs with urban upgrades x4

70. Speed limits:

· Reduce speed limits on local streets and around urban centres (recognising place function)

· Ped / cycle crossing points

· Improve frequency and standard of pedestrian and cycle crossing points on all key routes and around key land-use and PT stops. Prioritise movements by active modes and de-priorities private vehicles to give cycle and micro-modes a time and directness advantage.

71. Soft side measures include:

· Road / congestion pricing could be feasible given investment in alternatives if changes in legislation were to occur. Consider charges to discourage through traffic from using the peninsula use Takitimu Drive and the expressway for through trips.

· Parking policy and pricing – link to bus fares to ensure price competitiveness of PT. Discourage parking on the city centre fringe through permit or pay schemes. Reallocate some car parking space to cycle parking.

· Travel plan requirements for new developments. Community, school and workplace travel plans

· Amend District Plan provisions to require parking and active mode end of trip facilities in new developments.

Indicative multi-modal programme timing

72. Proposed timing seeks to support and catalyse growth in conjunction with key development milestones and projected growth trajectories.

73. Over the next 10 years, the Active and PT balanced option will focus on the following transport related initiatives:

(a) Cameron Road Multi-modal Corridor, stages 1 and 2

(b) 15th Ave and Turret Road multi-modal and capacity upgrade

(i) 3 east-west priority cycling and micro-mobility routes

(ii) Intersection and safety improvements focussed on active users and public transport

(iii) Improved pedestrian and cycle crossings on key routes

(iv) Improvements to key local routes, including amenity, streetscape and footpaths around local centres

(d) City centre public transport hub

(e) Memorial coastal multimodal pathway and other recreational routes

74. Over the next 10 years and beyond, the Active and PT balanced option will focus on the following transport related initiatives:

(a) City Centre street upgrades and public realm: streetscape and waterfront development (short to medium term)

(b) Walking and cycling improvements to increase mode share throughout the wider peninsula

75. For the 30 year+ vision for Cameron Road, the Active and PT balanced option provides a focus on multi-modal transport provision, including dedicated bus lanes (providing for bus frequencies up to up to every 2.5minutes in core locations, connecting with the wider network) and with potential for future Bus Rapid Transit, trackless trams or similar to be provided through appropriate route protection. This level of intervention will subject to a further detailed business case.

76. Complex interventions where there is a high level of risk and/or uncertainty will be identified as requiring further work to be undertaken, such as a Detailed Business Case phase. Fast tracking of standard interventions that are relatively low risk will also be enabled by the IBC. These interventions will be derived from existing evidence base (e.g. other business cases) where the evidence and justification for the intervention and standard interventions has already been established.

77. A full outline of the potential benefits of the recommended option is contained within Attachment 4. As described above, the total indicative monetised benefit accrued from the combined urban form and multi-modal transport programme is in the realm of $1billion, with significant multi-modal transport benefits coming from:

(a) Health benefits

(b) Modal shift (walking, cycling and public transport) related benefits

(d) Trip reliability

(e) Vehicle operating savings

(f) Crash savings

(g) Environmental benefits (reduced relative CO₂ emissions)

Financial Considerations

78. As noted above and taking into account wider investment that will be required in infrastructure and community amenities, the indicative benefit cost ratio (BCR) associated with the recommended urban form and multi-modal transport programme is estimated to be between 1.5:1 and 2:1. A description of project benefits, including monetisation is included in Attachment 4.

Legal Implications / Risks

79. Risks of not acting includes inconsistency with central government direction, including emerging direction on growth as identified within the draft NPS-UD.

80. The risks of not acting also includes exacerbating the existing Tauranga housing shortage and associated economic and social costs.

Significance

81. Having regard to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, significance of this project is considered ‘high’. It affects a wide range of people; has moderate to high public interest; and will have a large consequence for the city in terms of growth over time. As outlined within this report, community, stakeholder and mana whenua engagement is ongoing, including opportunity to provide feedback in relation to aspects of the urban form and transport recommendations developed as part of the IBC. Further opportunities for engagement will also be provided through the Long-Term Plan process and project delivery stages.

Next Steps

82. Subject to Council’s approval of the IBC being submitted to for NZTA approval, the next steps in this process are:

(a) The IBC is submitted to NZTA’s Operational Policy, Planning and Performance Delegations Committee on 14 May 2020

(b) Subject to the Operational Policy, Planning and Performance Delegations Committee approval, the IBC is submitted to NZTA’s Investment and Operations Committee (date to be confirmed)

(c) Subject to the Investment and Operations Committee approval, the IBC is submitted to NZTA’s Board on 18 June 2020, alongside the UFTI programme Business Case.

(d) Subject all approvals, planning for standard interventions and detailed business cases commences from August onwards.

Attachments

1. Te Papa Indictive Business Case Summary Document - A11413470 ⇩

2. Te Papa Indictive Business Case Urban Form Preferred Way Forward – Centre Plus Plan - A11407317 ⇩

3. Te Papa Indictive Business Case Multi-Modal Transport Programme 10 Year Investment Plans - A11407318 ⇩

4. Te Papa Indictive Business Case Benefits - A11407319 ⇩

5. Te Papa Indicative Business Case – Indicative Project Costs - A11411386 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

10.2 Annual Plan Review Process

File Number: A11427798

Author: Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide Council with a summary of the proposed approach and framework for a revised approach to the 2020/21 Annual Plan taking into account the significantly altered financial scenarios that COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Endorses the approach proposed through this report to review the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan.

(b) Requests that staff report back on options for a revised draft 2020/21 Annual Plan once the review is substantively progressed.

Executive Summary

2. This report provides an overview of the approach and framework for delivering the 2020/21 Annual Plan in a manner which reflects the impacts of COVID-19 on Council.

3. The paper outlines workstreams which are underway to consider:

· Reducing the level of capital expenditure

· Reducing operating expenditure

· Arrangements for external funding or off-balance sheet financing

4. While not covered in detail in this paper, there are two further workstreams underway which will also inform the development of the final 2020/21 Annual Plan. These are:

· Non-funding operational expenditure

· Amending the acceptable planning target for the debt-to-revenue ratio.

5. These workstreams will help inform the development of a prudent, sustainable and affordable 2020/21 Annual Plan and will also help inform ongoing engagement with partners regarding the impact of COVID-19 on Council’s finances and service capacity.

6. Information is also provided about different scenarios and issues for the timing of, and potential further consultation on, the final Annual Plan.

Background

7. A report was presented to the 21 April 2020 Council meeting outlining the potential impacts of a combination of COVID-19 and Council’s underlying financial position on the 2020/21 Annual Plan. Please refer to that report for background that is equally relevant to this report.

8. On receiving that report, Council resolved to seek further direction from the Executive on a response to those potential impacts.

9. This report provides Council with an overview of the work the Executive are progressing to deliver on the decision of Council.

Creating a new budget in an uncertain world

10. The report to the 21 April Council meeting indicated that next year’s revenue could be anywhere from $40 million to $77 million less than currently budgeted in the draft Annual Plan. These figures were based on initial high-level modelling under two different scenarios, one with significant restrictions on movement, gatherings and social distancing for the whole of 2020/21, and one for six months of such restrictions followed by six months of lesser impact.

11. Such impacts on projected revenues have two distinct (but related) consequences. Firstly, because of Council’s debt-to-revenue ratio constraints, reduced revenue means reduced debt capacity. This means that Council has less opportunity to use debt-financing to either pay for capital expenditure projects or, as some councils have publicly stated they intend to do, to fund operating expenses. Secondly, in order to create a ‘balanced budget^{^[3]}’ reduced operating revenue means Council needs to reduce its operating expenses to match.

The ‘levers’ available

12. In looking to significantly revise the 2020/21 budget to meet the necessary parameters, there are a number of options available. These options are not mutually exclusive; it is likely that any optimal budget-setting process will include elements of many of the options.

13. The options available which the Executive are proceeding to focus on include, but may not be limited to:

· Reducing the level of capital expenditure

To reduce cash outflow and therefore debt levels, and also to reduce consequent operating expenditure (‘pure’ operating expenditure as well as debt servicing and depreciation costs).

· Reducing operating expenditure

To reduce cash outflow and, with reduced revenue, any need to fund operations from debt.

· Arrangement of external funding or off-balance sheet financing

This could be an injection of funding for capital projects or for operating expenses or both and could ease the debt burden or the balanced budget burden or both.

· Non-Funding operational expenditure

This creates a short-term exemption from funding expenditure such as depreciation. However, it also reduces the cash available to balance against debt and therefore results in a net increase of debt. Legal requirements of prudent financial management would need to be considered.

· Amending the acceptable planning target for the debt-to-revenue ratio

A movement from the current target of 235% to the maximum allowable under debt covenants of 250% would provide some limited ability to increase debt (whether related to more capital projects, reduction of funded depreciation, or the need to fund operating expenditure) for the same amount of projected revenue.

14. Combined together the above constitutes a significant body of work. That body of work has twin objectives.

15. Firstly, there is the need to develop an Annual Plan for the 2020/21 year which represents prudent financial management, is sustainable for Council and its community, is affordable for Council and its community, and is based on the best available information at the time it is adopted.

16. Secondly, this body of work will provide a more complete suite of information to base further engagement with partners on regarding the implications of COVID-19 disruption on Council’s finances and service capacity.

17. The next sections of this report consider the first three of the ‘levers’ noted above.

lever 1 – Reducing the level of capital expenditure

18. A workstream is underway to complete an assessment of all capital projects to understand their priority, delivery impact of not proceeding, and any exit costs.

19. A two-stage assessment process has been approved by the Executive.

20. The first stage involves a high-level, multi-criteria analysis of all projects considering items such as:

· Consenting or other legal matters

· Health and safety matters

· Implications for the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities

· Reputational implications

· Alignment with Crown Infrastructure Partners’ objectives, i.e. short-term and long-term impacts on the local economy

· Whether there is a sub-regional, regional or national benefit or expectation

· Internal capability/capacity effects

· Impact on residential and/or business land supply

· Other projects' dependencies.

21. The second stage involves more detailed consideration of projects that are already in the construction phase or are planned for business case development, design or implementation in the 2020/21 year. The more detailed consideration will involve considering:

· Planned spend in the 2020/21 Annual Plan, spend to date, and projected future years’ spend

· The funding/financial benefits of a mothball, slow-down, re-scope or cancellation

· Capital cost trade-off with operational benefits

· The consequences of mothball, slow-down, re-scope or cancellation on:

o Service levels

o Contractual consequences

o Reputational consequences

o Reactivation resources and other market factors if financial circumstances change

· Whether there are realistic alternative options.

22. While this work is being completed staff are ensuring that any new contracts include non-penalty exit clauses which enable Council to cease, defer or change the timing of capital related work with minimal negative financial implications for Council.

Lever 2 – reducing operating expenditure

23. The plan to review operating expenditure involves the following broad steps:

· Agree on ‘revenue disruption scenarios’ to base service and financial modelling on

· Identify the services^{^[4]} that Council must provide regardless of revenue disruption scenario

· Identify services that are ‘recommended to continue’ and assess for savings that don’t negatively impact service delivery.

· Identify a series of criteria to assess what other services could or should be provided under different revenue disruption scenarios

· Assess all remaining services against that series of criteria

· Identify the budgeted costs of services assessed under the previous step

· Ensure that a similar process has been conducted by Council’s CCOs.

These steps are expanded upon below.

Step 1. Agree disruption scenarios

24. It is planned to use the three disruption scenarios that were used for the initial high-level modelling and referred to in the 21 April Council report. These are:

· Base Line Scenario 1 – No or minimal disruption

o This scenario is effectively the existing draft Annual Plan service levels

o It equates to a full capital budget of approximately $200 million

o It is broadly consistent with Bay Venues Limited’s ‘optimistic’ scenario

· Scenario 2 – Six months of revenue disruption (similar to Alert Level 3 or Alert Level 2)

o Under the high-level modelling, this scenario reduces income by approximately $40 million and permits a capital expenditure budget of approximately $100 million to $110 million

o It is broadly consistent with BVL’s ‘moderate’ scenario

· Scenario 3 – Full year of revenue disruption (similar to Alert Level 3 or Alert Level 2)

o Under the high-level modelling, this scenario reduces income by $70 million to $80 million and permits a capital budget of less than $20 million

o It is broadly consistent with BVL’s ‘conservative’ scenario.

25. The scenarios provide points on a spectrum which are useful for planning purposes. They will serve as a methodology to consider scale and extent of change and associated implications from an expenditure point of view. The supporting analysis which is completed will provide information to elected members to enable decisions on levels of service to be made. (As noted in paragraph 12, the likely outcome is that there will be a mix of the different levers to achieve a prudent budget not just operational expenditure).

Step 2. Identify ‘must do’ services

26. This step involves identifying the essential services that will be provided in 2020/21 regardless of revenue disruption levels, and then identifying the associated budgeted costs.

27. The completion of this step will draw heavily on those services considered ‘essential’ during the past four weeks of Alert Level 4 lockdown and on work done through the COVID Planning Team, the business continuity programme, and at a wider level by the SOLGM / LGNZ / DIA-led Local Government Covid19 Response Unit. It will also include consideration of the legislative obligations of Council.

28. It is recognised that the definition of ‘essential’ for planning purposes for a full year (or six months) may be slightly different to that considered essential for an initial four-week period.

29. Identification of the associated budgeted costs for these activities will be undertaken by the Finance team to produce a first-cut of figures for discussion purposes.

Step 3. Identify ‘recommended to continue’ services and assess

30. This step is to identify services that are not ‘must do’ services but are of a nature that they are considered by Executive as ‘recommended to continue’.

31. These services will be assessed to identify any practicable savings which could be made temporarily or permanently, without negatively impacting service delivery or outcomes in any substantive way.

Step 4. Identify criteria to assess other services against

32. This step involves the establishment of some simple criteria against which to judge whether services should continue to be provided in whole or in part in circumstances of Council’s limited financial capacity.

33. The criteria below have been approved by the Executive. They may be modified through the process as there may be learnings about additional or changed criteria as the work is completed.

· Ability to and impact of ‘mothballing’ the service (taking into account complexity, risk, and reputation impact)

· How quickly could the service be reactivated if financial circumstances change?

· How quickly could the service be reactivated if disruption levels change?

· How difficult is it to reacquire technical skills if current resourcing is disrupted?

· What is the direct short-term impact on the community (or parts of the community) of reducing or removing the service? (Consider 4 well-beings impact.)

· What is the long-term impact on the community (or parts of the community) of reducing or removing the service?

· What are the impacts of reducing or removing the service on social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the community?

· What is (ordinarily) the funding source for the activity and is that likely to continue under the modelled disruption scenarios?

· If funded by an element of user fees, how quickly would user fees ‘scale up’ if the service was resumed?

Step 5. Assess services against the criteria above

34. All services, other than those identified as ‘must do’ or ‘essential’ under Step 2, or ‘recommended to continue’ under Step 3 will be assessed against the Step 4 criteria.

35. In the first instance, this assessment will be a desk-top exercise based on organisational knowledge and any easily available relevant documents. It will therefore be a subjective review.

36. Based on this work the Executive will create a list, in an outline priority order based on the assessment against the criteria, of services where a more detailed assessment will be conducted. The results of these more detailed reviews will be presented to Council as potential proposals under the different revenue disruption scenarios.

37. In making the initial assessments, the following practical matters will be considered and documented so that decision-makers understand the limitations of this form of review:

· any ‘known unknowns’ in the assessment of the service

· any identified knowledge gaps of the assessors in making an assessment of a particular service (flagging the possibility of ‘unknown unknowns’)

· the overall ‘confidence rating’ in the assessment using a simple high / medium / low scale.

