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

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

 

Membership

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.

 

Role

·        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.

Scope

·        Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·        The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

o   Power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan.

o   Power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

o   Power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

o   All final decisions required to be made by resolution of the territorial authority/Council pursuant to relevant legislation (for example: the approval of the City Plan or City Plan changes as per section 34A Resource Management Act 1991).

·        Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

o   Power to compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act 1981.

·        Make those decisions which are required by legislation to be made by resolution of the local authority.

·        Authorise all expenditure not delegated to officers, Committees or other subordinate decision-making bodies of Council.

·        Make appointments of members to the CCO Boards of Directors/Trustees and representatives of Council to external organisations.

·        Consider any matters referred from any of the Standing or Special Committees, Joint Committees, Chief Executive or General Managers.

Procedural matters

·        Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

·        Adoption of Standing Orders.

·        Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·        Approval of Special Orders.

·        Employment of Chief Executive.

·        Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and responsibilities.

Regulatory matters

Administration, monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a committee, subordinate decision-making body, Chief Executive or relevant General Manager).

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Order Of Business

1         Apologies. 7

2         Public Forum.. 7

3         Acceptance of Late Items. 7

4         Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 7

5         Change to the Order of Business. 7

6         Confirmation of Minutes. 7

Nil

7         Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 7

8         Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 7

Nil

9         Recommendations from Other Committees. 7

Nil

10       Business. 8

10.1         Te Papa Indicative Business Case. 8

10.2         Annual Plan Review Process. 75

10.3         SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. 87

10.4         Western Corridor Wastewater Study. 102

10.5         Walking and Cycling Business Case. 110

10.6         Innovating Streets. 276

10.7        Deliberations on and adoption of the Coastal Structures Policy 2020……………..278

10.8         Deliberations and adoption of the Naming Policy 2020. 308

11       Discussion of Late Items. 341

12       Public Excluded Session. 341

12.1       Item 10.4 - Western Corridor Wastewater Study - Attachment 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

1          Apologies

2          Public Forum  

3          Acceptance of Late Items

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

5          Change to the Order of Business

6          Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

10        Business

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

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

(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

(c)     More opportunities for meaningful employment and economic growth in Te Papa

(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

(c)     More opportunities for meaningful employment and economic growth in Te Papa

(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

(c)     Assessment of Effects (20%), e.g. effects in relation to safety, cultural, built environment, social, property.

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)

(c)     Longer term outcomes (10-30 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

(c)     Basic supporting streetscape upgrades in footpath corridor

(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

(c)     Walking and cycling improvements to increase mode share around centres and along PT corridors, including:

(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

(c)     Greerton and hospital public transport hubs

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

(c)     Travel time cost savings

(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

 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Te Papa Indictive Business Case Urban Form Preferred Way Forward – Centre plus Plan

Source: Te Papa Spatial Plan Outcomes and Ideas Discussion Document

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Te Papa Indictive Business Case Multi-Modal Transport Programme 10 Year Investment Plans

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Te Papa Indictive Business Case Benefits

1.      This attachment provides and overview of the potential benefits associated with the Te Papa IBC preferred way forward as it relates to urban form and transport interventions.

2.      The IBC assessment recognises Te Papa peninsula as a central element within the wider urban system of Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty, with ability to release over $1billion in present value benefits to the community. 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.

3.      The recommended urban form and transport interventions will contribute to the growth of the area and wider city in the coming 30 years. Growth projections that form part of the Business Case include potential for up to 29,300 additional residents, 19,400 additional homes, and a 15,000 (60%) increase in employees throughout the peninsula.

4.      At a high level, when compared to a ‘do minimum’ approach, the recommended urban form and transport interventions have potential for significant increases in the overall investment value with Te Papa (and associated development benefits to get there), GDP contribution, and increase in salaries and wages:

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.

 

5.      The urban form and multi-modal transport programme recommended will result in a range of benefits for the city and Te Papa, including:

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

(b)     Housing that meets our needs

(c)     More opportunities for meaningful employment and economic growth in Te Papa

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

(e)     Improvements in environmental quality.

These benefits are described in more detail hereafter.

Better and more equitable access to social and economic opportunities

6.      Benefits associated with ‘better and more equitable access to social and economic opportunities’ include:

(a)     Enabling greater choice, quality, convenience and perceptions of choice has potential to increase active modes and micro-mobility usage by more than double within 10 years and over three times in 30 years.

(b)     Public transport usage by Te Papa residents can increase by over three times in 10 years and 10 times over 30 years. The network provided has an even more significant role to play in the wider region for people to access jobs, education, recreation, community and health services.

(c)     Higher levels of service relative to lower investment options.

(d)     More inclusive access for all users.

(e)     Economic benefits associated with more efficient transport infrastructure, including trip reliability, trip time cost savings, operating savings and crash savings.

(f)      Improved perceived and actual safety for all transport users and the wider public.

(g)     Improved community health through increases of persons using active travel modes (walking, cycling, micro-mobility and accessing public transport), with up $77m of avoided health costs with a projected doubling of active mode travel choice (based on $4,500 per person per lifetime health cost savings for intensified urban areas)

(h)     Transport system multi-modal benefits (walking, cycling, micro-mobility and public transport) assessed at greater than $350m over 30 years.

Housing that meets our needs

7.      Benefits associated with ‘housing that meets our needs’ include:

(a)     Potential for up to 19,400 additional homes, providing increased housing availability and choice including both mix of tenures and varied price points.

(b)     Potential to assist in improving relative housing affordability within wider region.

(c)     Property value increases averaging more than $150,000 per property, while simultaneously seeing increases in wider housing stock availability that benefits lower income households.

(d)     Avoided GDP loss of $450m over 10 years due to housing issues

(e)     Efficient use of infrastructure through intensification, and associated savings to Council and the community. Based on comparable cities (which have shown much higher figures), these efficiencies potentially run at more than $25m for each 1000 households accommodated when compared with greenfields development. For the projected 15,000+ additional households in Te Papa peninsula this equates to a public sector investment efficiency gain of circa $375m.

(f)      Integrated urban form decision-making creating synergistic benefits: strongly aligned and co-ordinated investment between government entities produces timing and procurement efficiencies, and gives greater investment direction and certainty to the private sector.

More opportunities for meaningful employment and economic growth in Te Papa

8.      Benefits associated with ‘more opportunities for meaningful employment and economic growth in Te Papa’ include:

(a)     Employment / creation of jobs including, in in the short term, through construction, including:

(i)      Delivery of new and upgraded housing, commercial, social and recreational infrastructure as well as the transport and 3-waters infrastructure

(ii)     Delivery of new employment growth, catering to the local and regional markets.

(b)     The Te Papa peninsula will accommodate a significant proportion of the projected employment growth for Tauranga in strong, well-performing local centres and the city centre. These business locations are efficiently accessed across the transport system, which will result in increased and sustained economic productivity and prosperity.

(c)     Significant increases in agglomeration economies; strengthening of Te Papa business centre occupancy, vibrancy and employment opportunities, with a focus on Tauranga city centre’s $1.7b per annum GDP.

(d)     Increased attractiveness of Te Papa peninsula as an employment location through enhanced urban form and multi-modal transport choices can accelerate job creation and lift average wages through agglomeration effects.

(e)     Wage earning growth driven by density equating to over $12m to $23m+per 5 years for each 10% density increase Productivity gains of $140m in 10 years, $650m 30 years.

(f)      Significant contribution to GDP associated with development and increases in local employment, wages and salaries.

(g)     Increasing urban population by 10% raises wages by 0.2 to 0.5%.

(h)     Doubling urban density, on average, increases productivity by 2% to 6%.