38. The Step 5 assessment will start with externally-focused services and then proceed to support services. This is because the scale of (or need for) some support services may be dependent on the extent to which external services are planned for. An understanding of the external services is therefore useful when assessing the internal services.

39. Therefore, there may be a need for Council direction on options for the continuation of some external services before the internal service assessments can be completed.

Step 6. Identify budgeted cost of services assessed above

40. This Step will largely run in parallel with Step 5 because of the inter-dependent nature of ‘service definition’ and ‘budget identification’.

41. As with the assessment of services, the initial identification of budgeted costs and revenues will be largely a desk-top exercise undertaken by the Finance team. There will be significant judgement involved, particularly in the split of costs between different services provided by the same team.

42. Consideration will be given to the costs of delivering the service partially and also differently than that provided for in the current draft 2020/21 AP.

43. The identification of budgeted costs will need to consider direct costs first and principally. The identification and attribution of allocated overhead costs is significantly more difficult and will be part of a second tier of financial assessment (once any changes to internal services are modelled to general satisfaction).

Step 7. CCOs

44. Step 7 will operate in parallel with Steps 1 to 6 and is included here largely for completeness. We are aware that Bay Venues Limited is undertaking modelling under three scenarios that are consistent with those listed in Step 1 above.

45. Tourism Bay of Plenty and the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust are undertaking similar exercises.

Implementing the operational expenditure review plan

46. Staff have created a template to enable the process outlined above to be rolled out across the services of Council. Pilot assessments are underway to check the methodology is practical.

47. Once the template has been confirmed through the pilot process staff will proceed to implement across all services other than the ‘must do’ services identified in Step 2.

lever 3 – arrangements for external funding or OFF-BALANCE sheet financing

48. Alongside the detailed reassessment of Council’s capital and operating expenditure, there is significant effort being invested in progressing opportunities for external funding injection and/or off balance-sheet financing.

49. The work underway includes:

· Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s urban growth projects request submitted through the SmartGrowth partnership (in excess of $3 billion for TCC related projects)

· Crown Infrastructure Partners’ ‘shovel-ready’ projects application approved by Council for over $1 billion

· Growth Councils Consortium (TCC, Hamilton City and Queenstown District Council) engagement with central government raising issues and seeking investment

· Discussions with Treasury to identify areas for support including option of revenue under-write

· Exploring other opportunities to work with partners to hold infrastructure debt off balance sheet or attract external funding / financing.

impact on consultation and adoption of the final 2020/21 annual plan

50. Consultation on the draft Annual Plan commenced on Friday 3 April and closed on Sunday 3 May. Hearings and deliberations are scheduled to follow in late May and early June, with adoption of the final Annual Plan scheduled for 30 June.

51. It is likely that Council will need to re-consult on its draft annual plan before final adoption. These reasons, at different levels of impact, include:

· The potential for other revenue to be significantly different to what was consulted on

· The potential for the capital programme to be significantly different to what was consulted on

· The potential for an injection of funding and/or projects through central government processes that was not envisaged in the draft

· The potential for significant changes to levels of service (which may trigger the statutory need for an LTP amendment process).

· The potential for rates increases to be significantly different to what was consulted on.

52. Staff have prepared three scenarios of process and timeframes for the final 2020/21 Annual Plan. The outcomes of all the workstreams outlined above will directly impact on which of these pathways is most appropriate for Council to follow. The scenarios are presented in Attachment A in a detailed table with specified timeframes. (The timeframes are tight and are likely to move out. They are provided to give an indication of the key steps and times).

53. In summary, the three scenarios are presented below.

54. Scenario 1 – Update current information

· Updating the current annual plan costs and revenues

· Update the current consultation document with new information

· A short two-week consultation on the new information (pending formal legal opinion as to whether this would suffice)

· Later hearings (June) and deliberations (July)

· Adoption on 31 July 2020.

55. Scenario 2 – Revised annual plan

· Involves a complete revision of the annual plan that is currently out for consultation and then development of a new draft plan

· Reporting the new draft plan to council

· Re-writing the consultation document based on the new plan and information.

· Consultation would run for one month as per S82 of LGA (pending formal legal opinion as to whether a shorter period would suffice)

· Later hearings (mid-July) and deliberations (late-July)

· Adoption mid-August 2020.

Note: The time constraints for this scenario are very tight due to the need for having to consult for one month.

56. It should be noted that for scenarios 1 and 2 above staff will likely prepare three financial scenarios of rating levels and the associated level of capital expenditure. While all three scenarios could be included in the consultation document, under the legislation Council will need to select one to act as its ‘proposal’ to the community.

57. Scenario 3 – Long-term plan amendment (“LTPA”)

· This would involve a comprehensive review of the impacts of COVID-19 on the remaining seven years of the current LTP. This is potentially a further 6-8 weeks’ work.

· All work would then need to be audited by Audit NZ

· An LTPA consultation document would need to be produced and audited

· Consultation would run for one month as per S93A of LGA

· Then hearings and deliberations.

· This scenario would have an adoption date of 30 September 2020.

Impact of timing of Annual Plan adoption on rates invoicing

58. Ordinarily Council sets the rates at the same time as adopting the Annual Plan. This then provides four to six weeks to undertake preparatory work before invoicing ratepayers in early August.

59. An adoption date of 31 July does not provide this lead-in time and therefore would delay the rates invoicing.

60. Section 50 of the Local Government (Rating) Act allows for Council to invoice 25% of the previous year’s rates if it has not been able to adopt the Annual Plan and set the rates 14 days before the instalment is to be invoiced. This allows Council to ensure some cashflow even if the Annual Plan is delayed. Section 50 could be applied in the event of an Annual Plan adoption in late July or in August, or an LTPA process culminating in a September adoption.

Significance

61. The matters considered in this report have a high degree of significance. The decisions recommended in this report are process-related and are of lower significance. Once the reviews contemplated by this report are completed and Council has made decisions based on them it is highly likely that further engagement with the community will ensue.

Next Steps

62. Staff will undertake the reviews described above and continue work on the other ‘lever’ workstreams, and report back to Council in due course for consideration and decision-making.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - Annual Plan - Indicative work and timeframe scenarios - A11427858 ⇩

Cycling network options	Summary
1. Business as Usual /Do minimum	No significant changes made to extending the existing Tauranga cycle network. New greenfield development and the urbanisation of existing rural roads within development areas will enable development of new on-road and off-road cycling facilities. These improvements would be delivered by developers and would increase the length of the current cycling network where cycling is required (as per the Council’s Infrastructure Development Code).
2. Painted Cycle Lanes	Developing a cycle network based on painted cycle lanes. The network is based on providing painted cycle lanes on existing arterial and collector roads. This programme would enable an additional 108km^{^[11]} of on-road painted cycle lanes. Most of the improvements are concentrated within Papamoa, Bayfair and Otumoetai, where existing painted cycle lanes are not currently present. This programme does not include any new off-road cycling facilities.
3. Neighbourhood access	This programme is focused on developing a neighbourhood-based cycling networks to enable access schools and other facilities. Traffic calming (speed limit reviews, speed humps) would be introduced on all local streets and collectors throughout Tauranga, to complement painted cycle lanes. There would be no new investment on arterial corridors. This option includes an initial 230 km of traffic calming (as most local streets are not included in the TCM). However, a wider rollout would be required to ensure appropriate treatments were provided on all local roads.
4. Cycling connections and area access	This programme is based on developing a cycle network by connecting areas together, mainly where employment and educational facilities are located. This programme includes: · 50 km of high quality off-road shared use walking and cycling paths · 49km of on-road cycling lanes within existing road corridors, generally of a good quality but with regular intersections and vehicle crossings · traffic calming on local streets in selected areas
5. High quality connections	This network programme is similar to Option 4 whereby the focus is enabling cycling access to key employment and education hubs within Tauranga. The difference is that the quality of the cycling paths would increase with a view of providing separation between cyclists and other modes on all key cycle arterials. This programme would deliver approximately 100km of new and separated cycling paths and lanes to provide greater access to key employment hubs within the city.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

10.7 Deliberations on and adoption of the Coastal Structures Policy 2020

File Number: A11090471

Author: Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To approve options in response to submissions to the draft Coastal Structures Policy and adopt the Coastal Structures Policy 2020 (attachment one).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the Coastal Structures Policy 2020 (attachment 1), which includes the following changes from the draft consulted policy:

(i) adding a requirement that privately maintained protection structures cannot impede public access, particularly where they are located on an esplanade reserve; or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the reserve

(ii) replacing the provision allowing the construction of new protection structures on council land with a new clause that “no new private protection structures are permitted on council land”

(iii) add “or fund” to draft clause 5.1.4 stating that council does not build or maintain structures where the primary benefit is promotion of private or commercial interests, or the protection of private property or commercial interests.

(iv) retaining the current statement that any private protection structure built or maintained under this policy must be up to current council standard and at the sole cost of the private property owner

(v) replacing “moving” with “relocating” in clause 5.2.4 relating to alternative options to hard protection structures

(vi) moving reference to consideration of mana whenua values and connection to the area when making management decisions to a separate clause

(vii) adding “effects on historic heritage sites and values” to schedule one and require schedule of criteria to be considered for both hard and soft protection options

(viii) adding Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 to the list of relevant legislation

(ix) specifying in a policy note that resource consent is required from Bay of Plenty Regional Council and that all coastal structures need to consider regional coastal and environmental plans

(x) specifying in a policy note that new hard protection structures may require building consent

(xi) specifying in a policy note that council-owned protection structures are not adequate provision to protect private land from natural hazards as per section 71 of the Building Act 2004

(xii) add an additional criterion to schedule one requiring consideration of funding availability when making decisions on coastal structures

(b) Notes that no changes are proposed to the overall intent of the policy purpose, scope and general principle to prioritise protection of significant council activity and assets.

(c) Delegates authority to the General Manager Strategy and Growth to make minor editorial changes to the Coastal Structures Policy 2020 for correction or clarification.

Executive Summary

2. Council’s current 2006 Coastal Structures Policy required review to ensure that it aligns with the current policy and legislative framework. In particular, the review looked at how council could better manage assets and activities protected by a structure, and the role of council in protecting private property. Consultation on the draft Coastal Structures Policy 2019 (draft policy as consulted) was undertaken in October and November 2019. A copy of the draft policy as consulted is appended at attachment two.

3. This report provides an opportunity for Council to deliberate on all submissions received and to agree an option to address issues raised in the submissions prior to adopting the final Coastal Structures Policy 2020. A summary of submissions is appended at attachment three.

Background

4. The 2006 Coastal Structures Policy responded to a regional council requirement that all structures in the coastal marine area must have a resource consent. As such, this council required a policy that determined which structures we owned, would continue to maintain, and therefore required a regional resource consent. Under the current policy, council accepts ownership and future management of structures that provide “community benefit” regardless of land ownership. Council will not maintain structures where the substantial benefit is the promotion of private or commercial interests.

5. Changes in the policy and legislative framework since 2006 mean it is appropriate that Council re-evaluates the continued existence and maintenance of hard protection structures (seawalls, groynes, rock revetments). Recent Ministry for the Environment (MfE) advice recommends councils develop flexible policies that ensure management of protection structures is responsive to climate change hazards. This reflects the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02) requirement that councils plan “effectively for the future management of its assets”. Similarly, the ongoing maintenance of structures at risk from coastal effects may not meet the financial prudence test in the LGA 02.

6. The draft policy adopted by the Policy Committee at its July 2019 meeting reflected this policy and legislative framework by;

· clarifying the policy purpose as guiding the current and future management of council-owned coastal structures (both hard protection structures and other structures with recreational benefits such as jetties and wharves)

· confirming the purpose of hard protection structures as protecting council activity and not to guard against future sea level rise

· providing a means to prioritise the protection of our most significant activity and assets and allowing for decisions not to maintain or remove some structures

· recognising that a council-owned protection structure may provide secondary benefit to adjacent private land.

7. In providing a means to prioritise investment in protection structures, the draft policy requires that we first consider if the asset or activity could be protected through alternative approaches such as soft protection or managed retreat. For example, a structure was not used to protect the surf lifesaving club building from erosion on a Kāpiti beach and instead it was agreed to relocate the building to a less erosion prone location. The activity (surf lifesaving building) can continue without the need for a protection structure. The draft policy allows for similar decisions in Tauranga. This financially prudent approach means that council may not maintain protection structures where the activity or asset is of low significance.

8. The policy purpose and scope do not reference protection of private property. The draft policy retains reference to councils having no legal obligation to protect private property from naturally occurring erosion. However, the draft policy proposed two new provisions that would allow private landowners to assume maintenance of existing structures (where council has decided not to maintain) and consideration of requests to build private protection structures on council-owned land where it was necessary for the protection of private property. This is discussed further below as part of issue two.

9. These changes were incorporated into a draft policy for consultation. The consultation document provided respondents with the option of answering just two questions or also providing a lengthier written submission. A total of 75 submissions were received during the consultation period (October and November 2019). The majority (39) were in support with 12 in opposition. The remaining submissions were neutral or commented on issues outside the scope of the policy review.

10. Staff have analysed the submissions and provide recommendations to Council for the matters raised through the submission process.

Strategic / Statutory Context

11. The LGA 02 requires councils to consider the “interests of future as well as current communities” and to plan “effectively for the future management of its assets”. This includes consideration of climate change effects.

12. In making decisions on coastal structures, this council needs to be aware of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) and regional planning documents. In particular, the NZCPS discourages private protection structures on public land. The draft policy as consulted is inconsistent with that principle. This inconsistency is noted in issue two. Bay of Plenty Regional Council (submission number 49) have recommended including explicit reference to the Regional Coastal Environment Plan in the policy.

13. Separate to this policy review, council is undertaking a number of related projects to meet obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA 91), district and regional plans, and national policy statements. This includes the recent coastal hazards study, the resilience project, and plan change development. The draft policy is not a response to this work.

14. The Auditor-General has recommended that councils better reference climate change in their next long-term plans. While the draft policy addresses climate change related issues, the draft policy is not in itself a climate change policy (or a policy on adapting to sea level rise). Council will need to consider its response to climate change in preparing the next long-term plan.

Legal Implications / Risks

15. This policy is developed under the LGA 2002, particularly the requirements of section 14 that councils plan “effectively for the future management of its assets” and meeting the needs of current and future communities. Overall legal responsibility for coastal protection works is shared between different levels of government and potentially seven different statutes. This has created a level of “legal uncertainty”^{^[13]}. Responding to this uncertainty is an emerging issue for local government.

16. In the absence of clear direction, all decision-making with regards to coastal structures should be well-evidenced and follow correct procedure to mitigate any risk of future legal challenge. While this policy review addresses some of that legal uncertainty, it does not completely mitigate the risk of future court decisions regarding coastal erosion and coastal protection going against council. The recommended changes to the draft policy suggested in this report have been subject to legal review with subsequent advice incorporated into this report. In particular, a statement has been added to the draft policy (draft clause 5.1.6) noting that it should not be presumed a structure currently in existence and maintained will exist and be maintained in perpetuity. If Council resolves changes to the recommended policy it may be necessary to seek further legal review.

17. Councils also have obligations to protect reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 and to maintain reserves in accordance with their purpose and classification. One of the purposes of esplanade reserves is provision of public access to the water. Protecting an esplanade reserve may require the installation of a protection structure. The relationship between this requirement and the RMA 91 rule that esplanade reserves should support the natural functioning of the coastline is unclear. As such, schedule one of the draft policy reflects the need to ensure consideration of the purpose of the reserve when deciding management options.

18. During the policy review process, staff identified a risk that private landowners may claim that an existing council-owned and maintained protection structure is “adequate provision” to protect land from natural hazard risk in order to obtain a building consent under section 71 of the Building Act 2004. The issuing of a building consent based on the existence of a council-owned structure could imply council would continue to maintain a protection structure even when it no longer protects a council activity or asset. This is discussed further in the options section below.

19. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA 11) states that nobody owns or is capable of owning the common marine and coastal area. However, MACA 11 allows for retention of interest in private structures as personal property, including those structures maintained by councils prior to MACA 11. Therefore, Council needs to be aware that the policy does not apply to coastal land (land below the mean high water spring line) per se but coastal structures in the ownership of council.

20. Councils are not legally required to protect neighbouring land from naturally occurring erosion. However, private landowners may have expectations of council support or that the council protection structure providing default protection to their property will be maintained in perpetuity.

21. Any potential health and safety risk arising from a decision not to maintain a structure will require management at the time.

Options Analysis

22. Paragraphs 24 to 47 below outline options and recommendations in response to the issues raised in submissions (see attachment two for summary of all submissions). Recommended options are highlighted in the draft policy for adoption (attachment one). In analysing feedback received on the draft policy, five issues were identified where consideration should be given to amending the policy to reflect feedback received in the submissions.

23. The issues highlighted in submissions include;

· Support for the policy review

· Approach to the protection of private land adjacent to reserves and other council land

· Funding of protection structures with private benefit

· Criteria for maintenance decisions

· Consenting.

24. Submitters also commented on issues outside the scope of the policy. These issues included objections to city plan rules, Mauao base track repairs, the coastal hazards mapping work, and historic encroachments into the esplanade reserve. Responses to these issues are included in the attached submissions summary. However, no amendments to the draft policy are required.

Issue one: Support for the policy review

25. Council maintains just under 15,000 metres of structures around the coastline. The overall purpose of the policy is to guide the current and future management of council-owned coastal structures. Rather than treating all coastal structures equally (as is under the 2006 policy), the draft policy proposes that management decisions for protection structures require consideration of the significance of the asset or activity protected by a structure. Similarly, management decisions for all other structures will be informed by an assessment of the significance of the structure. Therefore, under the draft policy, structures that protect an activity of low significance (such as an unconnected walkway), or other structures of low significance, will not automatically be maintained and may be removed. This approach ensures a financially prudent and future focused approach to the management of coastal structures.

26. We included a specific question in the consultation material asking whether respondents agreed that we should prioritise management of structures that protect our most essential public assets. Of the 53 respondents who answered this question, 46 were in support.

27. In response to issue one, Council could choose to continue the policy review, retain the existing 2006 policy, develop a policy that requires council to maintain all structures in its ownership, or to ensure rates funding is available to maintain all structures. The advantages and disadvantages of these four options are outlined in table one below.

Table 1: Options and recommendation in response to issue one

· ·

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
1.1	Continue with policy review (recommended)	· Aligns with the LGA 02 requirement for future-focused asset management, including climate change effects. · Financially prudent approach to protect our most significant assets and activity.	· Not all structures will be maintained, including structures that may have a secondary benefit of protecting adjacent private property
1.2	Retain current 2006 policy	· Greater certainty that all structures will be maintained	· May not meet the LGA 02 requirement for future-focused asset management, including the impact of climate change · Maintenance of structures at risk from erosion may require additional budget for repair · Limited flexibility to make financially prudent decisions not to maintain structures at risk of erosion and other coastal effects · All ratepayers potentially funding structures that have limited public benefit but secondary benefit to protect private property.
1.3	Policy should ensure that council prioritises the maintenance of all structures in its ownership	· Greater certainty that all structures will be maintained
1.4
Policy should ensure that council prioritises the maintenance of all structures in its ownership through rates funding	· Certainty that all structures will be maintained and funded through general rates.

Issue two: Approach to the protection of private property adjacent to reserves and other council land (draft section 5.3)

Private maintenance of council-owned coastal structures

28. The draft policy requires council to prioritise the maintenance of those protection structures that protect significant assets or activity. This means some protection structures will be accorded a low priority for maintenance, or simply not maintained. However, some structures protecting council esplanade reserves or other activities and assets have a secondary benefit in protecting private property from erosion. As such, the draft policy proposed allowing private landowners to take over maintenance of protection structures no longer required by council, but which provided necessary protection to their property.

29. Draft clause 5.3.2 states that “Where it has been determined that the existing hard protection structure does not protect a significant activity or asset or where the primary benefit is the protection of private property or commercial interests, Council may enter into maintenance or ownership agreements with affected private property owners”. Submissions supported allowing private maintenance of protection structures, however, some submitters expressed concern that this may lead to privatisation of public space.

30. With regards to private maintenance of existing structures, Council could decide to either retain the draft policy provision allowing maintenance of existing structures, add an additional requirement that structures should not interfere with public access or other purpose of the reserve, or remove the draft provision. The advantages and disadvantages of each option is outlined in table two below.

Table 2: Options and recommendation in response to allowing private maintenance of structure

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
2.1.1.	Allow for private maintenance of protection structures (as consulted on in draft policy)	· Flexibility for council staff to work with private landowners on issues of accessibility. · Provides greater certainty for private landowners adjacent to reserve land potentially at risk from erosion.	· Does not address concerns about potential loss of public access
2.1.2	Add “so long as the structure does not impede public access or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the reserve” to draft clauses 5.1.5 and 5.3.3 allowing private maintenance of protection structures (recommended)	· Allows council to work with landowners to maintain existing protection structures on council reserves that benefit adjacent landowners. · Private maintenance of existing structures may be undertaken using council’s existing resource consent(s) for this purpose. · Ensures that any structures do not impede public access or the purpose of the reserve	· Nil
2.1.3	Do not allow private maintenance of protection structures	· Eliminates concerns that private maintenance of structures may limit public access or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the reserve	· Some landowners may be unable to protect their land from erosion or coastal effects without maintenance structure

New private protection structures on council land

31. The 2006 policy states that no private structures (either hard protection structures or structures with recreational benefits like jetties) can be constructed on public land. This is consistent with council’s own Encroachments onto Reserves Policy (under review), the NZCPS, and the purpose of esplanade reserves as defined in the RMA 91. The draft policy as consulted proposed to relax the 2006 rule. New private protection structures on council land would be permitted where necessary to protect private property. (The draft policy would continue to prohibit private structures with mainly recreational or amenity benefits, defined as “other structures” in the draft policy.)

32. Submitters were invited to answer the question “Do you agree with allowing private landowners to take over the ownership and maintenance of a hard protection structure, or build a hard protection structure on Council land, to protect their property?”. Of the 53 people who answered this question, 27 were in support (26 against). This includes private property owners who would be affected by any future decision not to maintain a seawall.

33. The draft policy as consulted included a clause stating that “Council may allow the construction of new hard protection structures on Council-owned land to protect private property”. Comments on this topic considered issues around potential loss of public access to esplanade reserves and council abdicating its responsibility to maintain seawalls. In response the issue of new private protection structures on council land, Council could choose to retain the clauses as in the draft policy as consulted, amend to note that new private protection structures cannot impede public access, or continue to prohibit new private protection structures. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Table 3: Options and recommendation in response to allowing new private protection structures on council land

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.2.1

Allow new private protection structures on council land (as consulted on in draft policy)

· Flexibility for council staff to work with private landowners on issues of accessibility.

· Provides greater certainty for private landowners adjacent to reserve land potentially at risk from erosion.

· May create risk of legal liability or expectations of future financial support by allowing new protection structures on our land

· Does not address concerns about potential loss of public access

· No guarantee that a private landowner would be granted consent for a new private protection structure (regardless of the land it would sit on).

· Inconsistent with national and regional planning frameworks discouraging new hard protection structures

· Inconsistent with council’s Encroachments on to Reserves Policy

· Potential for inconsistent management approach where we allow private structures in one part of the city while removing them elsewhere

2.2.2

Delete provisions allowing new private protection structures and replace with a new clause stating, “No new protection structures with a primarily private or commercial benefit are permitted on Council-owned or administered land.”.

(recommended)

· Aligns with national and regional planning frameworks discouraging new hard protection structures

· Addresses concerns about potential loss of public access

· Reduces potential for inconsistent management approach across the city whereby council requires removal of structures in one location but allows them elsewhere.

· Consistent with current policy and council’s Encroachments on to Reserves Policy

· Consistent with the purpose of esplanade reserves in the RMA 91

· Some landowners may be unable to protect their land from erosion if they are unable to build protection structures on council land

· May hinder the issuing of some building consents where the building work is on land likely to be affected by natural hazards

2.2.3

Add “so long as the structure does not impede public access or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the reserve” to draft clause 5.2.5 allowing new private protection structures on council land

(recommended only if option 2.2.2 not supported)

· Provides greater certainty for private landowners adjacent to reserve land potentially at risk from erosion.

· Addresses concerns about potential loss of public access.

· Consistent with part of the purpose of esplanade reserves in the RMA 91

· May create risk of legal liability or financial support by allowing protection structure on council land

34. If Council decided to allow private protection structures on council land, a note should be added to the policy that council reserves its right to be consulted as an affected party as part of any resource consent application. Landowner permission for a new protection structure granted through the policy should not be interpreted as landowner permission for resource consent purposes.

Issue 3: Funding arrangements for privately maintained structures (draft clauses 5.1.2 and 5.2.6)

35. Councils do not have to fund or build structures to protect private property or commercial interests. The draft policy as consulted only implied that council does not fund private protection structures. Other provisions in the draft policy as consulted state that hard protection structures maintained or built under relevant provisions of the policy “must be maintained to an approved standard at the cost of the private landowner and be consistent with current council policy”. The draft policy contains no other references to funding private protection structures.

36. Submissions commenting on funding raised the issue of cost-sharing or other targeted rates for maintenance of protection structures that provide some protection to private property. Other submissions noted that maintenance of all coastal structures should remain a function of council.

37. In response to issue three, Council could add “or fund” to draft clause 5.1.4 making it clearer our role in funding structures with private benefit, retain draft clause 5.3.3 stating that private landowners must meet all the costs of maintaining structures where they have assumed ownership under relevant provisions of the policy, or for the policy to remain silent on funding arrangements for privately maintained structures. If Council decides not to agree to recommended option 2.2.2 above, funding statements would apply to new protection structures as well.

Table 4: Options and recommendations with regards to funding arrangements for privately maintained structures or new private protection structures on public land

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
3.1	Add “or fund” to draft clause 5.2.2 stating council’s approach to structures protecting or promoting private and commercial benefit (recommended)	· Aligns with purpose of the draft policy to ensure council funds only those structures that protect our most significant assets and activities · Consistent with current policy	· Nil
3.2	Private maintenance of structures is at the sole cost of the private property owner (not council) (and new protection structures subject to decision on issue 2.2). (status quo) (recommended)	· Consistent with the draft policy as consulted · Aligns with purpose of the policy to ensure council funds only those structures that protect our most significant assets and activities · Any future discussions on cost sharing can be held as part of the annual plan and long-term plan development	· Limited flexibility to work with landowners on maintenance and cost sharing issues.
3.2	Provide in the policy for shared funding agreements for maintenance of protection structures	· Provides landowners with certainty of some council support to maintain structures · Flexibility to work with private landowners on maintenance issues, including cost-sharing arrangements	· Inconsistent with purpose of policy to ensure council funds only those coastal structures with significant public benefit · Potential for all ratepayers to be funding structures with limited or no public benefit · Potential for funding decisions to be made outside annual plan or long-term plan · May create expectations of ongoing council support
3.3	Provide in the policy for shared funding agreements for new protection structures* *(only required if Council does not agree to option 2.2.2 above).	· Provides landowners with certainty of some council support
3.3
No comment in policy on funding agreements for privately maintained structures (and new protection structures subject to a decision on issue 2.2 above)	· Flexibility to work with private landowners on maintenance issues, including cost-sharing arrangements · Allows all funding and maintenance agreements to be negotiated between all parties.	· Potential for all ratepayers to be funding structures with limited or no public benefit · Potential for funding decisions to be made outside annual plan or long-term plan

Issue 4: Criteria for assessing when Council will maintain, renew or remove structures (draft section 5.2 and schedule one).

38. The current policy has wide-ranging criteria for deciding when Council would maintain, retain, or build a structure. (The current policy does not note the possibility of removal). There is no requirement to consider the significance of the activity protected by a structure before deciding whether to “maintain/retain/install” a structure.

39. The draft policy proposes more specific criteria for determining management options. Moreover, it first requires all decisions on the future of a structure to consider the significance of the activity to be protected, and whether the activity can continue without a structure, for example, through soft protection (planting, sand replenishment) or managed retreat. Submitters generally supported the new assessment criteria and the requirement to consider alternative options to hard protection structures.

40. Submitters also made suggestions to enhance the criteria by

· Stronger reference to consideration of mana whenua values

· Reference to consideration of protection of historic heritage values

· Adding consideration of funding availability

· Requiring the schedule one criteria to be applied to soft protection measures

· Wording changes.

41. The draft policy as consulted included a requirement to consider mana whenua values as a sub-clause, not a standalone clause. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of adding a specific clause requiring consideration of mana whenua values.

Table 5: Options and recommendations in response to man whenua values

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.1.1

Make criteria requiring consideration of the significance of area to mana whenua standalone

(recommended)

· Requirement to consider significance to mana whenua clearer in the policy

· Aligns with responsibility towards protecting Māori sites of significance under the RMA 91

· Nil

4.1.2

Retain reference to significance of area to mana whenua as part of a subclause

· Nil

· Requirement to consider significance to mana whenua less obvious in the policy

42. The draft policy requires consideration of alternative options to hard protection structures when determining how to protect an asset or activities at risk from coastal effects. Alternative options include moving the asset or activity (managed retreat). Bay of Plenty Regional Council suggested using “relocating” instead of “moving” in the relevant draft clause. The advantages and disadvantages of this minor change in language is discussed in table six below.

Table 6: Options and recommendation in regard to minor change in language

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.2.1

Replace “moving” with relocating in clause 5.2.4

(recommended)

· Aligns with language used by Bay of Plenty Regional Council

· Nil

4.2.2

Retain the wording as in draft policy

· Nil

· Inconsistent with language used in regional planning documents

43. The 2006 policy includes archaeological values as one of the criteria for determining management options for coastal structures. The draft policy as consulted did not include specific reference to protection of archaeological or historic heritage values. Heritage New Zealand made some specific suggestions to ensure that future decisions on coastal structures management had appropriate regard to archaeological and historic heritage. These suggestions are discussed in table seven below.

Table 7: Options and recommendations in regards to protection of archaeological and historic heritage

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
4.3.1	Amend schedule one to include “effects on historic heritage sites and values” (recommended)	· Ensures coastal structures management has appropriate regard to historical heritage · Consistent with 2006 policy	· Nil
4.3.2.	Do not include reference to effects on historic heritage sites and values	· Nil	· May result in no consideration of effects on historic heritage in coastal structures management · Loss of archaeological remains
4.3.3	Add “Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Tangata 2014” to list of relevant legislation (recommended)	· Ensures coastal structures management has appropriate regard to historical heritage	· Nil
4.3.4	Do not add Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Tangata Act 2014 to list of relevant legislation	· Nil	· May result in no consideration of effects on historic heritage in coastal structures management · Loss of archaeological remains

44. A key rationale for this policy review was the need to ensure our approach to coastal structures management is financially prudent. However, there is no requirement in the draft criteria at schedule one to consider funding availability. Table 8 below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of adding “funding availability” as a criterion to consider when making decisions on coastal structures management.

Table 8: Options and recommendation on including funding availability in decision-making criteria

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.4.1

Add consideration of funding availability to schedule one

(recommended)

· References purpose of policy review to ensure financially prudent coastal structures management

· Potential for long-term strategic decisions not being made due to short-term budget constraints.