(i)      10% increase in ‘walking Effective Job Density’ (EJD) associated with a >5% increase in productivity.

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

9.      Benefits associated with ‘neighbourhoods that are more liveable and have a stronger sense of culture and identity’ include:

(a)     Improved environment and health outcomes, and positive impacts on sense of place and identity.

(b)     Strengthened ratings of Te Papa peninsula liveability through better integrated urban form and multi-modal transport networks:

(i)      Community ratings of liveability, identity and acknowledgement and respect for culture (Tauranga City Council – Annual Surveys)

(ii)     Māori and Pacific cultural needs are recognised: Partnership involvement to inform and shape urban decision-making to support identity, and well-being factors.

(c)     Strengthened cultural design considerations into investment into the Te Papa peninsula and wider urban fabric.

(d)     Enabling people to live, work, play and learn within their community through enabling self-containment will provide for a sustainable community.

(e)     Multi-modal transport opportunities will enable people to access social opportunities more easily.

Improvements in environmental quality

10.    Benefits associated with ‘improvements in environmental quality’ include:

(a)     Reduced emissions to the environment through greater uptake of sustainable travel modes; potential for emissions to lessen by >35% relative to status quo urban form development; CO2 emission savings at circa $3m.

(b)     More sustainable urban form design responses.

(c)     Future developments in the Peninsula will assist in greening the peninsula, reducing carbon emissions, using resources efficiently, protecting our cultural heritage and contributing to eco-system health and bio-diversity.

(d)     Improving multi-modal transport options and enabling intensified development close to existing social and economic infrastructure will reduce emissions from transport compared to additional greenfield dispersed development beyond that already planned.

Summary of monetised benefits

11.    The monetised benefits arising from the urban form and transport interventions are summarised as follows:

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Te Papa Indicative Business Case – Indicative Project Costs

Last updated: 23 April 2020

Indicative Project Capital Costs

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

 

 

Indicative Project Operational Costs

Project

Total Costs

2021-2030 Costs

2031-2050 Costs

Notes

Transport

($m)

($m)

($m)

 

PT Opex costs

52.00

21.00

31.00

Regional Council estimate. Assumption: Apportioned 40/60

 

 


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:

Service levels

Contractual consequences

Reputational consequences

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

This scenario is effectively the existing draft Annual Plan service levels

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

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)

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

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)

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

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   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Scenario 1 – Update current information

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

 


 

Scenario 2 – New revised annual plan

Action/Meeting type

Dates/Times

Lead time by Finance to prepare information

5 May – 22 May

2.5 weeks

New issue and options paper to council

5 May - 22 May

2.5 weeks

Council (adopt new draft)

26 May

Draft new CD for adoption

2 June

1 Week

Council (adopt final draft and new CD)

9 June

Consultation

10 June - 10 July

4 weeks

Prepare Hearings report and times for speakers

13 July - 14 July (can also be started while consultation is on)

Hearings

15 July - 17 July

Prepare Deliberations report

13 July - 16 July (can also be started while consultation is on)

Deliberations

22 July - 24 July

Run financial processes and prepare adoption report

27 July – 6 August (exceedingly tight, possibly unachievable)

Adoption of final AP

11 August

 

 


 

Scenario 3 – Long-term plan amendment

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

10.3       SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding

File Number:           A11394950

Author:                    Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Authoriser:              Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To seek Council approval of the updated SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement and Terms of Reference.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Approve the updated SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement and associated Terms of Reference as per Attachment 1.

(b)     Authorise the Mayor to sign the agreement. 

(c)     Approve in principle the Memorandum of Understanding between the SmartGrowth partners and Central Government, attached as Attachment 2 and authorise Mayor to make any minor amendments if required by the Government and to sign the MOU once it has been agreed by Central Government.

 

Executive Summary

2.      This report seeks Council approval of a SmartGrowth (SG) updated Joint Committee Agreement which allows Central Government to join the existing SmartGrowth partnership. It also provides the partners with a Memorandum of Understanding which sets out how Central Government and the SmartGrowth partners will work together.

Background

3.      Late last year, Central Government indicated that they would like to establish an urban growth partnership with SmartGrowth in order to deliver on the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda and in particular the joint spatial plan component. The joint spatial plan is not just having an agreed plan among the sub-regional partners, but also joining with the Crown, so that the plan is agreed and signed off by Central Government in addition to local partnership adoption.

4.      It was decided that the best way for this partnership to occur was for Central Government to join the existing SmartGrowth Leadership Group and to also have involvement at management and technical levels. This is a similar approach to that in the Waikato which has occurred through the Future Proof partnership.

5.      Cementing this partnership is occurring through two key documents:

·        An update to the SmartGrowth Leadership Group Joint Committee Agreement which allows the Crown to join the Committee

·        The preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding between all of the parties

 

6.      The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) mandates the establishment of Joint Committees. The SmartGrowth Leadership Group is a Joint Committee made up of representatives from Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and tāngata whenua along with the New Zealand Transport Agency and Bay of Plenty District Health Board in non-voting roles. The Committee has been in place since 2004.

7.      Clause 30A, 7th Schedule of the LGA requires all Joint Committees to have an agreement across the committee member organisations. This is particularly important for the partner councils given that joint committees are established and operate in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 although their membership may extend beyond local government membership.

8.      The current Agreement states that it may be varied from time to time, but only with the agreement of each of the partner councils.

9.      There have also been other changes since the existing SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement was adopted, such as the Urban Form and Transport Initiative, new National Policy Statements and the need to develop a joint spatial plan between the Crown and SmartGrowth. The Agreement has been updated to reflect these changes.

10.    The draft Agreement has been approved subject to some amendments, by the SmartGrowth Leadership Group at its meeting of 18 March 2020 and recommended to the partner Councils for consideration and sign-off. It is also intended to be signed off by the Cabinet as a suite of urban growth partnership initiatives in either June or July 2020. The exact timing of this is to be clarified given the Covid 19 issue. Advice is being sought from officials on this matter. It is proposed that notwithstanding this timing uncertainty, that the Agreement is progressed. Officials support this approach.

11.    At this stage, it is intended that the agreement would come into effect on 1 July 2020.

12.    While a briefing of Ministers (5) in Wellington was cancelled due to Covid 19 and the lockdown, and a visit by Minister Twyford on 21 April is also postponed, engagement with Minister Twyford by Chairs and Mayors occurred remotely during April.

13.    Minister Twyford indicated last year that he would like a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Government and the SmartGrowth partners. At the December SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting the Independent Chair was delegated authority to progress this MOU.  The Chair presented on the MOU to the February SLG meeting and at its March meeting, the SmartGrowth Leadership Group approved in principle the MOU and recommended that partner Councils approve it in principle given that there may be requests from the Crown for amendments. The Independent Chair was delegated authority to make any minor adjustments if requested by the Crown.

14.    The MOU covers the relationship and how the parties work together. It is separate to the Agreement which is a formal document for establishing joint committees and mandated by the Local Government Act 2002.

THE AGREEMENT

15.    As considered and adopted by the SmartGrowth Leadership Group at its 18 March meeting, an amended Joint Committee Agreement has been prepared and is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

16.    The existing agreement (adopted in 2017) has been amended as follows:

·        Expanded membership to include Central Government (up to three Ministers of the Crown with voting capacity)

·        References to also implementing the outcomes from the Urban Form and Transport Initiative and the joint spatial plan, in addition to the SmartGrowth Strategy.

·        Three local government members instead of four (noting Councils had only appointed 3 members each post the October 2019 elections)

·        Changes to the delegations, the main one being the addition of the Urban Growth Partnership and delegations associated with progressing and implementing that work, in particular the joint spatial plan

·        Removal of the delegations out of the Terms of Reference as these are already covered in the main part of the Agreement and replacing these with the principles and outcomes from the Memorandum of Understanding between SmartGrowth and the Crown.