4.4.2

Do not add consideration of funding availability to schedule one (as in draft policy as consulted)

· Nil

· No specific requirement to consider whether a decision is financially prudent

45. The criteria at schedule one only applies to coastal structures. Heritage New Zealand noted that soft protection measures can also have an impact on archaeological and ecological values. The table below considers the advantages and disadvantages of requiring consideration of the criteria at schedule one of the draft policy when implementing soft protection measures.

Table 9: Requiring consideration of schedule one criteria when implementing soft protection measures

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.5.1

Add note that the criteria at schedule one needs to be considered when implementing soft protection measures

(recommended)

· Ensures that soft protection measures do not effect archaeological or ecological values

· Ensures that soft protection measures are subject to same scrutiny when determining best option to protect an asset or activity

· Nil

4.5.2

No requirement to consider criteria at schedule one when implementing soft protection measures

· Nil

· A decision to employ soft protection measures may inadvertently have a negative impact on environmental or archaeological features

Issue 5: Resource and building consents for private protection structures

46. The policy sets out how council will manage activity at risk from erosion in the future. As a policy produced under the LGA 02, it does not generally comment on issues that are managed through the RMA 91 or Building Act 2004. As noted in draft clause 2.2, the policy does not override relevant provisions in the RMA 91. However, the policy does include a note (under section 5.3) on the requirement for private landowners to apply for resource consent.

47. As noted in paragraph 17 above, there are future potential legal risks where building consents may be issued for building on land subject to natural hazards based on an existing council protection structure providing appropriate mitigation. This was alluded to in the verbal submission from Mike Olsen (submission number 68).

48. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of options identified in responding to submissions with regards to consenting issues.

Table 10: Options and recommendations in response to issue 5

· ·

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
5.1	Amend note to specify resource consent from Bay of Plenty Regional Council and possible building consent from Tauranga City Council (recommended)	· Clarifies that BOPRC is responsible for issuing resource consents for activity in the coastal marine area.	· Nil
5.2	Amend note to specify that structures need to consider regional coastal and environmental plans (recommended)		· Nil
5.3
Add new clause specifying that council-owned and maintained protection structures cannot be used as adequate provision for the purposes of obtaining a building consent under section 71 of the Building Act 2004 (recommended)	· Avoids entering into an implied agreement to maintain protection structures as building consent was issued on the basis of the structure being mitigation for natural hazards. · Aligns with the purpose of protection structures to protect significant council activity and assets.	· Some private landowners may have greater difficulty in obtaining building consents for building on land subject to natural hazards

other issues

49. Submissions raised issues related to sea level rise, climate change planning, and the costs of consenting new seawalls. While these issues are outside the scope of this policy review, responses to the issues raised are provided in attachment two as part of the summary of submissions.

Financial Considerations

50. As noted in response to issue one, a policy that supports prioritisation of structures that protect significant activity will enable financially prudent decisions on asset management in the future. At present, there is budget in the long-term plan for structures management. However, it is likely costs for managing these assets will increase in the future as a result of climate change effects.

51. Issue three discussed the issue of financial compensation for private landowners who take over the maintenance of structures and wish to install new protection structures (should provision for new protection structures be retained). The recommendation is that no funding considerations be specifically included in the policy. This provides council with flexibility to enter into conversations with private landowners who may wish to take on responsibility for a protection structure where it has been determined that the protection structure does not protect a significant council activity, or where the primary benefit is protection of private or commercial interests. It also ensures that funding conversations take place as part of the annual plan or long-term plan deliberations.

52. A response to the issue of consent fees is provided in attachment three as part of the summary of submissions as it is an operational matter outside the policy scope. Some costs are set by Bay of Plenty Regional Council and cannot be changed by a decision of this council.

Consultation / Engagement

53. A total of 75 submissions to the draft policy were received during the consultation period (14 October to 17 November).

54. Staff sent letters to approximately 1000 landowners with property adjacent to esplanade reserves who may be affected in the future by the changes proposed in the draft policy. Some residents and property owners contacted staff to talk through the implications for their individual properties.

55. Community groups and residents’ organisations were also contacted and invited to make a submission.

Significance

56. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, this policy review is of medium significance as it has moderate public interest and consequences for Tauranga.

Next Steps

57. Subject to decisions at this Council meeting, the adopted policy will be made available on the Council website following a final legal review. The Coastal Structures Policy 2020 will replace the current 2006 policy. All submitters to the policy will be advised of the policy adoption and be provided with an organisational response to the specific points raised in their submission.

58. The policy responds to the likely effects of climate change on council-owned structures. However, there is no broader climate change policy or strategy for Tauranga. Council will need to consider climate change responses in the development of the next long-term plan.

Attachments

1. Draft Coastal Structures Policy 2020 - A11409924 ⇩

2. Draft Coastal Structures Policy 2019 for consultation - A11281867 ⇩

3. Summary of Submissions - A11142657 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

DRAFT coastal structUres
POLICY 2020

Policy type	Council
Authorised by	Council
First adopted	26 October 2006	Minute reference	M06/109.4
Revisions/amendments	Add years	Minute references
Review date	This policy will be reviewed in three years or when required.

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To guide decision-making on the current and future management of Council-owned or administered coastal structures.

1.2 To ensure planned management of all Council-owned and managed coastal structures along the coast and in the inner harbour is responsive to current and future coastal effects.

2. SCOPE

2.1 The policy applies primarily to the management of coastal structures on Council-owned or administered land in the inner harbour and coast. The boundary of the inner harbour and coast extends along any stream or river to the first bridge.

2.2 Nothing in this policy should be taken as overriding district or regional plans produced under the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. Definitions

Term	Definition
Activity	Has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 2002 and “activities” has a corresponding meaning.
Coastal effects	Refers to any one or more of the following: inundation, storm surge, degradation of the coastal structure, or erosion of the coastal structure’s footings.
Coastal erosion	A long-term trend of shoreline retreat and/or loss of beach sediment volume over several decades.
Council	Refers to Tauranga City Council - the elected member body representing Tauranga City.
Coastal structures	Any building, equipment, device, or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, including council-owned or administered land adjacent to the foreshore and coastal marine area, land covered by water and the airspace above land in or adjacent to the coastal marine area and above mean high water springs. This includes wharves, jetties, seawalls, buildings, or structures built on wharves or jetties, moorings, ramps, rafts, pipelines, breakwaters, groynes and other wave attenuation devices, and cables and transmission lines laid on, over (including in the air space above) or under the foreshore or seabed.
Esplanade reserve	Has the same meaning as in section 229 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Hard protection structures	Includes a seawall, rock revetment, groyne, breakwater, stop bank, structure retaining wall or comparable structure or modification to the seabed, foreshore or coastal land that has the primary purpose or effect of protecting Council-owned or administered land and activities from a coastal hazard, including erosion.
Private or commercial benefit	a benefit which relates to non-Council activities, assets or land
Responsibility	Is to accept ownership of a coastal structure and the implications of ownership including compliance with legislative, financial, asset management, managerial, and operational requirements.
Significance	Has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 2002.
Other structures	Refers to coastal structures with primarily a recreational or amenity benefit that do not serve to protect land from coastal erosion or coastal effects. This includes wharves, jetties, buildings, ramps, or other structures built on wharves or jetties.
Soft protection	includes a range of options, such as beach replenishment or nourishment, planting or dune care, intended to work with natural processes rather than against them to protect an activity from a coastal hazard, including erosion.

4. Principles

4.1 The role of Council is to manage the effects of coastal erosion and coastal effects on Council-owned or administered land and activities.

4.2 Planning effectively for the future management of coastal structures requires consideration of the interests of both current and future communities, and the impact of climate change and coastal effects.

4.3 The purpose of a hard or soft protection structure is to protect an existing or future Council activity or level of service from coastal effects and not to guard against future potential sea level rise by or in itself.

4.4 It is appropriate for Council to reduce the number of hard protection structures, and evaluate the continued existence and maintenance, of all coastal structures in its management. There may be instances where Council decides to remove coastal structures, including hard protection structures protecting Council-owned or administered land and activities from erosion or coastal effects.

4.5 Council has no general obligation to protect private land from the encroachment of the sea, by way of naturally occurring coastal erosion or otherwise.

5. Policy Statement

5.1 General approach to coastal structures

5.1.1 Council will consider the significance of the area to mana whenua in determining options for managing coastal effects and coastal structures.

5.1.2 Council will consider the ability of the wider community to fund the whole of life costs of a coastal structure when determining if a new coastal structure is required.

5.1.3 Council does not accept responsibility for coastal structures with primarily a private or commercial benefit.

5.1.4 In general, Council does not fund, build, or maintain coastal structures where the primary benefit is promotion of private or commercial interests, or the protection of private property or commercial interests.

5.1.5 If a coastal structure which is for private or commercial benefit is located on esplanade reserve, Council may allow it to remain in situ unless it is deemed unsafe, was constructed without permission, impedes public access, or otherwise interferes with the purpose of esplanade reserves as outlined in section 229 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

5.1.6 The existence or maintenance of a Council coastal protection structure is not a guarantee or representation by Council that the structure will remain in place or continue to be maintained. Decisions about future management will be made in accordance with this policy.

5.2 Policy on hard protection structures that protect Council-owned or administered land and activities

5.2.1 Council will maintain hard and soft protection structures where necessary to protect three waters infrastructure.

5.2.2 Council will prioritise the protection of transport infrastructure that is most essential for the long-term functioning of the transport network. Council may, in some instances, decide not to maintain hard protection structures supporting transportation infrastructure.

5.2.3 Council will consider the significance of the activity protected by a hard protection structure prior to deciding to remove, install, maintain, or renew a hard protection structure.

5.2.4 Any decision to remove, install, maintain, or renew a hard protection structure will include consideration of whether the activity can exist without a hard protection structure. This could include relocating the activity (managed retreat) or prioritising soft protection measures. Council will also consider the criteria at schedule one of this policy when determining management options for hard protection structures.

5.2.5 Council will prioritise the protection of esplanade reserves that provide, or have the potential to provide, continued public access around the coast.

5.3 Policy on coastal structures that protect private property or commercial interests

5.3.1 No new protection structures with a primarily private or commercial benefit are permitted on Council-owned or administered land.

5.3.2 Where it has been determined that the existing hard protection structure does not protect a significant activity or asset or where the primary benefit is the protection of private property or commercial interests, Council may enter into maintenance or ownership agreements with affected private property owners.

5.3.3 Hard protection structures maintained under clause 5.3.2 of this policy must be maintained to an approved standard at the cost of the private landowner, be consistent with current council policy and not impede public access or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the reserve. Where a private landowner enters into an agreement to maintain a hard protection structure, this will be recorded on the property title.

Note: Landowners are required to obtain all necessary consents, including possible resource consent from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, building consent from Tauranga City Council, and approval from Council prior to maintenance of any hard protection structures on Council-owned or administered land.

A Council-owned or administered protection structure is not considered “adequate provision” for the purposes of obtaining a building consent under Section 71 of the Building Act 2004.

5.4 Policy on other structures

5.4.1 Any decision to remove, install, maintain, or renew other structures will include consideration of the significance of the structure and the criteria at schedule one to this policy.

5.4.2 Council does not permit other structures with a primarily private or commercial benefit to be constructed on Council-owned or administered land.

6. Relevant Delegations

6.1 The Chief Executive or their delegate is responsible for the implementation of this policy.

7. References and Relevant Legislation

7.1 Building Act 2004
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2004
Local Government Act 2002
Resource Management Act 1991

Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan

8. ASSOCIATED POLICIES/PROCEDURES

8.1 Encroachments onto Reserves Policy
Community, Private and Commercial Use of Council-Administered Land Policy

9. schedules

Schedule one: Criteria to be considered as part of decisions on coastal structures management, including soft protection options

Criteria

Funding availability and priorities

The purpose of the reserve, particularly if it is an esplanade reserve acquired for public access

Effectiveness of the coastal structure in preventing erosion (does not apply to other structures)

Effects of the coastal structure on the environment

Effects of the coastal structure on historic heritage sites and values

Health and Safety

Community views

Alternative options to hard protection structures (does not apply to other structures).

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

Issue one: Support for policy review and prioritising significant coastal structures for maintenance and renewal

Submission	Issue	Option
32, 40, 44, 64 72, 75	Agree that Council needs to focus on significant assets	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 24 to 26 and table one of the main report.
49	General support for providing clarity on how we will protect activity in the future
64	Acknowledge current and future costs of erosion protection
1, 2, 17, 62, 63, 67	Supports prioritisation but wants Council to continue maintenance of all seawalls
20, 41, 59, 61, 65,	Do not support prioritisation- council should maintain all seawalls through rates
61, 66	Council should maintain all seawalls
72	Council responsible for maintaining seawalls that protect inner harbour walkways as they are an essential council amenity
74	Need broader approach and engagement to manage issues of climate change and sea level rise
25	Policy review waste of money as sea level increase minimal, existing walls will not protect against sea level rise

Issue two: Approach to the protection of private property adjacent to reserves and other council land (draft clauses 5.2.4 and 5.2.5)

Submission
8, 14, 15, 32, 42, 44, 49, 53, 75	Support private landowners to take over maintenance	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 27 to 33 and tables two and three of the main report.
42	Support private landowners to maintain only and prohibit new structures
50	Support private landowners to maintain only and not restrict public access
8, 16, 39, 53	Support private landowners to build protection structures on public land
19, 23, 32, 50	Support with appropriate consenting and guidelines
44	Support private landowners to take over maintenance subject to an assessment of value of property and effects assessment
1, 2, 3, 17, 48, 60, 2, 67	Do not support
12, 42	Do not support private hard protection structures on public land or construction of new structures to protect private property
1, 3, 13, 48, 63	Do not support as will lead to privatisation of public space or loss of public access
19, 63	Incorrectly understands that draft policy is transferring ownership of accessways or reserve land
35	Neutral – would require careful contract wording and charge against the property

Issue 3: Funding arrangements for privately maintained protection structures

Submission	Issue	Option
2, 15, 17, 20, 41, 42, 59, 62, 65, 66, 67	Maintenance of seawalls should be funded from rates as a council responsibility	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 34 to 36 and table four of the main report.
3, 12	All ratepayers should not bear burden of protecting properties in natural hazard areas
4	Private landowners who benefit from taking on private structure should compensate Council
39	Support landowners who take over maintenance
18	Support landowners take over maintenance but consider financial ability of landowner. This liability applies on sale of property.
19, 59, 65, 75	Targeted rate or other cost sharing arrangement for maintenance of seawalls that provide benefit for adjacent landowners

Issue 4: Criteria for assessing when Council will maintain, renew or remove structures (draft clauses 5.1.1 to 5.1.7 and schedule one).

Submission
54	Amend schedule to include “effects on tangata whenua sites and values”	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 37 to 44 and tables five to nine of the main report.
54	Add “Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Tangata 2014” to list of relevant legislation
54, 57	The policy does not specifically mention the effects of protection structures on archaeological and cultural areas
54	Soft engineering approaches can also damage archaeological sites. Schedule one should apply to both soft and hard protection options.
49	Add “relocation” to draft clause 5.1.4
44	Hard protection structures last port of call
28	Managed retreat as preference
54, 55, 57	Support soft protection options or other options that prioritise ecological values over protection structures
57	The policy does not mention impact of structures on surf breaks
38	Add “community benefit derived from use of and access to a reserve or adjacent environment” to the schedule
38	Schedule to apply to coastal environment management. Scope of policy to apply to coastal environment
64	Council should be required to protect its own land where that land is adjacent to protected private property

Issue 5: Consents for private protection structures

Submission	Issue	Option
49	Specify consent from Bay of Plenty Regional Council rather than generic consents	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 45 to 47 and table ten of the main report.
49	Specify in policy that structures need to consider regional coastal and environmental plans, and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
68	Allow existing council protection structures to be used as mitigation for the purposes of issuing building consents under section 71 of the Building Act 2004

Other issues relating to matters managed through the Resource Management Act or other legislation.