·        The addition of monitoring and review to the Terms of Reference.

·        No provision for alternates for the voting members of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group.

·        Changing the meeting frequency from bimonthly to quarterly or as and when necessary.

17.    The New Zealand Transport Agency and the Bay of Plenty District Health Board have membership rights but in a non-voting capacity. This is the same situation that has existed over the last three years.

18.    The local authorities made their appointments late last year after the October elections and appointed 3 elected member per council. Unless a council wishes to change its representation, there is no need to re-nominate representatives as the number remains the same.

19.    However, tangata whenua will need to nominate their representatives as this has not yet occurred.

the memorandum of understanding

20.    The MOU is attached as Attachment 2. It establishes the principles and approach to the creation of an enduring spatial plan partnership between Central Government and the SmartGrowth partners.  The MOU covers general principles, outcomes and next steps.

Next Steps

21.    Each of the partner Councils will be asked to pass parallel resolutions to those in this report.  Discussions with occur with Central Government to enable the MOU to be finalised.

Attachments

1.      Attachment 1 : SLG - Urban Growth Partnership Agreement and TOR 30032020 - A11396039

2.      Attachment 2 : SG-Central Govt Partnership MOU 30032020 - A11394938   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 1

 

SmartGrowth Leadership Group (Joint Committee) Agreement


 

1.            Purpose

 

This Agreement is made pursuant to Clause 30A, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA 2002”). The purpose is to provide for a Joint Committee of Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and tāngata whenua[5] to undertake and implement strategic spatial planning across the western Bay of Plenty sub-region[6] in accordance with the SmartGrowth Strategy, outcomes from the Urban Form and Transport Initiative and the joint spatial plan as agreed between the Crown and the SmartGrowth partners. This joint committee is known as the ‘SmartGrowth Leadership Group’.

 

The Leadership Group has additional public body representation from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) through its Director of Regional Relationships and the Bay of Plenty District Health Board (DHB). The NZTA and DHB are non-voting members but have speaking rights.

 

The SmartGrowth Leadership Group has expanded membership for the Urban Growth Management Partnership and associated programmes to include Central Government.

 

This Agreement focuses on the Leadership Group, including its membership and delegations. Any additional Memoranda of Understanding that are completed will be in addition, and complementary to, this Agreement.

The joint SmartGrowth Leadership Group has been established to focus on strategic spatial planning, including the four well-beings (social, economic, environmental, cultural), and growth management in the western Bay of Plenty sub-region. This will occur through developing and implementing plans and strategies and recommending these to the SmartGrowth partners, as well as monitoring and undertaking reviews in accordance with the delegations set out in section 4 and the principles set out in the Terms of Reference attached to this Agreement as Appendix 1.

 

The Leadership Group is a formal joint committee pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 (Clause 30 and 30A, Schedule 7). The Leadership Group will not be discharged at the point of the next election period (in line with Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7, LGA 2002).

 

2.            Membership

 

The SmartGrowth Leadership Group is to be comprised of three elected member representatives as appointed by the local authorities, including the Mayors and Regional Council Chairperson, and four tāngata whenua representatives to be nominated by Iwi or through any other agreed mechanism. The SmartGrowth Leadership Group may at its discretion, appoint an additional tāngata whenua  representative.

 

In addition, up to three Ministers of the Crown who will have voting capacity, are to be appointed by the Crown. Additional Ministers, if and when relevant and required, can be appointed by the SmartGrowth Leadership Group in a non-voting capacity.

 

An Independent Chairperson (non-elected member) is to be appointed by the SmartGrowth Leadership Group to chair the Committee. The Independent Chairperson has speaking rights and voting capacity. A Deputy Chairperson is also to be appointed by the SmartGrowth Leadership Group at the beginning of each triennium, from the existing voting membership.

 

The NZTA is to be represented through its Director of Regional Relationships with speaking rights but in a non-voting capacity. The DHB is also represented on the Leadership Group, by a person to be nominated by the Board with speaking rights but in a non-voting capacity.

 

The standing membership of the Leadership Group shall be limited to 17 members (including the Independent Chairperson), but with the power to co-opt up to a maximum of three additional non-voting members where required to ensure effective planning and implementation. In accordance with Clause 30A of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002, the quorum at a meeting of the Leadership Group shall be 9 voting members.

 

Other representatives of voting and non-voting organisations are permitted to attend meetings of the Leadership Group. Speaking rights of other representatives at Leadership Group meetings (whether in public session or not) shall only be granted with the prior approval of the Chairperson. In respect of SmartGrowth Leadership Group workshops, all members of partner governance groups can attend and participate.

 

3.            Meeting Frequency

 

Quarterly, or as necessary and determined by the Independent Chairperson.

 

Notification of meetings and the publication of agendas and reports shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and will be undertaken by the agreed administration authority.

 

4.            Delegations

 

The SmartGrowth Leadership Group is delegated the following functions in support of its overall purpose:

 

 

Co-ordinating Sub-regional Spatial Planning

§ Providing sub-regional leadership on spatial planning, growth, infrastructure planning and development, focusing on key issues including the four well-beings[7] and the sustainable management of natural resources.

§ Undertaking high-level spatial planning and dealing with cross boundary matters.

§ Determining as far as practicable consistency between the various Government National Policy Statements

§ Overseeing and coordinating National Policy Statement on Urban Development implementation.

§ Reviewing and updating the SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern

§ Overseeing infrastructure / facilities and the funding necessary to implement the Settlement Pattern.

§ Setting overarching sub-regional policy, actions and approaches relevant to the SmartGrowth Strategy.

§ Sharing the challenges of implementation and overcoming the barriers moving forward.

 

Urban Growth Partnership

§  Overseeing the development and implementation of a joint spatial plan for the western Bay of Plenty sub-region and associated work streams, including adopting any drafts for public consultation.

§  Overseeing, including any reviews and monitoring, a joint urban growth programme.

§  Ensuring organisation systems and resources support implementation of the joint spatial plan and any associated urban growth programme.

§  Addressing cross-boundary matters within the western Bay of Plenty sub-region, as well as with other neighbouring regions.

§  Addressing housing affordability matters.

§  Monitoring the implementation of the spatial plan and associated work streams.

§  Reviewing and recommending changes to the spatial plan if circumstances change.

§  Ensuring alignment with existing council plans, strategies and policies, and with existing evidence.

§  Ensuring alignment with initiatives already underway such as the Urban Form and Transport Initiative.

§  Facilitating consultation with the partners and the wider community where relevant.

 

Future Thinking and Advocacy

§ Having a united voice where issues require joint advocacy.

§ Development and leadership of an agreed sub-regional advocacy programme

§ Engagement on intra and inter-regional matters where there are impacts beyond the sub-region, including matters of Upper North Island or national importance.

§ Facilitating community understanding and discussions/conversations.

§ Facilitating specific consultation with the community on SmartGrowth implementation matters.

§ Establishing, maintaining and engaging with the SmartGrowth Partner Forums.

§ Communicating and engaging with key stakeholders where a sub-regional level view is required.

§ Identifying and resolving any consultation inconsistencies between the SmartGrowth strategies and subsequent public consultation processes of the partner Councils

 

SmartGrowth Strategy Development, Implementation and Alignment Monitoring

§ Overseeing the implementation of the 2013 SmartGrowth Strategy, in particular the strategy actions, and undertaking any reviews or updates to the Strategy, including adopting any drafts for public consultation.

§ Ensuring organisation systems and resources support strategy implementation.

§ Taking responsibility for progressing those actions specifically allocated to the SmartGrowth Leadership Group in the strategy and making sure implementation does occur.

§ Reviewing and recommending adjustments to the strategy if circumstances change.

§ Champion integration and implementation through partner strategies, programmes, plans and policy instruments (including the Regional Policy Statement, Regional and District Plans, Long Term Plans (LTPs), Annual Plans, transport plans and triennial agreements) and through partnerships with other sectors such as health, education and business.

§ Approving submissions to Local Authorities, Central Government and other agencies on SmartGrowth related matters

§ Monitoring of the strategic outcomes and ensuring a joined-up approach to strategy implementation, including monitoring and reporting implementation progress against key milestones

§ Overviewing the management of the risks identified in implementation.

§ Making specific recommendations to partners on the joined-up thinking needed for resolving issues

 

Committee Operations

§ Selecting and appointing an Independent Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson.

§ Implementing any Memoranda of Agreement or Understanding, as adopted by the Leadership Group.

§ Establish protocols and arrangements to ensure that implementation, where necessary, is consistent, collaborative and/or coordinated to achieve optimal outcomes.

 

Central Government’s participation in the SmartGrowth Leadership Group does not constitute endorsement of initiatives in any way, and all financial, policy and other decisions still need to be approved by Central Government.

 

5.            Variation of this Agreement

 

This agreement may be varied from time to time, but only with the agreement of each of the partners.


Execution

 

Bay of Plenty Regional Council by:

 

 

 

 

Chairperson: Doug Leeder

 

 

 

 

Chief Executive: Fiona McTavish

Dated:

 

 

 

Tauranga City Council by:

Dated:

 

 

 

 

Mayor: Tenby Powell

 

 

 

 

Chief Executive: Marty Grenfell

Dated:

Dated:

 

 

Western Bay of Plenty District Council by:

 

 

 

 

Mayor: Garry Webber

 

 

 

 

Chief Executive: Miriam Taris

Dated:

Dated:

 

 

 

Tāngata Whenua Representative by:

 

 

 

 

Buddy Mikaere

Dated:

 

 

Central Government by:

 

 

 

 

Dated

 


Appendix 1: SmartGrowth Leadership Group Terms of Reference


SmartGrowth Leadership Group (SLG)

 

Purpose:

The purpose of the Joint Committee (SmartGrowth Leadership Group) is to undertake and implement strategic spatial planning across the western Bay of Plenty sub-region[8] in accordance with the SmartGrowth Strategy, outcomes from the Urban Form and Transport Initiative and the joint spatial plan as agreed between the Crown and the SmartGrowth partners.

 

The SmartGrowth Leadership Group carries out its purpose in accordance with the delegations set out in the Agreement.

 

General Principles:

The SmartGrowth Leadership Group operates under the following principles:

 

§ Supporting the aim of developing a thriving western Bay of Plenty sub-region that is prosperous, has high levels of sustainable economic growth, supports affordable housing along with a transport system that can support that growth.

§ Supporting a four well-being approach to urban growth and spatial planning which incorporates cultural, economic, environmental and social well-being and builds on the SmartGrowth ‘live, learn, work and play’ vision.

§ Reinforcing an integrated planning approach incorporating land use, all infrastructure and funding.

§ Building on existing SmartGrowth work, including the 2013 Strategy, outcomes from Urban Form and Transport Initiative (“UFTI”), and the general SmartGrowth arrangements already in place.

§ Adopting a shared evidence base so that all parties are using common data.

§ Recognising and supporting the existing Urban Form and Transport Initiative (“UFTI”) which will underpin the development of one joint sub-regional spatial plan.

§ Taking account of the Western Bay Transport System Plan findings.

§ Acknowledging the benefits of a collaborative approach to urban growth and spatial planning, and to share responsibility for such planning between the parties in consultation with key sector groups and the sub-regional community.

§ Supporting the economic and social aspirations of tāngata whenua while protecting cultural identity.

§ Sustaining and improving the natural environment.

 

 

Monitoring and Review:

The SmartGrowth Leadership Group has responsibility for:

 

§ Six- monthly monitoring and reporting on implementation of the principles set out in this Terms of Reference.

§ Monitoring the implementation of any joint urban growth programme developed.

§      Monitoring and reporting SmartGrowth implementation progress against key milestones.

§ Reviewing and recommending any changes to the SmartGrowth Strategy if circumstances change.

Membership:       

That representation of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group be comprised of:

§ Three elected member representatives as appointed by the contributing authorities, including the Mayors and Regional Council Chairperson - voting

§ Four representatives to be nominated by tāngata whenua - voting

§ An Independent Chairperson, to be appointed by the Leadership Group, to chair the Group – voting

§ Up to three Ministers of the Crown – voting

§ Additional Ministers, if and when relevant and required – non-voting

§ One DHB representative – non-voting

§ One NZTA representative – non-voting

 

That the standing membership of the Leadership Group shall be limited to 17 members (including the Independent Chairperson), but

the SmartGrowth Leadership Group has the power to co-opt up to a maximum of three additional non-voting members where required to ensure the effective implementation of any part or parts of the Strategy including the joint (Crown and local partners) spatial plan.

 

Meeting Frequency:

Quarterly, or as necessary and determined by the Independent Chairperson.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

Attachment 2

 

SmartGrowth and Central Government Spatial Plan Partnership - Memorandum of Understanding

 

 

Establishing the principles and approach to the creation of an enduring spatial plan partnership between Central Government and the SmartGrowth partners (Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and tāngata whenua)

 

 

Section 1 - Purpose

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is to:

Establish the principles and approach to the creation of an enduring spatial plan partnership between Central Government and the SmartGrowth partners (Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and tāngata whenua[9]).

Section 2 - Parties

The Parties to this MOU are Central Government, western Bay of Plenty sub-region tāngata whenua, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

Section 3 - General Principles

The parties to this MOU will use best endeavours to:

SUPPORT the aim of the spatial plan partnership to develop a thriving western Bay of Plenty sub-region that is prosperous, has high levels of sustainable economic growth, supports affordable housing and a transport system that can support that growth.

SUPPORT a four well-being approach to urban growth and spatial planning which incorporates cultural, economic, environmental and social well-being and builds on the SmartGrowth ‘live, learn, work and play’ vision.

COMMIT to the shared purpose and outcomes as outlined in this MOU while assisting each other to achieve individual partner objectives.

REINFORCE an integrated planning approach incorporating land use, all infrastructure and funding.

AGREE to build on the existing SmartGrowth work, including the 2013 Strategy, outcomes from Urban Form and Transport Initiative, and the general SmartGrowth arrangements already in place.[10]

ADOPT a shared evidence base so that all parties are using common data.

RECOGNISE AND SUPPORT the existing Urban Form and Transport Initiative (“UFTI”) which will underpin the development of a joint sub-regional spatial plan.

ACKNOWLEDGE the benefits of a collaborative approach to urban growth and spatial planning, and to share responsibility for such planning between the parties in consultation with key sector groups and the sub-regional community.

AGREE to six- monthly reporting to the SmartGrowth Leadership Group on implementation of the principles and achievement of the outcomes as set out in this MOU.

ACKNOWLEDGE that this partnership is part of a wider Government Urban Growth Agenda initiative.

SUPPORT the economic and social aspirations of tāngata whenua while protecting cultural identity.

SUSTAIN and IMPROVE the natural environment.

Section 4 – Outcomes

The outcomes sought from the urban growth partnership are to:

§  Commit to the development and implementation of a joint, comprehensive sub-regional spatial plan. The first phase to be completed by June 2020 concentrates on an integration of the current UFTI and spatial planning work.  Phase 2, that is likely to be completed by the end of 2020 will also encompass the Future Development Strategy as well as an update of the 2013 SmartGrowth Strategy. The aim is to develop in two phases a single strategic document for the western Bay of Plenty sub-region, which is implemented through co-governance arrangements. Engagement and consultation will occur as part of this process. It is likely that formal consultation will take place at the end of Phase 2.