1. The draft policy only includes a note commenting on the potential requirement for consents as it is prepared under the LGA 02. However, some submitters commented on the consents process (either building or resource consent) for protection structures. Table six below notes these issues and provides a suggested response. However, no changes to the policy are required.

Table 6: Staff responses to submissions on issues managed through consenting processes.

Submission	Issue	Staff response
10	If private landowner takes over maintenance exemption for costs, including for health and safety	Councils must consider health and safety as part of asset management decisions.
16, 32, 53, 54, 55, 64, 65	Consenting should be made easier or more streamlined	The draft policy is prepared under the LGA 02. As consenting is addressed through the Building and Resource Management Acts, there is no scope to address these issues in the policy. They can be addressed as an operational matter by staff.
70	Pro forma consent for maintenance of existing structures	It is unlikely a standard design could be developed that would apply to all locations due to the nature of the coastal environment. Plan M1032 was included in 2002 guidance on structures management. As such, it is likely superseded. This policy outlines the approach council will take in protecting council activities and assets from coastal effects, including erosion, with some reference to protection of private property adjacent to our esplanade reserves. Any future decision on how to manage private property at risk from erosion (such as by encouraging property owners to build seawalls) is outside the scope of the policy.
7, 16, 64	Council should have a preferred design for seawalls or detail on what an approved structure” is
16	Use plan M1032 or other generic plan to encourage property owners to build seawalls.
16, 39, 50, 51, 53, 55, 64	A discounted fee or free consent for seawalls	The costs of building private protection structures is outside the scope of the policy. These costs could be reviewed as part of the fees and charges. Resource consent costs are also set by the regional council.
75	Private structures on public land should be managed holistically to avoid piecemeal construction, with potential effects on the environment	Effects on the environment are managed through the resource management process.
8	Council shouldn’t block an idea because it doesn’t “fit” our ideas	Council is required to ensure that any plans for a protection structure or other erosion mitigation meets consent requirements (if necessary).

Other issues outside scope of policy review

2. Submitters also commented on issues outside the scope of the policy (although related to the coastal environment or other council work programmes). These issues included objections to city plan rules, recent coastal hazards mapping work, Mauao base track repairs, and historic encroachments in to the esplanade reserve.

Table 2: Staff responses to submissions outside scope of policy review

Other issues
Submission	Issue	Staff response
51	Notes poor state of some structures around Matua	Bay of Plenty Regional Council undertook a project over summer 2019/2020 to identify unconsented structures.
12	Notes concern about private encroachment	Council’s Encroachment on to Reserves Policy discourages private or commercial occupation and exclusive use of public reserves. The policy provides for a programme of work to remove encroachments that impede public access. As noted in the main report, provisions allowing private protection structures on council land are counter to the encroachments policy. The encroachments policy is currently under review.
6, 13, 49, 50	Encroachments on esplanade reserve around Forrester Drive, Welcome Bay	The Spaces and Places team have started a project to remove historic encroachments into the esplanade reserve. This is part of a wider project to formalise access along this esplanade reserve.
71, 73	Oppose walkway on esplanade reserve around Forrester Drive, Welcome Bay	One of the purposes of esplanade reserves defined on the Resource Management Act 1991 is to facilitate public access to the water. Spaces and Places are working with property owners adjacent to the Forrester Drive esplanade reserve to provide this access. Encroachments may be removed as part of this project.
73	Council contingency plans or options for each address	While the policy recognises that some structures have a secondary benefit of protecting private property, the policy applies to the protection of council’s assets. Council has no legal obligation to protect private property from naturally occurring erosion. Any future decisions on the maintenance or renewal of the protection structure along Forrester Drive will require assessment against this policy.
32, 64, 71	Council should return land taken for esplanade reserves to landowners	The function and purpose of esplanade reserves is outlined in the Resource Management Act 1991, While public access to esplanade reserves may not be possible, they may still be required for other purposes such as preserving habitat or improving water quality. Therefore, returning esplanade reserves to landowners where public access is not possible is unlikely. The draft policy is about when and how we will protect esplanade reserves in the future, not a discussion on future ownership.
35	Mauao base track	Repairs to the Mauao base track were completed in December 2019. As Council-administered land, any structure to protect Mauao would be subject to this policy as well as the Mauao Historic Reserve Management Plan. Decisions would also be required to have the support of the iwi owners and the Mauao management body.
50, 55	Setback on waterfront properties to protect natural character	Under Rule 14B.3.4 c) of the Operative Tauranga City Plan, “all buildings, excluding minor structures and activities, shall be setback a minimum of 15 metres from Mean High Water Springs”. This setback is not a matter being addressed by the draft policy which is being developed under the Local Government Act 2002. As a City Plan provision, Rule 14B.3.4.c) is subject to the plan development/change processes set out in the Resource Management Act 1991. It is noted that the Operative City Plan is due to be reviewed in 2023 and this process provides for all City Plan provisions including Rule 14B.3.4 c) to be reviewed and subject to public submissions.
52	Various issues related to Kulim Park	The submission has been provided to the Spaces and Places team as part of the Kulim Park redevelopment project. The council is not the owner of the yacht club building. The boat ramp is programmed for renewal within the next eight years. Decisions on the renewal of the boat ramp will be subject to this policy.
10, 14, 30, 40, 71	Reference to maintenance required at a specific seawall or other location in a reserve	Spaces and Places will investigate existing maintenance issues raised as part of submissions. Staff will contact these submitters to update them on any maintenance decisions following investigation.
68	Submitter concerned council establishing policy from basic or rudimentary report	The coastal erosion assessment (2019) is a technical assessment completed by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd (T+T) and forms part of Tauranga Harbour Coastal Hazards Study commissioned by Bay of Plenty Regional Council in partnership with Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council. The erosion assessment examined the erosion potential of the harbour’s shoreline and cliff faces including the impact of this based on a range of sea level rise scenarios based on the most up-to-date Government guidance. This study did not include site specific detail such as the presence of private protection structures. Private protection structures were not included in this study for various reasons, including lack of information on the design, maintenance and overall condition of private protection structures. Moreover, it is unlikely private protection structures are of a scale that would prevent water overtopping the structure during a storm surge (harbour inundation/ flooding) event. The motivation for reviewing the 2006 policy was to ensure management of council structures was future-focused and financially prudent. This policy review is prepared under the LGA 02, whereas the T and T assessment and other coastal hazard assessments will inform ongoing resource management planning processes. It is noted that property owners have the opportunity to commission their own site-specific assessments on inundation and erosion to support any building consent and/or resource consent applications that relate to their property.
55	Removal of inundation notices where “residents implement suitable erosion protection”

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

10.8 Deliberations and adoption of the Naming Policy 2020

File Number: A11117253

Author: Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the Naming Policy 2020 (attachment one) subject to decisions made at this Council meeting.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the Naming Policy 2020 (attachment 1) which includes the following changes from the draft consulted policy:

(i) adding “locally significant” to clause 1.3 (additional policy purpose)

(ii) adding a new clause expressing support for te reo Māori names

(iii) moving the statement on dual naming to a new section on dual naming

(iv) adding a new clause that, where appropriate, relevant information is provided to aid understanding of a name

(v) clarifying that for dual named streets only, the English name will be used for addressing purposes with the te reo Māori name appearing on the sign in a smaller size

(vi) adding an additional clause allowing mana whenua from the Tauranga City Council area to request changes to street names for cultural reasons

(vii) adding an additional clause noting support for working alongside the New Zealand Geographic Board where there is a request to officially name a suburb

(viii) deleting “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce” from the street naming criteria

(ix) reserving the road type “way” for private roads and right of ways only

(x) adding “ara” to the schedule of permitted road types for new streets

(xi) deleting the specific reference to consultation from the draft policy (noting that this does not mean there would be no consultation to inform naming decisions)

(xii) adding a new clause that council does not consult on names provided by mana whenua for the purpose of obtaining wider community approval

(xiii) amending the delegations to state that the Chief Executive is responsible for decisions on the naming of new reserves and other public places

(xiv) adding a new clause that street numbering be determined by national or Australasian standards.

(b) Rescinds resolutions M83.16, M 88.4, M 20.14, and M 26.3 and revoke the 1990 Street Numbering Policy and 1992 Street Numbering of Freehold Infill Subdivisions Policy.

(c) Delegates to the General Manager Strategy and Growth the authority to make final minor editorial changes to the Naming Policy 2020.

Executive Summary

2. The Policy Committee (the committee) approved the draft Naming Policy for consultation (draft policy as consulted) in July 2019. A copy of the draft policy as consulted is appended at attachment two. The current Naming of Streets, Reserves and Community Facilities had not been reviewed since 2009.

3. This report provides an opportunity for Council to deliberate on all submissions and survey feedback and to agree an option to address issues raised prior to adopting the final Naming Policy 2020. The recommended options are highlighted in yellow in the appended draft Naming Policy 2020 (attachment one).

Background

4. The 2009 Naming of Streets, Reserves and Community Facilities Policy (the 2009 policy) guides decisions on the naming of streets and reserves. At its June 2019 meeting, the Policy Committee resolved to amend the 2009 policy by introducing an additional purpose statement supporting Māori names, expanding the scope to include all public places (except beaches) under council control, allowing for dual naming or re-naming of public places, and prioritising the naming criteria to ensure names reflected Tauranga’s identity.

5. The committee adopted the draft policy for consultation incorporating the above changes at its July 2019 meeting. Feedback was sought on the general policy direction through an August 2019 survey. This survey asked people whether they supported encouraging locally significant Māori names, dual naming and re-naming, and to what extent Council should consult on public place names gifted by hapū and iwi.

6. A total of 843 responses were received to the survey. The survey showed strong support for encouraging locally significant Māori names (80% in favour) and support for dual naming (65% in favour) and re-naming (70% in favour). While some people wanted an opportunity to approve gifted Māori names, other respondents only wanted to be informed of the meaning and correct pronunciation of a Māori name. Respondents also commented on the appropriateness of consulting with the general public on Māori names noting that we should only consult with the relevant marae, hapū or iwi.

7. Feedback on the draft policy wording (see attachment two) was sought through a submission process (special consultative procedure) in November and December 2019. A total of 96 submissions were received with 39 in support and 42 in opposition. The remaining submissions were either neutral, made comments that supported the intent of the draft policy, or interpreted the draft policy as changing street names. A summary of submission is appended at attachment three.

8. A hearing of submissions was held on 3 March 2020.

9. Staff have analysed the submissions and provided recommendations on the points raised. The recommended Naming Policy in attachment 1 shows deletions as track changes and additions are highlighted in yellow.

Strategic / Statutory Context

10. Councils are delegated authority for street name decisions under section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. The New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) is responsible for deciding suburb names. The Australian / New Zealand Standard Rural and Urban Addressing ASNZS 4819:2011 (Australasian standard) outlines criteria for street naming and numbering.

11. Councils are required to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes. Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana (formerly Tangata Whenua Collective) submitted to the Annual Plan 2019/2020 requesting a review of the naming policy. Submissions to the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan in 2018 also requested a review of Council’s reserve naming policy.

12. Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016 Māori Language Act 2016 outlines principles relating to te reo Māori. These principles include, inter alia, acknowledgment of the importance of the Māori language to New Zealand identity, the status of Māori as an official language, and the protection afforded te reo Māori as a taonga under Tiriti o Waitangi/ Treaty of Waitangi. The guidance for government departments included in the Act notes that iwi and hapū should be consulted on matters related to the Māori language. While the Act primarily places obligations on the Crown, the principles are useful for councils in developing policy recognising Māori language.

Options Analysis

13. The following issues were raised in the survey responses and submissions (see summary of submissions at attachment three);

· General support for the policy review,

· Amending the policy purpose to include reference encouraging more locally significant Māori names

· Policy on te reo Māori names

· General naming criteria

· Dual naming

· Renaming

· Additional criteria for naming streets

· Consultation on dual naming and renaming

· Delegations for approval of names.

Issue 1: Support for policy review

14. The policy review recognises that the 2009 policy does not apply to all public places under council control and the opportunity provided by naming public places to increase the visibility of Tauranga’s Māori identity. Council had also received requests to review the policy through other consultation processes and been approached to investigate name changes for specific reserves.

15. Of the 96 submissions to the draft policy, a total of 39 were in support. Submissions in support commented that it would allow for better recognition of Tauranga’s shared Māori and Pākehā history and reflected both national and international practice. The 42 submissions in opposition cited concerns about the cost of the policy review or believed the existing 2009 policy was sufficient. Other submissions opposing the policy incorrectly interpreted the policy review as changing their street name or prioritising Māori names and history.

16. Council could decide to continue the policy review, or to halt the policy review and continue to the use the 2009 policy. Table one below outlines the advantages and disadvantage of the two options.

Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of policy review

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1.1

Continue policy review

(recommended)

· Clarifies application of policy to all public places under council control

· Enables greater recognition of Tauranga’s Māori history.

· Nil

1.2

Stop policy review and continue to use 2009 policy

· Nil

· Policy does not apply to all public places under the control of Council (existing policy only applies to reserves and streets).

· No explicit purpose to encourage locally significant Māori names

Issue 2: Amendment to policy purpose to encourage locally significant Māori names (draft clause 1.3)

17. Approximately 80% of respondents to the August 2019 survey supported a policy that aimed to encourage Māori names for public places (excluding streets and beaches) in Tauranga. This change was reflected in the inclusion of an additional purpose in the draft policy - “To encourage Māori names for streets, reserves, community facilities and public places in Tauranga and to enable greater visibility of mana whenua connections to Tauranga”.

18. This support for more Māori names was also reflected in the submissions. A number of submitters stated they were opposed to the policy, having incorrectly assumed Māori names would be given preference over English names or displace names that reflected Tauranga’s Pākehā and colonial history.

19. Council needs to consider whether to include a specific purpose statement in support of Māori names and adding “locally significant” to that purpose statement. Table 2 below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of these three options.

Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of options on the additional policy purpose

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
2.1	Add “locally significant” to clause draft clause 1.3 (recommended)	· Ensures that Māori names are specific and relevant to Tauranga · Supports the responsibility of councils to facilitate participation by Māori in local government decision-making · Allows for a mix of English and Māori names that reflect Tauranga’s identity	· Nil
2.2	Existing wording in draft policy as consulted	· Nil	· No requirement that Māori names are specific and relevant to Tauranga as intended under the policy
2.3	Do not include new policy purpose encouraging locally significant Māori names	· Nil	· May encourage mainly English names · Less likely that names will reflect Tauranga’s Māori identity · Māori names may not be specific or relevant to Tauranga

Issue 3: Policy on te reo Māori names (section 5.1 of draft policy)

20. The draft policy as consulted included a new section outlining general provisions in support of dual naming under the heading “policy on te reo Māori names”. Submitters suggested strengthening this section by adding a specific statement in support of te reo Māori names or that new reserve and public place names be in te reo Māori.

Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of options on policy on te reo Māori names

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
3.1	Add new clause expressing support for te reo Māori names to draft section 5.1 (recommended)	· Consistent with overall policy purpose. · Clarifies in the policy support for names in te reo Māori not just Māori names.	· Nil
3.2	Add a new clause that all new reserve and other public place names are in te reo Māori	· Will enable more Māori names for public places	· Inconsistent with intent of the draft policy to have a mix of locally significant Māori and English names that reflect Tauranga’s shared history.
3.3	Move statement on dual naming to a new section specific to dual naming (recommended)	· Reduces potential for confusion by including statement on dual naming in section on te reo Māori names	· Nil
3.4	Amend policy to include a note that meaning of a name be provided to aid understanding (unless there is a need for sensitivity) (recommended)	· Supports wider understanding of Māori stories of Tauranga City Council · Recognises that there may be cultural sensitivities around some names.	· Nil
3.5	No change to the draft policy	· Nil	· Potential for confusion if statement on dual naming remains in section called policy on te reo Māori names · Potential for confusion as draft policy only provides for Māori names – not necessarily names in te reo Māori

Issue 4: General naming criteria (draft clauses 5.4.1 and 5.4.2)

21. The current criteria for naming streets and reserves are the identity of Tauranga, historical significance of the area, Māori cultural significance, people important in the history of the area (once they are deceased) and events, people and places of international significance to Tauranga (“the general naming criteria”). This is not proposed to change in the draft policy. However, the provisions outlining this general naming criteria have been amended to better prioritise local significance, historical identity and mana whenua connection to the Tauranga area. Persons (once they are deceased), and international names can only be used where it is not possible to identify an appropriate name using the first three criteria.

22. Notwithstanding the general concerns expressed by some submitters about the potential for Māori names, written submissions generally supported the prioritisation of naming criteria. Submissions also suggested allowing streets to be named after living persons of note with connections to Tauranga, or after flora and fauna.

23. In response to the issue of the general naming criteria, Council could do the following;

· Make no changes to the draft policy as consulted (retaining the prioritised criteria)

· Remove “significance of the area to mana whenua” from the general naming criteria

· Add flora and fauna to the general naming criteria

· Allow streets to be named after living persons

Table 4: Advantage and disadvantages of options in response to the general naming criteria

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
4.1	No change to draft policy (recommended)	· Increases the likelihood that streets and public places will reflect Tauranga. · Consistent with 2009 policy	· Nil
4.2	Remove “significance of the area to mana whenua” from general naming criteria	· Nil	· Inconsistent with draft policy purpose and principles noted in issues one to three above. · Inconsistent with overall policy on te reo Māori names noted in issue three above. · Inconsistent with 2009 policy
4.3	Add “flora and fauna” to the general naming criteria	· Provides for a wider range of possible names.	· Names may not be locally significant. · Australasian standard encourages names from indigenous languages to be locally relevant and endorsed by the indigenous community. A Māori name for flora and fauna may not be relevant to Tauranga where that species is not present.
4.4	Allow streets to be named after living persons	· Provides for a wider range of possible names.	· Does not align with NZGB best practice that locations should only be named after a person once they are deceased.

Issue 5: Dual naming (section 5.2)

24. The draft policy introduces provisions allowing for dual naming of streets and public places. This provision both supports the proposed additional policy purpose to encourage Māori names and reflects existing practice. For place names, the standard used by the NZGB is to position the Māori name first – for example, Aoraki Mt Cook. This is consistent with the draft policy. Dual naming describes when a Māori name sits alongside an English name, for example, Hopukiore Mt Drury. A dual name is unlikely to be a transliteration or direct translation of the existing English name.

25. Approximately 65% of respondents to the August 2019 survey supported allowing dual naming of public places in the draft policy. In general, submissions supported dual naming of reserves and public places, however, some submissions highlighted the potential for confusion if streets were dual named. While the Australasian standard encourages only one official name for streets, there are dual named streets in Tauranga. For example, Taurikura Drive Te Ara o Taurikura in the Lakes development.

26. Council needs to consider the following sub-issues arising from submissions relating to dual naming

· Allowing dual naming of streets

· If dual street naming is permitted, the order it should appear on street signs

· Allowing dual naming of reserves and other public places

Table 5: Dual naming of streets

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.1.1

Allow for dual naming of streets

(recommended)

· Aligns with existing practice

· Aligns with intent of draft policy to provide greater opportunity for Māori names

· Potential confusion over a street’s official name

· Does not align with Australasian standard that streets have just one name

5.1.2

Do not allow dual naming of streets

· Eliminates potential confusion over a street’s official name

· Aligns with Australasian standard that streets have only one name

· Does not align with existing practice

27. If Council agrees to recommended option 5.1.1 above allowing dual naming of streets, consideration needs to be given to whether the English or Māori appears first on the street signs. At present, the English name is used for addressing and appears first on the road signs for dual named streets in Tauranga. (Note that this is the opposite to the NZGB approach to place names).

Table 6: Order of dual naming on street signs

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.2.1

Amend policy to state that if a street is dual named, the English will appear first and be used for addressing purposes with the te reo appearing below in a smaller font size

(recommended)

· Reduces potential for confusion

· Aligns with existing practice

· Remains some potential for confusion over street names

5.2.2

No specification in policy on which language appears first and is used for addressing

· Nil

· Future practice may not align with current practice.

· Potential for confusion.

Table 7: Dual naming of reserves and other public places

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.3.1

Allow dual naming of reserves and other public places

(recommended)

· Aligns with proposed additional purpose to encourage more Māori names

· Recognises existing local and national practice

· Potential confusion over correct name.

5.3.2

Do not allow dual naming of reserves and other public places

· Nil

· Does not align with proposed additional purpose to encourage more Māori names

· Does not align with existing local or national practice

Issue 6: Renaming (section 5.3)

28. The draft policy provides for renaming of public places (except streets and beaches) to support the draft additional purpose to encourage locally significant Māori names. Renaming of public places (except beaches and streets) was supported by 70% of respondents to the August 2019 survey.

29. Earlier media reporting of the policy review incorrectly suggested Council had an active programme of work to change street names. This is possibly reflected in the submissions opposing street renaming and renaming more generally or citing costs of changing street names. The Australasian standard states that street names should be “enduring”. As such, the draft policy allows for Council to initiate street renaming under strict criteria and removes the ability for private applications to rename streets. For example, if a new road layout cut an existing road (Princess Street) in half, Council could reflect the revised layout by renaming the streets Princess Street North and Princess Street South. However, an application from a resident to change the name of their street from Cat Street to Dog Street would be declined.

30. Submitters and survey respondents also commented on renaming streets and suburbs currently named after persons from New Zealand’s colonial history. While Council does not have delegation to decide suburb names, Wellington City Council has included a note in their naming policy about working alongside the NZGB on any applications to give an official name to suburbs.

31. The following sub-issues need to be considered when determining council’s policy on renaming;

· Allowing reserve and other public place name changes (as consulted on in draft policy)

· Restricting street name changes to Council and only for specific criteria (as consulted on in draft policy)

· Allowing for street name changes if the streets are named after international places

· Adding the ability for mana whenua to request street name changes where there are strong cultural reasons for doing so

· Adding a note stating Council will work with NZGB on any application to confirm or change street names

Table 8: Advantages and disadvantages of allowing reserve and other public name changes

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.1.1

Provide for renaming of reserve and other public place names (as consulted on in draft policy)

(recommended)

· Provides greater certainty for groups wanting to re-name reserves

· Formalises existing practice.

· Supports increased visibility of te reo Māori

· Allows misspellings or incorrect usage to be corrected

· Re-naming may displace an existing name that is well-known and supported in the community

6.1.2

Do not allow renaming of reserve and other public place names

· Not able to correct misspellings or incorrect usages

· Does not allow for re-naming where an existing name is no longer appropriate.

Table 9: Advantages and disadvantages of restricting street renaming to Council only

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.2.1

Restrict street name changes to Council and under limited criteria (as consulted on in draft policy)

(recommended)

· Recognises that the community has strong connections to existing street names

· Allows Council to change street names as a result of development or infrastructure changes

· Australasian standard recommends street name changes when a road layout is changed

· Nil

6.2.2

Do not allow street name changes

· Recognises that the community has strong connections to existing street names

· Council may need to change street names as a result of development or infrastructure changes.

Table 10: Advantages and disadvantages of allowing changes of name for streets named after international places

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.3.1

Add new criteria allowing for street name changes where the street is named after a foreign place

· New street names will be locally significant

· Allows for names to reflect the Māori history of the area

· Community concern at possible street name changes

· Does not align with Australasian standard that street names should be enduring

6.3.2

Do not add additional criteria allowing street name change where the street is named after a foreign place

(recommended)

· International names are permitted under the 2009 and draft policy

· Recognises strong community attachment to existing street names

· Australasian standard notes that street names should be considered “enduring” and only changed when necessary.

· Potential cost of street name changes

· Street names are not locally significant

Table 11: Advantages and disadvantages of allowing investigation of street name changes for cultural reasons

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.4.1

Add new clause providing for investigation of street name changes for cultural reasons*

(recommended)

*Note that this does not obligate council to agree to change a name but acknowledges that council is open to a conversation on the issue.

· Provides for mana whenua to request investigation of street name changes

· Recognises that some street names honour persons who caused harm to tangata whenua

· Provides the opportunity for public engagement on street names

· Potentially supports the policy purpose to encourage locally significant Māori names

· Potential public opposition to street name changes

· Historical significance of some street names may be lost

6.4.2

Do not provide for name changes for cultural reasons

· Recognises that the community has strong connections to existing street names.

· Some existing street names have historical significance

· Limits opportunity to engage with mana whenua on issues of importance.

Table 12: Advantages and disadvantages of including a statement on suburb or location name changes in the policy (draft clause 4.3)

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.5.1

Add note stating Council will work with NZGB on any proposal to confirm or change suburb or location names.

(recommended)

· Council has a position if or when an application is made to NZGB to give a suburb an official name

· Nil

6.5.2

No comment on suburb renaming

· Nil

· No position if or when an application is made to give a suburb an official name

Issue 7: Additional criteria for street naming (section 5.6)

32. The general naming criteria is the same for streets and other public places. However, the draft policy includes additional criteria specific to street naming. These additional criteria ensure that street names meet the Australasian standard and are suitable for addressing and emergency purposes. The draft policy proposed an additional provision that street names cannot be named after commercial enterprises.

33. Submissions commented that retaining “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce” in the naming criteria may have the effect of reducing the likelihood of Māori names. Some submissions cited challenges with pronouncing Māori names in opposing the policy or preferring English names.

34. The following sub-issues need to be considered when confirming the specific street naming criteria to be included in the policy

· Retaining “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce” as criteria

· Including a character limit for street names

· Amendments to the schedule of road types

Table 13: Advantage and disadvantages of retaining “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce” in the policy

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
7.1.1	Delete “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce from street naming criteria (recommended)	· Reduces possibility of subjective decisions on street names · Supports proposed additional purpose to encourage more locally significant Māori names · Aligns with Australasian standard that acknowledges indigenous names may be difficult to pronounce at first but over time will become familiar and easy to use by the community	· Nil
7.1.2	Retain the “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce” criteria but with an exception for Māori names (recommended if 7.1.1 not supported)	· Supports proposed additional purpose to encourage more locally significant Māori names · Australasian standard that acknowledges indigenous names may be difficult to pronounce at first but over time will become familiar and easy to use by the community	· Possible subjective decisions on street names
7.1.3	Retain “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce” in street naming criteria	· Assumption that street names will be easy to say and spell.	· Possible subjective decisions on street names · May reduce opportunity for locally significant Māori names

35. Submissions also noted concern that a character limit would have the effect of preventing some Māori names. The Australasian standard does not specify a character limit for street names only that “the length of a road name should be shorter, rather than longer, especially where the road itself is short”.

Table 14: Advantages and disadvantages of introducing a character limit for street names

· ·

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
7.2.1	Retain 16-character limit as in draft policy (recommended)	· Aligns with the principle within the Australasian standard	· Nil
7.2.2	Delete character limit from street naming criteria	· Provides for longer street names which may better provide for Māori names · Consistent with current policy that does not have a character limit for street names	· Street names may not meet the Australasian standard · Long street names may be difficult for addressing or emergency services’ purposes
7.2.3	Increase the character limit from 16 to 25

36. During the submission process, staff advised that historical practice in Tauranga was to reserve the road type “way” for private roads and right of ways. This practice supported asset management. Submitters to the draft policy noted that allowing “ara” to be used as road type would provide for more Māori street names. The Australasian schedule does not include “ara” as a road type.

Table 15: Additional changes to street naming criteria

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

7.3.1

“Way” only to be used as road types for private roads

(recommended)

· Supports easier asset management and recognition of private roads

· Reflects past practice

· Nil

7.3.2

Add “ara” to schedule of road types

(recommended)

· Provides for more Māori names

· Consistent with road naming criteria used by Auckland local boards.

· Inconsistent with Australasian standard. (However, the standard provides for councils to create their own rules and guidelines).

Issue 8: Consultation on naming

37. The 2009 policy does not include a requirement for consultation. As street names are generally proposed by the developer, any consultation on the street name, including consultation with relevant hapū or iwi, is their decision. Council may include discussion of the name as part of wider consultation with the community and mana whenua when developing a new reserve or public place. While the draft policy continues not to specify consultation on new names, it does include specific provision to consult on all dual naming and renaming proposals.

38. A slight majority of respondents to the August 2019 survey either did not think consultation was necessary or thought consultation only with mana whenua was sufficient. However, these results should be read with caution. Some respondents who answered no to the first three questions on support for locally significant Māori names, dual naming and renaming also answered “no” to the consultation question when their previous responses indicated they would want to know if we were changing a name. Other respondents indicated that they did not need to be consulted on whether they agreed with a particular name but would want to be informed of a name’s meaning and correct pronunciation. Submissions on this issue raised similar concerns on the appropriateness of seeking wider public feedback on Māori names.

39. A few submissions suggested council should consult on all names. Decisions on appropriate consultation and engagement are subject to council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the general principles for consultation included in the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA02). Regardless of any specific statements regarding consultation included in the naming policy, there is an expectation that appropriate engagement will be undertaken to inform all naming decisions, including consultation and engagement with mana whenua.

40. In response to the issue of consultation, Council should consider whether to;

· Specify in the policy that consultation is required on dual naming and renaming

· Require consultation on names provided by mana whenua

Table 16: Advantages and disadvantages of specifying (or not) the requirement for consultation on dual naming and renaming

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

8.1.1

No change to the draft policy as consulted – consultation requirements for dual naming and renaming specified in policy

· Ensures that the wider community can comment on a proposed name, and dual naming or renaming proposals

· Subject to decisions made on issues five and six above, the naming policy would already provide for dual naming and renaming.

· As we would only be consulting on renaming or dual naming, this would have the effect of only consulting where the name is Māori.

· May create space for expression of anti-Māori sentiments and deny opportunity for Māori names.

8.1.2

Delete reference to consultation on dual naming and renaming from the policy

(recommended)

· Consistent with recommended options in issues five and six above to permit dual naming and renaming in the policy.

· Provides for flexibility to engage with the community on naming decisions in accordance with the LGA 02 consultation principles and council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

· Consistent with current approach to engaging with mana whenua on naming decisions.

· Potential for negative public feedback if community wants opportunity to approve of a suggested name.

Table 17: Advantages and disadvantage of consulting on names provided by mana whenua

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

8.2.1

Add new clause stating that council will not seek wider community approval for names provided by mana whenua

(recommended)

(The community would still be informed of a name but not invited to say if they agreed or disagreed with it)

· Consistent with current practice

· Recognises that some names may already be in existence but not in common use

· Limits potential for offense by subjecting name to a consultation process.

· May not meet community expectations

8.2.2

No comment in policy on seeking wider community approval for names provided by mana whenua

· Supports potential community expectations to be involved in naming decisions

· Potential for offense if name is subjected to a consultation process

· Name may already exist but not be in common usage

· May limit opportunities for more locally significant Māori names

· Consistent with current practice

Issue 9: Delegation for approval of new names for reserves and other public places (section 6)

41. The 2009 policy delegates decisions on naming to group manager roles that no longer exist in the current organisational structure. In adopting the draft policy, the committee agreed that all decisions on new street names be delegated to the Chief Executive and Council retained responsibility for the naming of new reserves, community facilities and other public places. Respondents to the August 2019 survey indicated that it might be inappropriate to subject names provided by mana whenua to a political approval process.

42. New names for reserves and public places could be a dual name.

43. In response to the issue of approval of names, Council should consider the following;

· Delegation to approve names of new reserves and other public places

· Delegation to approve names in response to dual naming or renaming requests

Table 18: Options on delegation for approval of new reserve and other new public place names

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
9.1.1	Decisions on names for new reserves and other public places delegated to Chief Executive (recommended)	· Consistent with current policy and practice · Flexibility to refer a proposed new name to Council for decision if required	· Potential community concern about lack of political oversight
9.1.2	Decisions on names for new reserves and other public places delegated to Chief Executive and mana whenua	· Provides opportunity for iwi and hapū to input into Council decision-making as required under the Local Government Act 2002 · Aligns with operational practice of working alongside hapū and iwi to support naming decisions · Flexibility to refer a proposed new name to Council for decision	· Potential community concern about lack of political oversight
9.1.3	Decisions on names for new reserves and other public places delegated to Council	· Political oversight of naming decisions, particularly if there is community concern about a proposed name.	· Inconsistent with current policy and practice · Operational decisions made at governance level · Potential to cause offence in rejecting a name, particularly where that name already exists but is not in common use.
9.1.4	Decisions on names for new reserves and other public places delegated to Council and mana whenua	· Political oversight of naming decisions, particularly if there is community concern about a proposed name. · Provides opportunity for iwi and hapū to input into Council decision-making as required under the Local Government Act 2002	· Inconsistent with current policy and practice · Operational decisions made at governance level

Issue 9.2: Approval of dual naming and renaming decisions

44. Requests may be made to dual name a street, reserve or public place or rename an existing reserve or other public place. Submissions indicated strong community interest in dual naming and renaming.

45. The policy delegation to approve an application to dual name or rename does not allow for approval of the name itself. For example, Council would be presented with a recommendation either for or against changing the reserve name, not a recommendation to approve the renaming of Margaret Reserve to Mary Reserve. Council would also not be presented with alternative options for names and any discussion on the relative merits of a name would be incidental.

46. Council could retain sole authority to approve or decline dual naming and renaming requests or share this responsibility with relevant mana whenua. Alternatively, the delegation could sit with the Chief Executive or the Chief Executive and relevant mana whenua.

Table 19: Options on delegation for approval of dual naming and renaming decisions

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
9.2.1	Decisions to approve dual naming and renaming requests made by Council (as consulted on in draft policy) (recommended)	· Political oversight of naming decisions, particularly if there is community concern about a proposed name.	· Potential to cause offence in rejecting a name, particularly where that name already exists but is not in common use. · Less opportunity for iwi and hapū to input into Council decision-making as required under the LGA 02
9.2.2	Decisions to approve dual naming and renaming delegated to Council and mana whenua	· Political oversight of naming decisions, particularly if there is community concern about a proposed name. · Provides opportunity for iwi and hapū to input into Council decision-making as required under the LGA02 · Aligns with proposed purpose to encourage more locally significant Māori names · Aligns with operational practice of working alongside hapū and iwi to support naming decisions	· Potential decision-making confusion if two bodies with responsibility
9.2.3	Decisions to approve dual naming and renaming delegated to Chief Executive and mana whenua	· Provides opportunity for iwi and hapū to input into Council decision-making as required under the LGA 02 · Aligns with proposed purpose to encourage more locally significant Māori names · Aligns with operational practice of working alongside hapū and iwi to support naming decisions	· Potential community concern about lack of political oversight of dual naming and renaming decisions · Potential decision-making confusion if two bodies with responsibility
9.2.4	Decisions to approve dual naming and renaming delegated to Chief Executive	· Retains flexibility to refer a decision on dual naming or renaming to Council	· Potential community concern about lack of political oversight of dual naming and renaming decisions

Other Issues

Revocation of council street numbering policies

47. Current council decisions on street numbering are guided by the 1990 Street Numbering Policy and 1992 Street Numbering of Freehold Infill Subdivisions (attachment four). Rules and guidance for street numbering are now included in the following documents;

· Australia New Zealand Standard for Rural and Urban Addressing - AS/NZS 4819:2011

· Guidelines for Addressing In-fill Developments 2019 - LINZ OP G 01245

· Guideline for addressing in retirement villages - LINZG80700

48. Staff recommend adding an additional clause to the draft policy stating that street numbering is subject to the above documents and revoking the two policies from the 1990s. The advantage of this option is that street numbering will remain consistent with national or Australasian guidelines. The procedural components of the 1990s policies can be incorporated into internal staff process documents.

Financial Considerations

49. Responses to submissions commenting on the costs of the policy review are provided in the substantive comments above. The costs of the policy review are met through existing budgets.

50. Implementation of the policy may incur additional cost for signage where a reserve or public place receives a new name or is given a dual name. New signage with the revised name could be installed when the existing sign requires renewal or be included in the project budget for any re-naming or dual naming decision.

Legal Implications / Risks

51. Councils are delegated decision-making for street name decisions as per section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

52. There are no other identified legal implications or risks associated with the recommended options above.

Consultation / Engagement

53. A survey was completed in August 2019 to get feedback on four key proposed policy changes (purpose, dual naming, re-naming, and consultation). The survey was designed to provide staff with some initial feedback on the overall policy direction and key proposed changes prior to releasing a statement of proposal. There were 843 responses to the survey with results communicated to participants and made available on the Council website.

54. A total of 96 submissions to the draft policy were received during the submissions period (11 November to 11 December 2019). Staff contacted survey participants who provided us with an email address to advise that we were now accepting submissions on the policy wording. Emails were also sent to iwi and hapū contacts. The submissions period was promoted through council’s social media, the council website, and through press releases to local media.

55. Submissions 39, 62, 79, 80, 91, and 94 questioned the extent to which the survey results influenced the direction of the draft policy. However, the survey was designed to be indicative, not representative. The committee agreed feedback would also be sought through a traditional submissions process.

56. Submission 93 commented on limited time to make a submission. Late submissions were accepted by the committee prior to the March 2020 hearing and considered as part of this deliberations report.

57. Staff met with representatives of Ngāi Tamarawaho and Ngāi te Rangi to discuss the draft policy. Feedback was generally positive.

Significance

58. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, the policy review is of medium significance as it impacts the city as a whole and is of moderate public interest.

Next Steps

59. Any further changes to the draft policy will be incorporated into the final Naming Policy 2020 and made available on the council website. The adopted policy will replace the current 2009 policy.

60. All survey respondents and submitters will be advised of the policy adoption. Submitters will also receive an organisational response to the points raised in their submission.

Attachments

1. Draft Naming Policy 2020 - A11409366 ⇩

2. Draft Naming Policy 2019 as consulted - A11360347 ⇩

3. Summary of submissions - A11143439 ⇩

4. 1990 Street Numbering Policy and 1992 Street Numbering of Infill Subdivision Policy - A11117278 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

DRAFT naming policy 2020

Policy type	Council
Authorised by	Council
First adopted	3 November 2009	Minute reference	M09/91.4
Revisions/amendments		Minute references
Review date	The policy is due for review in five years, or as required.

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To provide a consistent approach to naming streets, reserves, community facilities and other public places in Tauranga.

1.2 To ensure the identity of the city is recognised and maintained in the naming of public places.

1.3 To encourage locally significant Māori names for streets, reserves, community facilities and public places in Tauranga and to enable greater visibility of mana whenua connections to Tauranga.

2. SCOPE

2.1 This policy applies to the naming of streets, reserves, community facilities and other public places in Tauranga.

3. Definitions

Term	Definition
~~Active reserve~~	~~are large reserves primarily used for organised sports. The main reason council owns or administers these reserves is to provide space for outdoor recreation and sporting activities.~~
Community building reserve	Community building reserves are used specifically for the purposes of community buildings. Community building reserves do not generally provide space for informal recreation.
Community facility	as defined in the City Plan.
Council	refers to Tauranga City Council - the elected member body representing Tauranga City
Dual naming	Refers to a reserve or other public place that has both a te reo Māori name and an English name. Dual naming is not considered renaming for the purposes of this policy. A dual name may not be a direct translation or transliteration of an existing English name.
General naming criteria	Refers to the criteria of local identity of Tauranga, the historical significance of the area, or the significance of the area to iwi and hapū of Tauranga City Council given priority in naming decisions.
Heritage reserve	Due to the intrinsic historic, cultural, and physical values present, heritage reserves are held primarily for their historically and/or culturally significant landscapes
~~Neighbourhood reserve~~	~~Neighbourhood reserves are spaces that are primarily provided for use by local communities for casual recreation, play, relaxation, community activity, links to other areas, or quiet open space.~~
Other Public Place	means a place under the control of council that at any time is open to or is being used by the public, whether free or for payment of a charge and includes every ~~road, street~~, footpath, court, alley, pedestrian mall, cycle track, lane, accessway, thoroughfare, bridge, ~~reserve, park, domain,~~ ~~beach, foreshore~~, and any other place of public recreation.
Reserve	as defined in the City Plan
~~Utilities reserve~~	~~is a reserve which has a primary functional purpose such as stormwater or drainage.~~
Streets	refers to all approved terms for streets included in the Australian New Zealand Standard for Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZS 4819:2011.

4. Principles

4.1 The naming of streets, reserves, community facilities and public places should recognise and maintain local identity.

4.2 Encouraging the use of Māori names contributes to the visibility of Tauranga’s Māori identity and heritage.

4.3 Council will work alongside the New Zealand Geographic Board on any proposal to confirm or amend suburb or other location names in Tauranga.

5. Policy Statement

5.1 Policy on te reo Māori names

5.1.1 Council supports te reo Māori names for streets, reserves, community facilities and other public places.

5.1.2 In order to recognise the significance of names provided by mana whenua, Council does not consult on names proposed by mana whenua for the purposes of obtaining wider community approval.

5.2 Policy on dual naming

5.2.1 Council supports the dual naming of streets, reserves, community facilities and public places where dual naming will make visible mana whenua connections to place.

5.2.2 When dual naming is used for reserves, community facilities, and public places, the te reo Māori name will be positioned before the English name.

5.2.2 Where a street is dual named, the English name will be positioned first on the street sign with the te reo Māori appearing below in a smaller font size. The English name will be used for addressing purposes.

5.3 Policy on renaming

5.3.1 Council may change existing street names following major changes in road layout or infrastructure, where necessary to avoid confusion, duplication or ambiguity, or where an incorrect name has become established over time by local usage. Council will pay the costs associated with street renaming.

5.3.2 Council does not permit private applications to rename streets.

5.3.3 Council will consider applications from mana whenua to amend street names where there are strong cultural reasons for dual naming or renaming of existing streets.

5.3.4 Renaming of reserves and other public places may be supported where a new name would better meet the objectives of the policy to promote local identity and mana whenua connections. Council recognises that in order to maintain local identity a dual name may be preferable in some circumstances.

5.4 General naming criteria for all new streets, reserves, and other public places

5.4.1 The general naming criteria will be used to develop all proposed street names.

5.4.2 The general naming criteria will be used to determine names for all reserves (except for heritage and community building reserves) and other public places.

5.4.3 Street, reserve and other public place names may reflect people who are important in the history of the area (once they are deceased) or events, people, and places of international significance to Tauranga only if a suitable name cannot be identified through the general naming criteria.

5.4.3 Reserves, streets and other public places cannot be named after commercial enterprises.

5.5 Reserve naming

5.5.1 The naming of heritage reserves will reflect the historical significance of the area.

5.5.2 Community building reserves will be named for the primary function of the facility.

5.6 Street Naming

5.6.1 In order to ensure streets are easily identifiable for purposes such as emergency services, proposed new street names must also meet the following criteria, in addition to the general naming criteria:

· Not be duplicated in the Tauranga City or Western Bay of Plenty District Council areas

· Preferably be short, single words

· Not sound similar to an existing street name

· Be no more than 16 characters plus the road type

~~Be “easy to spell” and “easy to pronounce”~~

5.6.2 Council will decide on the name for each street, based on a list of three choices provided by the developer. The developer is required to provide evidence in support of their recommended names, including evidence of consultation with mana whenua (unless there is a need for sensitivity).

5.6.3 Private roads, including those within retirement complexes, must be named if there are more than, or there is the potential to develop, six houses on a private road. The names of private roads must be consistent with the general naming criteria.

5.6.4 The road type “way” is reserved for private roads and right of ways.

5.6.5 Streets cannot be named after commercial enterprises.

5.6.6 Street numbering will be in accordance with Australian/ New Zealand Standard Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZS4819:2011) and in the case of retirement villages, also in accordance with Guideline for addressing in retirement villages LINZG80700 (and any consequential updates).

5.7 Naming of Community Facilities and other Public Places

5.7.1 The general naming criteria applies to the naming of community facilities and other public places.

5.7.2 Renaming of community facilities and other public places (except streets and beaches) may be supported where a new name would better meet the objectives of the policy to promote local identity and mana whenua connections. Council recognises that in order to maintain local identity, a dual name may be preferable in some circumstances.

5.7.3 All requests to grant naming rights for a public place or council owned community facility, whether permanent or for a fixed period of time, will be considered by Council in accordance with council’s Sponsorship from Corporates and Others Policy.

5.7.4 Council recognises that there may be some situations in which it is appropriate to commemorate an individual. All requests to name a community facility after an individual will be considered by Council. All requests to grant naming rights, whether permanent or for a fixed period of time, will be considered by Council.

6. Relevant Delegations

6.1.1 Council is responsible for all decisions on the naming (including potential sponsorship or granting of naming rights) of reserves, community facilities and public places except where clause 6.12 applies. ~~Decisions on the dual naming or re-naming of existing reserves and other public places (excluding streets) is subject to consultation.~~

6.1.1 Decisions on the naming of new streets, reserves, and other public places are delegated to the Chief Executive.

6.1.2 Council is responsible for all decisions to approve or decline requests to rename or dual name streets, reserves, community facilities and other public places.

7. References and Relevant Legislation

7.1 Australian/ New Zealand Standard Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZS4819:2011)
Guideline for addressing in retirement villages – LINZG80700
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Reserves Act 1977

8. ASSOCIATED POLICIES/PROCEDURES

8.1 Community, private and commercial use of land
Sponsorship from corporates and others

9. schedules

Schedule one: Road Types

Road Type	Description
Alley	Usually narrow roadway in a city or towns
Ara	Way, path, lane, passageway, track, course, route.
Arcade	Covered walkway with shops along the side
Avenue	Broad roadway, usually planted on each side with trees
Boulevard	Wide roadway, well pave, usually ornamented with trees and grass plots
Circle	Roadway that generally forms a circle, or short enclosed roadway bounded by a circle
Close	Short enclosed roadway
Court	Short enclosed roadway, usually surrounded by buildings
Crescent	Crescent shaped roadway, especially where both ends join the same thoroughfare
Drive	Wide main roadway without many cross-streets
Esplanade	Level roadway along the seaside, lake, or a river
Glade	Roadway usually in a valley of trees
Green	Roadway often leading to a grassed public recreation area
Grove	Roadway that features a group of trees standing together
Highway	Main thoroughfare between major destinations
Lane	Narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway
Loop	Roadway that diverges from and rejoins the main throughfare
Mall	Wide walkway, usually with shops along the sides
Mews	Roadway in a group of houses
Parade	Public roadway or promenade that has good pedestrian facilities along the side
Place	Short, sometimes narrow, enclosed roadway.
Promenade	Wide flat walkway , usually along the water’s edge
Quay	Roadway alongside or projecting into water
Rise	Roadway going to a higher place or position
Road	Open roadway primarily for vehicles
Square	Roadway which generally forms a square shape, or an area of roadway bounded by four sides
Steps	Walkway consisting mainly of steps
Street	Public roadway in an urban area, especially where paved and with footpaths and buildings along one or both sides
Terrace	Roadway on a hilly area that is mainly flat
Track	Walkway in a natural setting
Walk	Thoroughfare for pedestrians
Way	Short enclosed roadway
Wharf	A roadway on a wharf or pier

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

Issue one: Support for policy review

Submission	Issue
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 , 14, 15, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50, 54, 55, 56, 60, 72, 75, 77, 82, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96	Support policy review	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 13 to 15 and table one of the main report.
4, 8 ,11, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94	Do not support policy review.