§  Commit to the development and implementation of an agreed investment and funding plan that is co-governed across all partner agencies, to enable timely implementation of the outcomes arising from the Urban Form and Transport Initiative, and the agreed joint spatial plan as outlined above.

§  Take account of the Western Bay Transport System Plan findings.

§  Commit to examining the opportunities for the development of an inter-regional collaboration between the SmartGrowth and Future Proof partnerships, with the strategic intent to have a joint Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga corridor approach to spatial planning, particularly relating to transportation.

§  Invest in all infrastructure, together, through innovative funding and financing tools.

§  Work together on improving the quality of the built and natural environments.

§  Ensure that tāngata whenua are adequately resourced to effectively engage in the partnership and the key outcomes.

§  Advance planning reform, through legislation and local planning instruments, to encourage growth both up and out.

§  Commit, where possible, to supporting the development aspirations of Maori landowners for housing and other economic initiatives.

§  Undertake joined up central and local government thinking, funding and commitments, including greater co-ordination of service delivery.

§  Maintain a focus to ensure that housing affordability remains top of mind through all initiatives.

§  Commit to funding the operation of the enhanced SmartGrowth partnership.

 

 

Section 5 – Next Steps

The parties to this MOU will use best endeavours to implement the spatial planning partnership by:

SUPPORTING an expansion of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group to include Central Government representatives.

COMMITTING to a review of tāngata whenua representation to ensure this is appropriate and comprehensive and will allow for meaningful contribution.

NOMINATING representatives to participate in SmartGrowth structures at all levels.

ALLOCATTING sufficient resources to enable the partnership to deliver the outcomes.

COMMITTING to completing a draft of the joint spatial plan no later than June 2020.

COMMITTING to agreeing a draft joint transformational urban growth – spatial planning programme no later than June 2020.

COMMITTING to investigating the establishment of an urban growth partnership fund where applications can be made for funding transformational projects on an annual basis.

 

Section 6 - Interpretation

§ SmartGrowth partners refers to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tauranga

City Council, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and tāngata whenua. It also includes the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Bay of Plenty District Health Board as non-voting partners. This membership is subject to review from time to time.

§ Central Government refers to all Government ministries and agencies.

§ Joint spatial plan refers to a plan that is agreed by central government, local government partners and tāngata whenua and implementation partners

§ SmartGrowth means the western Bay of Plenty Spatial Plan 2013 as approved by the three

partner Councils and tāngata whenua and supported by strategic partners.

§ The SmartGrowth Leadership Group is the joint governance committee responsible for overseeing the SmartGrowth Strategy.

§ The western Bay of Plenty sub-region refers to all of the land within the administrative areas of Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty District and includes that part of the administrative area of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as it relates to the two districts.

 

Any questions of interpretation of this MOU are to be raised with the parties to this MOU and collectively resolved. The parties agree to act in good faith in respect of implementing this MOU.

This MOU will run until the next review or update of the SmartGrowth Strategy, or alternatively no later than October 2022.

This MOU takes effect on the date it is signed by all parties.

 


 

 

SIGNED for and on behalf of Central Government by:

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNED for and on behalf of Central Government by:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNED for and on behalf of the Tāngata Whenua by:

 

 

 

 

 

Buddy Mikaere

 

SIGNED for and on behalf of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council by:

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Leeder

Chair Bay of Plenty Regional Council

 

 

SIGNED for and on behalf of the Tauranga City Council:

 

 

 

 

 

Tenby Powell

Mayor Tauranga City Council

 

SIGNED for and on behalf of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council:

 

 

 

 

 

Garry Webber

Mayor Western Bay of Plenty District Council

 

 

Dated:

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

10.4       Western Corridor Wastewater Study

File Number:           A11391329

Author:                    Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: Waters Strategy & Planning

Authoriser:              Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To inform councillors of progress in relation to the Western Corridor Wastewater Study and seek approval to proceed with steps to advance its implementation.

Recommendations

That the Council:

a)   Endorse the outcomes of the Western Corridor Wastewater study.

b)   Agree to immediately proceed with preliminary design and planning in the 2019/20 financial year funded by a reallocation of other available wastewater planning budgets.

c)   Agree in principle the completion of design and urgent delivery of construction for the interim stage subject to funding being available through 2020/21 Annual Plan or other processes as approved by Council.

d)   Note that costs associated with future stage 1 and 2 will be considered through development of the 2021-31 LTP and associated 30-year infrastructure strategy.

e)   Approves exemption from open competition and direct appointment of the recommended contractor (as outlined in confidential Attachment 4) for the Western Corridor Wastewater preliminary and detailed design.

f)    Retains Attachment 4 (A11407716) in confidential on the grounds that withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).  The attachment and recommendation can be publicly released when negotiations and contract are finalised.

 

Executive Summary

2.      The Tauranga area has experienced significant growth in recent years, with a forecast population of nearly 200,000 people by 2063. As part of a continued commitment to planning and managing infrastructure to facilitate growth, TCC in conjunction with its SmartGrowth Partners, are both considering the development of the Western Corridor (broader Tauriko/Pyes Pa area).

3.      The Western Corridor area was identified by SmartGrowth and provides an opportunity for development of an additional 15,500 dwellings and approximately 120ha of industrial land over the next 50 years.  The areas considered include residential land within the growth areas of Tauriko West, Lower Belk Road, Upper Belk Road, Keenan Road, Merrick Road and Joyce Road. The industrial land (Lower Belk) is located adjacent to the Tauriko Business Estate, currently nearing completion.

4.      GHD were engaged by TCC to develop the Western Corridor Wastewater Implementation Strategy. The strategic servicing strategy considered the requirements to be able to service not only the short-term developments, but also longer-term areas identified for future growth. The servicing strategy divided infrastructure into a number of stages – Interim, Stage 1 and Stage 2.   Interim servicing allows for the connection to the existing network to support some (but not all) short term development areas. Stage 1 identifies infrastructure required for the full build out of short-term development and Stage 2 for longer-term development.

5.      Interim stage servicing requires a rapid delivery of the Tauriko pump station and rising main from the pump station to Kennedy road and the storage at existing Kennedy Road pump station to enable development of the zoned Tauriko Business Estate area to be completed. The intention is to carry out the design in a phased approach:

·        Preliminary Design – to confirm the sizing and detailed arrangements for the required infrastructure as well as site investigation and consenting works; and

·        Detailed Design to facilitate the delivery of the required infrastructure.

 

Background

6.      This report is a first one in a series of reports in regard to water infrastructure projects to provide councillors with information about these significant projects prior to the upcoming LTP discussions.

7.      The Tauranga area has experienced significant growth in recent years, with a forecast population of nearly 200,000 people by 2063. As part of a continued commitment to planning and managing infrastructure to facilitate growth, TCC in conjunction with its SmartGrowth Partners, are both considering the development of the Western Corridor (broader Tauriko/Pyes Pa area).

8.      The Western Corridor includes areas of recent development within Tauranga (such as the Lakes and Tauriko Business Estate) as well as future growth areas identified as potentially occurring within the next 5-50 years.  The Western Corridor area is located to the south west of Tauranga City and extends into the Western Bay of Plenty.  The Western Corridor area was identified by SmartGrowth and provides an opportunity for development of an additional 15,500 dwellings and approximately 120ha of industrial land over the next 50 years.  The areas considered include residential land within the growth areas of Tauriko West, Lower Belk Road, Upper Belk Road, Keenan Road, Merrick Road and Joyce Road. The industrial land (Lower Belk) is located adjacent to the Tauriko Business Estate, currently nearing completion.

9.      One of the key drivers for this project is that growth in the area has been occurring faster than previously anticipated including completion of The Lakes residential development approximately 10 years ahead of the developers schedule and the pre-sale of approximately 50ha of industrial sections in the final zoned stage of Tauriko Business Estate. TCC see the Western Corridor Wastewater Implementation Strategy providing the opportunity for a co-ordinated approach to servicing the overall area for the next 50 years i.e. a blueprint to support more efficient delivery of wastewater infrastructure in response to development pressures.

10.    Although the bulk of the new development areas identified in the Western Corridor currently lie within the Western Bay of Plenty district, wastewater infrastructure to service these areas is expected to pass into Tauranga City and through areas where growth is likely to happen within the next 5 years. TCC therefore require a wastewater implementation strategy to be developed that: considers stakeholder and council objectives and forecast growth; identifies core wastewater infrastructure requirements, and provides an adaptive, flexible and staged approach to delivery.

11.    GHD were engaged by TCC to develop the Western Corridor Wastewater Implementation Strategy. The implementation strategy will be used to support on-going discussions with developers, iwi and other stakeholders.

Strategic / Statutory Context

12.    Urban development cannot proceed without adequate servicing of wastewater. It is Council’s responsibility to ensure that new developments are appropriately serviced before titles for individual lots are issued.   

Options Analysis

13.    The strategic servicing strategy considered the requirements to be able to service not only the short-term developments, but also longer-term areas identified for future growth. The strategy considered existing infrastructure, constraints mapping, resilience and sustainability in order to develop the routing of the truck infrastructure. It also considered a range of routing arrangements which were considered using a range of Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) to determine the preferred option(s) and staging of the works.

14.    Due to the development pressure in the area, the servicing strategy considered an interim stage where a portion of immediate development could connect to the existing network at Kennedy Drive Pump Station (PS), as long as sufficient operational storage can be provided for the new and existing network to manage peak wet weather flows.  This interim servicing would be used until the Stage 1 infrastructure could be constructed to allow the full development area to be connected. 

15.    There is an area within Tauriko Business Estate (TBE) proposed for immediate development (referred to as TBE 3A) that was planned to be serviced via extension of the existing wastewater network as per the Tauriko Business Estate structure plan.  Due to localised topography issues, undeveloped properties along the proposed route and pipe sizing within existing parts of the network, servicing of this area in accordance with the structure plan solution is very challenging and no longer feasible.  It is instead considered that area 3A of TBE be included in the proposed interim and longer-term servicing strategy for the broader Western Corridor. Benefits of the change in servicing strategy for the TBE 3A area is a simplified network, which will be easier and cheaper to operate in the long run however it requires additional upfront investment costs (see below).

16.    The servicing strategy divides infrastructure into a number of stages – Interim, Stage 1 and Stage 2 (Attachment 1 to 3).   Interim servicing allows for the connection to the existing network to support some (but not all) short term development (TBE Stage 3A and part of Tauriko West and the proposed TBE extension south of Belk Road). Stage 1 identified infrastructure required for the full build out of short-term development (Lower Belk, Tauriko West, Keenan Road North). Stage 2 identified infrastructure required for longer-term development options if they proceed (Upper Belk, Keenan Road South, Merrick Road and Joyce Road).

17.    The forecast growth requires the wastewater infrastructure to be built and upgraded over a relatively short period, in three proposed stages: Interim, Stage 1 and Stage 2. At this stage, the Interim solution is the most critical as it will service TBE Stage 3A as an immediate priority, as well as provide potential capacity for Tauriko West and the proposed Lower Belk industrial area. Preliminary Design, including site investigations and further engagement, is required to advance this work further with the aim of being able to carry out detailed design by the end of 2020 subject of funding being available.  Funding for this infrastructure is included in TCC applications to the Government economic stimulus programmes via CIP and the Urban Growth workstreams. 

18.    The route design is at a conceptual stage; therefore the current cost estimate of the proposed solution is high level and is based on the current outline design information along with TCC standard designs where relevant for the pump stations. The baseline cost estimate was derived from first principles and is based on the information provided by GHD and some supplier pricing.  It should be noted that updated and detailed costing will need to be prepared as the design process moves into preliminary and detailed design.  

19.    Design, investigations, consenting and delivery of the Interim stage is estimated to cost in the range of $25M. Delivery of all stages of the infrastructure is estimated to cost nearly $110M. GHD costings do not include cost of land acquisition, or contaminated land investigation. The prices have a base date of 2019.

20.    Interim stage servicing requires a rapid delivery of the Tauriko PS and rising main from the PS to Kennedy road and the storage at existing Kennedy Road PS. The intention is to carry out the design in a phased approach: 

·        Preliminary Design – to confirm the sizing and detailed arrangements for the required infrastructure as well as site investigation and consenting works; and

·        Detailed Design to facilitate the delivery of the required infrastructure. 

21.    In order to meet required timelines required by TBE in relation to pre-sold sections to be serviced as part of this wastewater solution, it is required to continue with preliminary design immediately. Preliminary design, site investigations, and detailed design would be required by late 2020.  

22.    Construction may be delivered in different packages, potentially with TCC taking the lead for infrastructure outside of Tauriko Business Estate and the developers of Tauriko Business Estate delivering the infrastructure within their growth area in conjunction with their own civil works programme.

23.    The project is subject to funding availability via the 2020/21 Annual Plan, upcoming LTP and government stimulus processes. TBE may look to deliver all the infrastructure on their land in order to ensure that their blocks can be serviced. Completion of the Preliminary Design will ensure that the long-term growth requirements are considered.  Capex budgets are included in the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan for costs expected to be incurred in the next financial year.

Financial Considerations

24.    Currently there is minimal budget allocated in the LTP beyond the next financial year for the extension of the western wastewater network, as growth has occurred much faster in this area than anticipated and previous structure plan solutions are no longer feasible. As mentioned above, the wastewater network extension as proposed has been included in TCC’s funding application as part of central government growth stimulus processes.

25.    The draft Annual Plan 2020/21, which was considered and signed off by council in March 2020 included budget for the interim stage of this wastewater solution following discussion and debate about the matter by council.  Since then the Covid-19 situation has evolved and there is significant uncertainty around TCC’s financial ability to deliver its capex programme – particularly in the upcoming financial year. 

26.    It should be noted that the interim stage of the Western Corridor wastewater project is included in TCC applications to government financial stimulus processes.

27.    Approval is sought from Council to reallocate available wastewater 2019/20 budget to this project to enable planning to commence immediately.  The contract for these services will be written in a manner which enables the work to be placed on hold should the 20/21 Annual Plan budget for provide for this project to proceed.

Legal Implications / Risks

28.    In order to meet desired deadlines for the implementation of the interim solution, it is recommended to deviate from council general procurement policy. As the total value of the supply arrangement will be beyond the $200K, council approval will be required (as set out in the confidential attachment).

Consultation / Engagement

29.    Consultation and engagement on the whole wastewater solution with iwi/hapu and key stakeholders, including developers is planned to be carried out in parallel to the preliminary design for the interim solution.

Significance

30.    The community has been engaged on the Western Growth Corridor through various processes including the development of the proposed Future Development Strategy and through the Tauriko for Tomorrow project. The wastewater servicing strategy provides for important and significant wastewater infrastructure required to be implemented to enable this growth. 

Next Steps

31.    Seek approval from council to proceed with the urgent delivery of design for the interim stage of the Western Corridor wastewater solution.