Issue two: General support for additional policy purpose encouraging Māori names

Submission	Issue
1, 2, 7, 9, 35, 37, 40, 44, 77, 90, 95, 96	Support additional purpose and policy intent to encourage more Māori names	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 16 to 18 and table two of the main report
96	Support and prioritise cultural and historical names with tangata whenua providing meaning and narrative behind a name
23, 49, 52, 66, 83, 93
Do not support Māori names as they can be difficult to pronounce or too long
36, 84, 91, 92
Need to consider tourists in naming decisions
93	English names are preferable
84	Supports but notes words should be “pronounceable”
75
Need places where people can find out name of street

Issue three: Policy on te reo Māori names

Submission	Issue
96	Add an additional clause to the policy stating support for te reo Māori for streets and public places.	This issue is discussed in paragraph 19 and table three of the main report

Issue four: General naming criteria

Submission	Issue
50	Support prioritisation of general naming criteria	1. This issue is discussed in paragraphs 20 to 22 and table four of the main report.
80	Oppose as only options for future names are Māori or English and Māori
5, 32	Do not support priority given to Māori names
10
More English names
62
Significant and historic places have or retain Māori names, but “normal” streets and reserves should have “sensible” English names
10
Add flora and fauna to criteria
91
Use names of sports people or people who have done outstanding things for Tauranga

Issue five: Dual naming

Submission	Issue
2, 14, 15, 28, 38, 42, 43, 75, 95, 96	Support dual naming	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 23 to 26 and tables five to seven of the main report.
31, 41	Support, but note potential for confusion
31, 33, 65
Support dual naming of reserves only / do not support dual naming of streets
10, 11, 64	Do not support dual naming of streets
33, 49, 65, 76	Do not support dual naming as potentially confusing
11, 45, 81	Do not support dual naming
11, 94	English name should be used first when place is dual named
2
Where dual naming, Māori name should come first

Issue six: Renaming

Submission	Issue
7, 12. 40, 44, 46, 50, 87, 91	Support renaming	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 27 to 30 and tables 8 to 12 of the main report.
10, 21, 22, 23, 29, 47, 53, 58, 59, 61, 66, 67, 68, 80, 81, 91, 92	Do not support renaming
61, 68, 76
Do not support renaming as must respect settler history
5, 36
Support dual naming but do not support renaming
24, 27, 29, 78
Support Māori for new names only streets and reserves (no renaming)
31, 40, 87, 88, 95, 96
Need to consider changing streets named in “colonial tribute”
92
Delete reference to not allowing private application to change street names.
40, 88. 95, 96
Need to consider changing suburb and other place names named in “colonial tribute”
4, 13, 17, 20, 33, 34, 51, 69, 70, 81, 84, 89, 93	Do not support street re-naming	The draft policy does not propose widespread street name changes.

Issue seven: Additional criteria for street naming

Submission	Issue	Option
92	Delete reference to “easy to pronounce” and “easy to spell”	This issue is discussed in paragraphs 31 to 35 and tables 13 to 15 of the main report.
30, 55, 82, 96	Easy to spell and easy to pronounce are subjective and may have the effect of prioritising English names
55, 82
Character limit won’t support Māori names or will reinforce Eurocentric views
96
Change streets in Pāpāmoa with Californian or Floridian names
40
Less street names from foreign places
82
Add Māori words for road types (eg. Te Ara) in the schedule
40
Use macrons; Eg Pāpāmoa, Gate Pā
Staff submission
The road type “way” should be reserved for private roads
36	New public place names will be shorter than Te Papa o Ngā Manu Porotakataka under the proposed policy	The character limit would apply only to street names.

Issue eight: Consultation on naming

Submission	Issue
79, 9	Consult on all names, including gifted names	2. This issue is discussed at paragraphs 36 to 39 and tables 16 and 17
62	Nobody had input into Te Papa o ngā Manu Porotakataka naming decision
26, 38
Do not consult as will create space for racist discourse
92
Delete part clause 6.1.1 stating naming or renaming decisions are subject to consultation
52	Have a public vote on street renaming	3. As noted in issue three below, there is no intention to change street names. Any proposal to change a street name would require consultation with affected parties.
62	Nobody had input into Te Papa o ngā Manu Porotakataka naming decision	Councillors agreed to name the new urban space in Mt Maunganui, Te Papa o ngā Manu Porotakataka, “subject to consultation”. The name was confirmed following consultation.

Issue 9: Delegation for approval of names

Submission	Issue	Staff response
92	Amend clause 6.1.1 to state that council and mana whenua are responsible for naming decisions including sponsorship and naming rights	4. This issue is discussed in paragraphs 40 to 45 and tables 18 and 19 in the main report.
92	Amend clause 6.1.2 to state that the Chief Executive and mana whenua are responsible for street name decisions

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

11 Discussion of Late Items

12 Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Recommendations

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter 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 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
10.4 – Western Corridor Wastewater Study – Attachment 4.	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

[1] Evidence suggests residential change in intensification areas generally occurs at a rate of about 10% every 10 years (Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Panel evidence and related studies).

[2] Within the city centre part of Cameron Road, close to transport hubs and where routes merge.

[3] Under section 100 of the Local Government Act 2002, ‘A local authority must ensure that each year’s projected operating revenues are set at a level sufficient to meet that year’s projected operating expenses.’ This report assumes that a balanced budget covers both the legal definition but also relates to a budget that Council and the residents and ratepayers of Tauranga can legitimately afford.

[4] Traditionally ‘activities’ of Council are often split into ‘functions’ which deliver different ‘services’ to either internal or external customers (or both). For the purpose of this work ‘services’ are the lowest level of the hierarch but, some consideration may be at an activity or function level.

[5] This is a reference to western Bay of Plenty sub-region tāngata whenua.

[6] The ‘sub-region’ refers to the territorial areas of Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

[7] The four well-beings refer to cultural, economic, environmental and social matters.

[8] The ‘sub-region’ refers to the territorial areas of Tauranga City council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

[9] This is a reference to western Bay of Plenty sub-region tāngata whenua.

[10] SmartGrowth Leadership Group membership, functions and procedures are dealt with through a different process, namely a Joint Agreement under Clause 30A, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

[11] The modelling report produced by Flow (Tauranga Cycle Programme – Cycle Demand Assessment June 2019) indicates Option 2 would enable an additional 103km of painted on-road cycle lanes. This figure was subsequently increased to 108km as a result of minor refinements to the model.

[12] A benefit cost ratio calculated from initial cycle modelling analysis was used to identify the options to consider in more detail. The information presented in the MCA summary is based on the information available when undertaking the MCA. Further analysis and refinement of the associated benefits and costs was undertaken for P4 and P5. For P4 (recommended) additional modelling to consider e-bikes was completed as well.

[13] Iorns Magallanes, CJ & J Watts, Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise: Local Government Liability Issues (Deep South National Science Challenge, Wellington, 2019).


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 5 May 2020
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 5 May 2020
Time:	9am
Location:	Tauranga City Council By video conference
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Mayor Tenby Powell
Deputy chairperson	Cr Larry Baldock
Members	Cr Jako Abrie Cr Kelvin Clout Cr Bill Grainger Cr Andrew Hollis Cr Heidi Hughes Cr Dawn Kiddie Cr Steve Morris Cr John Robson Cr Tina Salisbury
Quorum	Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	Six weekly or as required for Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and other relevant legislative requirements.

	Do minimum growth scenario	Preferred Way Forward
Te Papa Total Dwellings	+2,400	+19,400
Resident Population	+3,600	+29,300
Employees	+9,500	+14,900
Te Papa Estimated Dwelling Value	+$1.5b	+$11.6b
GDP contribution	+$90m p.a.	+$730m p.a.
Salaries and wages	+$400m p.a.	+$630m p.a.

Economic factor	Value	Coverage / notes
Wider economic benefits	$2.2billion over 30 years (includes significant avoided public expenditure avoided costs) The above translates to a NPV of approximately $1billion.	· Public expenditure benefit of Te Papa peninsula efficiency in accommodating urban growth · Wage uplift for each 10% density increase. · Productivity gains of 2% to 6% for each doubling of density · Avoided health costs for population transferring to active modes within Te Papa ($4500 per resident) · GDP strengthening on $1.7b p.a. Tauranga city centre with intensification · Capital value increases for HHd and business associated with ‘20 minute’ neighbourhood characteristics. · Induced / improved access to housing for lower income houses with flow on benefits to social outcomes · Avoided GDP losses due to housing constraints / mismatches
Active Modes	$77million over 30 years	· 160% active modes and micro-mobility usage within 10 years · 300% (2500 additional Te Papa peninsula residents) in 30 years · Supports wider regional network functioning and usage
Public transport benefits	Modelling confirmation work for May 2020	· 300% increase in 10 years · More than 10 times over 30 years
CO2	$3million	· To be confirmed via modelling
Travel time costs	Modelling confirmation work for May 2020	· Achievement of mode shift within Te Papa peninsula results in maintained demand on road network for car users. Network will face growth pressure from wider Western Bay of Plenty development dynamics.
Trip reliability	Modelling confirmation work for May 2020	· Achievement of modal shift within Te Papa enables transport network to better service wider Western Bay of Plenty access and travel needs
Vehicle operating savings	$25	· Cumulative modal shift benefits over 30 years of residents moving to walking and cycling
Crash savings	Modelling confirmation work for May 2020	· To be confirmed via modelling
NPV total	>$1 b	· Indicative BCR 1.5 to 2

Project	Total Costs	2021-2030 Costs	2031-2050 Costs	Notes
Transport	($m)	($m)	($m)
Cameron Road Multi Modal ‘Stage 1’	40.00	40.00	0.00	current estimated design and construct cost; includes walking, cycling and PT
Cameron Road Multi Modal ‘Stage 2’	60.00	60.00	0.00	current estimated design and construct cost; includes walking, cycling and PT
Walking	92.00	19.00	73.00	excludes double up with Cameron Road (value $18m)
Cycling	126.00	62.00	64.00	excludes double up with Cameron Road (value $23.5m)
City Centre Transport Hub, Hospital, Greerton	50.00	40.00	10.00	$30m city centre; $10m others
Turrent Rd / 15th Ave	NA	-	-	Regional / TSP project ($100m)
Other PT related Capex, includes secondary and tertiary network improvements, signals, shelters, etc.	32.00	16.00	16.00	Regional Council estimate. Assumption: apportioned 50/50
Total Transport Costs	400.00	237.00	163.00
Community Amenities
Memorial Park Aquatic Centre	90.00	90.00	0.00	Current upper estimate
Central Library	35.00	35.00	0.00	Current estimate
Museum	NA			Not included; potential for more cost effective options; ($56m)
City Centre / waterfront / streetscape improvements	36.00	36.00	TBC	Based on current project estimates; further programme confirmation and costing required for post 2030 timeframes
Community amenities and opens space – general	97.00	48.50	48.50	Includes BVL capital works, existing community facility upgrades, community centres, LoS upgrades for open space, greenway improvements, and other improvements to support increased population. Supporting: Apportioned 50/50
Total Community Amenities Costs	258.00	209.50	48.50
Three Waters Infrastructure
Water supply	10.00	10.00	TBC	Based on 3-waters investigations and current LTP funding; further studies due late 2020; notes significant short-medium term capacity
Wastewater	10.00	10.00	TBC	Based on 3-waters investigations and current LTP funding; further studies due late 2020; notes significant short-medium term capacity
Stormwater alleviation	150.00	75.00	75.00	estimate to provide stormwater mitigation and address overland flow paths
Estimated 3-waters Costs	170.00	95.00	75.00
Marginal 3-waters cost to support development (30%)	51.00	28.50	22.50	Estimate of costs attributed to Te Papa development requirements (as opposed to renewals and wider capacity needs)
Total Costs
Total Costs	709.00	475.50	234.00

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

· To enable leadership of the City including advocacy and facilitation on behalf of the community.

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

· Exercise all non-delegable and non-delegated functions and powers of the Council.

Action/Meeting type	Dates/Times
Lead time by Finance to prepare information	5 May - 15 May 1-2 weeks
Draft amended CD for adoption	8 May – 15 May 1 Week
Council (adopt new draft and CD)	19 May (need resolution for CD amendments)
Consultation	22 May - 5 June 2 weeks
Prepare Hearings report and times for speakers	8 - 12 June 1 week
Hearings	17 June - 19 June
Prepare Deliberations report	22 June - 3 July 2 weeks
Deliberations	8 July to 10 July
Run financial processes and prepare adoption report	13 July - 24 July 2 weeks
Adoption of final AP	31 July

Action/Meeting type	Dates/Times
Review of the associated parts of LTP to see what needs to be updated/change · Review forecasting assumptions · Review activity planning · Review Financial Strategy · Review Infrastructure Strategy · Review Revenue and Financing Policy and associated rating policies · Fees and Charges · Financial Forecasts	25 May 4 weeks
Discussions with Audit NZ	1 May
New issue and options paper to council	26 May - 11 June 2 weeks
Council	16 June
Prepare new LTP documentation for Audit	16 June - 10 July 4 weeks
Prepare consultation document	29 June - 10 July 2 weeks
Audit of LTPA and CD	6 July - 17 July (would depend on confirmation from Audit NZ) 1 week
Report LTPA and CD to Council	21 July
Consultation	21 July - 21 August
Prepare Hearings report and times for speakers	21 August – 25 August (can also be done while consultation is on)
Hearings	26 August - 28 August
Prepare Deliberations report	28 August - 3 September (can also be done while consultation is on)
Deliberations	9 September - 11 September
Run financial processes, prepare adoption report and updated LTP	14 September - 25 September
Final Audit	14 September - 25 September
Adopt LTPA	30 September

Criteria		P1: Do min	P2: Painted lanes	P3: Neighbourhood	P4: Cycling connections and area	P5: High Quality Cycle paths
Investment objectives	Increase of peak mode share of walking and cycling in Tauranga from 3% to 8% by 2043	1	2	1	2	3
	Double active travel in Tauranga, from 200 annual km travelled by walking and cycling per capita to 400 km by 2043	0	1	1	2	3
	25% reduction in annual walking and cycling DSIs in Tauranga by 2043, from the existing 16 annual DSIs	-1	0	1	2	2
Implementation considerations	Integration/conflict with other transport modes	-2	1	1	2	2
	Deliverability	3	1	2	0	-2
	Stageability	-2	3	1	2	2
	Financial feasibility	3	2	2	1	-1
Economic considerations	BCR range^{^[12]}	Not calculated	0.7-0.9	0.7-0.8	1.5-1.8	1.0-1.1
Rank		5th	3rd	4th	1st	2nd