32.    Carry out Preliminary Design, including any required site investigations and early engagement with stakeholders, followed by detailed design with the aim of being able to finalise design (including detailed design) by late 2020 subject to funding being available.

Attachments

1.      Concept Interim Stage - A11412987

2.      Concept Stage 1 - A11412991

3.      Concept Stage 2 - A11413042

4.      Confidential Attachment to report Western Corridor Wastewater Study - A11407716 - Public Excluded    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

10.5       Walking and Cycling Business Case

File Number:           A11405719

Author:                    Karen Hay, Team Leader: Cycle Plan Implementation

Authoriser:              Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To seek approval to submit the Walking and Cycling Business Case to the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for approval in June 2020

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Endorses the recommended “Cycling Connections and Area Accessibility” as the preferred programme option, subject to funding availability.

(b)     Approves that the Walking and Cycling Business Case  be submitted to New Zealand Transport Agency, as part of the UFTI programme business case,  for consideration and approval in June 2020.

(c)     Notes investment timeframes, costs and cost sharing arrangements with project partners will come before Council for approvals as the programme progresses.

 

Executive Summary

2.      This walking and cycling business case (Accessible Streets) is intended to be submitted to Waka Kotahi as part of the Urban Form and Transports Initiative (UFTI) programme business case that supports multi modal outcomes for Tauranga. This business case and UFTI are interlinked and combined support an enhanced multi-modal transport system for Tauranga.

3.      The focus of this report is on the Accessible Streets 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

(c)     A summary of the recommended programme, including indicative timing

(d)     A summary of potential benefits accruing from the recommended programme.

4.      As outlined on the NZ Treasury’s website, programmes business cases (PBC) are about managing change with a strategic vision and a roadmap of how to get there.  They comprise several activities that will be completed in tranches over an extended period to achieve outcomes that are greater than the sum of the parts.

5.      The PBC is used as the basis for seeking early approval to start a preferred programme of work, to develop subsequent business cases and to review the ongoing viability of the programme.  It provides an early opportunity for the organisation and key stakeholders to influence the direction of the investment proposal and to avoid too much effort being put into developing investment proposals and options that should not proceed.

6.      The business case recognises that this cycling programme is one component of a wider suite of initiatives being developed by Tauranga City Council, in partnership with other agencies, to improve personal mobility, accessibility and travel choice in Tauranga. As such, the connection to the wider suite of initiatives such as UFTI and the Te Papa Spatial Plan is critical.

7.      Extensive modelling has been undertaken to determine the contribution that a completed cycle network can make to the Tauranga Transport network. The potential is for:

(a)     Travel to work mode shares increasing to between 6.5% and 10% in 2043, from 3.5% today

(b)     Travel to school mode shares increasing to between 14% and 15% in 2043, from 8.5% today

(c)     Between 2,600 and 3,200 fewer commuter peak car journeys each day

8.      Consideration was given to the impact that e-bikes could have on cycle mode share. The results are as follows:

(a)     The preferred programme is predicted to increase the total number of daily cycle trips from the current 11,000 daily trips, to between 27,000 and 33,000 trips by 2043, an increase of between 140%  and 190%.

(b)     Larger increases are predicted in terms of the total cycle-km travelled on the network, at between 180% and 250%.  This indicates that the programme is predicted to result in not only more cycle trips within Tauranga, but longer cycle trips.

9.      The benefits for the city and community include:

(a)     Cycling is widely accepted as a safe and attractive alternative transport choice in both existing and newly developed urban areas

(b)     Improved health, environmental, social, and place outcomes

(c)     Improved access to opportunities, particularly for people with low levels of transport choice

(d)     Support liveability and placemaking outcomes

(e)     Increased safety for people using bikes.

10.    Whilst this programme is focussed on cycling in the first instance, it is expected that secondary benefits will accrue to other modes that can also utilise cycling connections and routes – such as walking and small wheeled electric devices e.g. mobility and electric scooters. Safety benefits are also derived when cycling infrastructure is in place that assists with reducing speeds and enhances access for people walking.

Background

11.    Over the last 30 years Tauranga City has doubled in size and is now New Zealand’s fifth largest city.  With growth forecast to continue in the future, the city and wider Western Bay of Plenty sub-region have undertaken an Urban Form and Transport Initiative programme business case to identify how best to manage growth in terms of where people live and how they can move.

12.    As Tauranga City grows, access to economic and social opportunities via the transport system is becoming increasingly challenging, particularly at peak times.  Private motor vehicle use dominates in Tauranga, and there are few viable alternatives for how people can move throughout the City.  Compared to other New Zealand cities, Tauranga has:

(a)     one of the highest percentage of people who use a private motor vehicle to travel to work (91%)

(b)     the lowest percentage of people who travel to work via public transport (2%), or walk to work (4%)

(c)     one of the lowest percentages of people who cycle to work (3%).

13.    Equally, the evidence shows that some of the challenges to getting more people biking are.

(a)     Perceptions of cycling safety risks in Tauranga is a disincentive to the uptake of people who want to bike more or try biking

(b)     Much of our previous transport investment has historically focused on increasing roading capacity and less on other transport modes, which has contributed to a high private vehicle usage when travelling to work and education facilities

(c)     The lack of protection for cyclists contributes to cycling related death and serious injury (DSIs) crashes

14.    Cycling network options (i.e. programme options) were developed using the Tauranga Cycle Model (TCM), which is based upon the same methodology used to develop cycling models for Christchurch and Auckland.  The model was used to identify broad areas where there is high potential demand for cycle trips, namely for the purposes of accessing employment or education hubs, and how these areas might connect if appropriate cycle infrastructure was to be provided.

15.    The model also considered changes in land use: the model is informed by forecast land use changes (via links to Council’s current forecast strategic traffic model and the Tauranga Transport Strategic Model). This means that forecast increases in population, employment or education result in increased future cycle trips within the model

Council decisions on the Cycle Programme

16.    As part of the Councils deliberations on the Long Term Plan on the 28th of May 2018 (DC218 Long Term Plan 2018-28 Deliberations - Tauranga Cycle Plan Recommendations and Appendices- (DC166), the Council mandated progression of the Cycle Plan as outlined in the table below:

Error! Not a valid link.

17.    The Council endorsement noted the necessity of increased central government subsidy to enable Council to deliver multi-modal options in the city in a reasonable timeframe

18.    Given the Councils current financial constraints impacted by COVID 19, any funding and progression of the programme will be subject to annual plan and the LTP deliberations.

Strategic / Statutory Context

19.    More recently, the Transport Agency’s National Mode Shift Strategy (Keep Cities Moving) has identified Tauranga City as one of the six critical locations in NZ to grow the share of public transport, walking and cycling, and create more vibrant and liveable cities.  The Strategy recognises that Tauranga’s current population size, together with the pace and scale of forecast growth, creates both an urgency and an opportunity for change.

20.    The recommended programme aligns with the strategic priorities (Access, Safety and Environmental Sustainability) as identified in Governments Policy Statements .

 

Connection with UFTI

21.    The work completed in this walking and cycling business case has meant that the UFTI programme has not had to consider walking and cycling network options. This is to avoid duplication between the projects. To provide a complete multi-modal transport system programme, UFTI will need to incorporate the preferred walking and cycling network option. Without this connection, UFTI will have a significant gap in its programme.

22.    Waka Kotahi will not consider a single mode business case, hence the need for this programme to be endorsed and be submitted as part of the UFTI programme business case.

Options Analysis

23.    Five high-level cycle programme options were developed to connect key origins and destinations relating to employment and education hubs. The options build on from previous cycling work developed in the last triennium. The options are based on different networks and the quality of those networks, rather than identifying different routes and corridors.

24.    The TCM was then used to assess the effectiveness of network options in facilitating mode share change, and to refine the network options (as required).  This methodology is consistent with the approach taken to develop the Auckland and Christchurch cycling programmes, both of which have been endorsed by the NZ Transport Agency.

 

25.    The Cycling network options assessed for Tauranga are:

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.

 

Options assessment

26.    The preparation of this business case built on work undertaken, including community engagement results from the Cycle Plan. Additional evidence was provided through modelling of options.

27.    A multi criteria analysis (MCA) was utilised to assess the potential of each of the five options to contribute to the programme’s investment objectives, and to assess economic and implementation considerations, based on the above. The consultant team in conjunction with Council staff completed the MCA scoring.

28.    Through this process a recommended option was identified, which was then tested and refined through further detailed analysis.

29.    A summary of the MCA is outlined below together with associated investment objectives

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

Note* An early  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 has subsequently been completed.

30.    Based on the MCA results, Option 4 (Cycling Connections and Area Accessibility) is the most optimal.  It scored highly against investment objectives relating to the rate of participation in cycling (resulting in higher health and decongestion benefits) and cycle safety.

31.    It is one of two options to provide an integrated cycle network across the City and takes a balanced approach to infrastructure investment, realising benefits through network optimisation and the development of new connections, delivering better value for money as reflected in the BCR.  Complexities associated consenting and community engagement are considered manageable with appropriate technical resources, and the option to stage delivery to realise incremental benefits.

 

Financial Considerations

32.    The indicative benefit cost ratio (BCR) associated with the recommended programme under the high e-bike scenario is estimated to be between 2.7 - 3.3. The 10-year programme under the same scenario has an indicative BCR between 3.9 - 4.3. The BCR is now subject to final peer review which we expect to verify the identified benefits.

33.    The estimated cost of the total programme is $186.9M of which the 10-year programme is $77.2M. The costs associated with Te Papa cycling infrastructure are included within the Te Papa Business Case.

34.    A description of project benefits, including monetisation is included in Attachment 1.

Legal Implications / Risks

35.    Risks of not acting includes inconsistency with central government direction, including emerging direction in the draft 2021 GPS.

36.    The risks of not acting also includes in the inability for Tauranga to manage the rate that congestion will increase, and not supporting social, health and wellbeing outcomes for Tauranga. 

Significance

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. Staff continues the commitment to work with Mana Whenua, Stakeholders and local communities as the implementation of the programme progresses.

Next Steps

37.    Subject to Council’s approval of the Business case, the next steps in this process are:

(a)     The Walking and Cycling business case is to be 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 Walking and Cycling business case 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.      Tauranga Walking and Cycling Economic Case April 2020 - A11431118

2.      Tauranga Cycle Programme Technical Report - A11417910   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

5 May 2020

 

10.6       Innovating Streets

File Number:           A11425194

Author:                    Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Spaces

Authoriser:              Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      Outline projects recommended for inclusion in applications to the Innovating Streets fund through Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receive Report – Innovating Streets.

(b)     Approve projects to be included in applications to the first Innovating Streets funding round (recommended projects to be tabled at meeting).

 

Executive Summary

2.      Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency) has made available an Innovating Streets fund, which will provide a 90% Funding Assistance Rate for successful projects. The fund aims to support tactical urbanism projects such as pilots, pop ups and interim treatments that make it safer and easier for people to move around or access community spaces.

3.      The fund is primarily about creating safe and attractive streets for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-car modes of travel. The fund does not seek to fund permanent treatments but does seek to demonstrate the value of potential future permanent changes to the community.

4.      The impact of Covid-19 is relevant to how the fund will be administered. The need for social distancing changes the space required for people to move through the city. Further, Alert Level 4 lockdown led to significant changes to how people interact with their neighbourhoods and meet their daily needs.

5.      Staff are preparing a short list of projects recommended for inclusion in applications to the Innovating Streets fund. At the time of preparing this report, this work has not been completed and the list of recommended projects will be tabled at the meeting.

6.      There are two funding rounds for the fund. The first funding round closes on 8 May 2020. The second funding round closes on 3 July 2020. 

Background

7.      On 3 April 2020, Waka Kotahi launched the Innovating Streets fund. This fund was initially allocated $7M, however Waka Kotahi have indicated that significantly more funding could be made available to the fund from underspent areas of the National Land Transport Fund.

8.      Covid-19 has recalibrated how Waka Kotahi will assess applications and the scale of need for temporary initiatives to improve the safety and experience for people in our streets.

9.      The fund is encouraging innovative solutions to improve how our streets cater for all users. Examples provided on the Waka Kotahi website for the types of projects that could be considered include:

(i)      interim intersection safety improvements;

(ii)     projects to improve place making;

(iii)     projects that reinforce the context of the street;

(iv)    one-off events to help cities embrace other modes of transport;

(v)     regular play-street programmes that build community support for re-purposing streets;

(vi)    low-traffic neighbourhoods that aim to reduce vehicle volumes;

(vii)    piloting a cycleway, pedestrian or public transport network; and

(viii)   emergency bike lanes of footpath expansions to make more space for social distancing in response to Covid-19.

10.    It is important that the projects can be delivered quickly; there is alignment to Council’s own strategies and plans – alongside the criteria set by Waka Kotahi; and that the projects represent value for money. The Waka Kotahi website indicates the following weighting will be given to these criteria:

(i)      Strategic fit with Innovating Streets and council plans (40%)

(ii)     Ability to deliver (40%)

(iii)     Value for money (20%)

Strategic / Statutory Context

11.    Potential projects identified by staff are supported by Council strategies and plans that seek to improve the safety and attraction of active transport modes, and also creating quality urban environments that encourage higher densities of housing. These are priorities for Council at present in terms of managing growth in a way that is affordable and sustainable. Specific relevant strategies include

(i)      Urban Form and Transport Initiative

(ii)     Te Papa Spatial Framework

(iii)     City Centre Spatial Framework

(iv)    Cycle Plan

12.    The focus on creating safe and attractive streets for active modes and creating great urban places also supports the direction of the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda, and the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport.

Options Analysis

13.    Staff have worked through a long list of potential projects and assessed against the relevant criteria. The short list of recommended projects was not available at the time of preparing this report and will be tabled at the meeting.

14.    Broadly, the options available to Council are:

(i)      support the recommended projects for applications to this first funding round (Recommended); or

(ii)     support a reduced number of projects for applications to this funding round, or

(iii)     not to support any applications to this funding round.

Financial Considerations

15.    The Innovating Streets fund provides for 90% funding assistance to successful projects. It will be confirmed at the meeting for the recommended projects whether the 10% Council contribution is available within existing 20/21 budgets, or alternatively whether additional budget needs to be identified. 

Legal Implications / Risks

16.    The projects identified need to be delivered quickly and be low risk in terms of the legal implications or processes required. This has been a key criteria for staff to consider in developing the short list of recommended projects.

Consultation / Engagement

17.    Some of the short-listed projects have already had some community consultation and engagement undertaken. Those projects, and any others that are entirely new concepts, will require further engagement to explain the rationale for projects to the community, and also targeted engagement with any parties particularly affected by the initiatives.

Significance

18.    The initiatives proposed are all temporary in nature. Given the high level of funding assistance potentially available from Waka Kotahi there is low financial impact for the projects, with the Council contribution likely to be able to be supported through existing budgets (to be confirmed at meeting). The significance of matters outlined in this report are therefore assessed as low.

Next Steps

19.    Submit application to Waka Kotahi by 8 May 2020.

20.    Design and implement approved projects.

Attachments

Nil


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

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)

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

 

TAURANGA_CITY_LOGODRAFT 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

·      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 i