Agenda of Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting

Terms of reference – Urban Form & Transport Development Committee

The following common responsibilities and delegations apply to all standing committees.

Responsibilities of standing committees

· Establish priorities and guidance on programmes relevant to the Role and Scope of the committee.

· Provide guidance to staff on the development of investment options to inform the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans.

· Report to Council on matters of strategic importance.

· Recommend to Council investment priorities and lead Council considerations of relevant strategic and high significance decisions.

· Provide guidance to staff on levels of service relevant to the role and scope of the committee.

· Establish and participate in relevant task forces and working groups.

· Engage in dialogue with strategic partners, such as Smart Growth partners, to ensure alignment of objectives and implementation of agreed actions.

Confirmation of committee minutes.

Delegations to standing committees

· To make recommendations to Council outside of the delegated responsibility as agreed by Council relevant to the role and scope of the Committee.

· To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role and scope of the Committee subject to the delegations/limitations imposed.

· To develop and consider, receive submissions on and adopt strategies, policies and plans relevant to the role and scope of the committee, except where these may only be legally adopted by Council.

· To consider, consult on, hear and make determinations on relevant strategies, policies and bylaws (including adoption of drafts), making recommendations to Council on adoption, rescinding and modification, where these must be legally adopted by Council,

· To approve relevant submissions to central government, its agencies and other bodies beyond any specific delegation to any particular committee.

· To appoint a non-voting Tangata Whenua representative to the Committee.

· Engage external parties as required.

Terms of reference – Urban Form & Transport Development Committee

Membership

Chairperson	Cr Larry Baldock
Deputy chairperson	Cr Heidi Hughes
Members	Mayor Tenby Powell Cr Jako Abrie Cr Kelvin Clout Cr Bill Grainger Cr Andrew Hollis Cr Dawn Kiddie Cr Steve Morris Cr John Robson Cr Tina Salisbury
Non-voting members	Te Pio Kawe – Tangata Whenua representative
	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

Role

· To develop a vision and pathway for the future of the City.

· To ensure that Tauranga’s urban form and transport system enables, supports and shapes sustainable, vibrant and interactive communities.

· To ensure there is sufficient and appropriate housing supply and choice in existing and new urban areas to meet current and future needs.

· To ensure there is a clear and agreed approach to achieve measurable improvement in transport outcomes in the medium to long term including transport system safety, predictability of travel times, accessibility, travel choice, mode shift and improved environmental outcomes.

· To enable Tauranga’s urban centres to thrive and provide a sense of place.

· To enable the development of a vibrant, safe and successful city centre.

· To ensure that council and partner investments in Tauranga’s built environment are economically and environmentally resilient.

Scope

· Development of a multi-modal transport masterplan and associated programmes and network operating plans.

· Development of the Future Development Strategy, urban settlement pattern and associated monitoring thereof.

· Development and oversight of urban centres strategies, neighbourhood plans and master-plans.

· Development and oversight of the Compact City programme in support of higher development densities and the provision of a greater range of housing options.

· Leadership of plans for the city centre, including the Civic Rebuild programme.

· Development of City Plan changes and related matters for adoption by Council.

· Development of strategies, plans and programmes for the medium to long term delivery of social, environmental, economic, cultural and resilience outcomes.

Power to act

· To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role and scope of the Committee subject to the limitations imposed.

· To establish subcommittees, working parties and forums as required.

· To appoint a non-voting Tangata Whenua representative to the Committee.

Power to recommend

· To Council and/or any standing committee as it deems appropriate.

UNCONFIRMED Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Minutes

9 June 2020

MINUTES

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 9 June 2020

Order Of Business

1 Apologies. 3

2 Public Forum.. 3

2.1 Jo Gravatt and Jacqui Ferrell - Tauranga Community Housing Trust – Opal Drive Wastewater Catchment 3

3 Acceptance of Late Items. 4

4 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 4

5 Change to Order of Business. 4

6 Confirmation of Minutes. 5

6.1 Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 17 March 2020. 5

7 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 5

8 Business. 5

8.1 Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report - June 2020. 5

8.2 Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme. 6

9 Discussion of Late Items. 8

10 Public Excluded Session. 8

10.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development

Committee Meeting held on 17 March 2020 …………………………………………….8

10.2 Willow Street Precinct - Historic Issues ………………………………..……………...…8

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 9 June 2020 AT 12pm

PRESENT: Cr Larry Baldock (Chairperson), Cr Heidi Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Steve Morris, Cr John Robson, Cr Tina Salisbury and Te Pio Kawe (Tangata Whenua Representative)

Cr Steve Morris and Te Pio Kawe attended via Skype.

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Andy Mead (Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning), Claudia Hellberg (Team Leader: Waters Strategy & Planning), Kate Dawkings (Senior Planning Engineer -Waters), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services) attended via Skype.

1 Apologies

Apologies for lateness had been received from Mayor Tenby Powell.

2 Public Forum

2.1 Jo Gravatt and Jacqui Ferrell - Tauranga Community Housing Trust – Opal Drive Wastewater Catchment

Key points

· The Tauranga Community Housing Trust (TCHT) managed the transitional housing site at 45 Opal Drive – Kainga Atawhai, on behalf of Kainga Ora (Housing New Zealand).

· The site was developed for transitional housing in partnership between Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Kainga Ora. There were currently 18 houses on the site.

· Item 8.2 of this agenda - Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme - proposed an upgrade to the pump station located at 45 Opal Drive which would result in the removal of nine of the houses.

· This project had contributed to housing 61 families over the past two and a half years. 55 of those families had transitioned into long term housing and 85% remained there. Only 2% returned to emergency housing accommodation or to the register.

· TCHT, on behalf of the whanau, community, and people who would use the housing in the future, requested that TCC explore all options and/or alternatives.

· TCHT acknowledged the contribution of Cr Steve Morris and the previous Cr Leanne Brown to this project.

· TCHT requested an additional recommendation be added to the report “that TCC would take all possible steps to retain Kainga Atawhai in some form”.

At 12.11pm, Mayor Tenby Powell entered the meeting.

In response to questions

· The houses on the 45 Opal Drive site were the property of Kainga Ora.

· The Kainga Ora lease for the site expired in two years.

· TCC staff had been in communication with Kainga Ora over the proposed upgrade of the pump station and the future of the site.

· It had always been clearly acknowledged that the lease was for a term of 5 years only.

Cr Larry Baldock thanked Ms Gravatt and Ms Ferrell for their presentation.

3 Acceptance of Late Items

Cr Heidi Hughes requested an update on the Totara Street safety improvements.

Response from Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure)

· Condolences were expressed to the family and friends of the cyclist who died recently on Totara Street.

· Work on stafety improvements for Totora Street had been ongoing for some time. A report oultlining the design and costs for a short-term solution would be presented to the Projects, Service and Operations Committee on 23 June 2020.

· A positive meeting with representatives from a number of cycling groups, the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA), and Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) had been held recently.

4 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

4.1 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Committee motion

Moved: Cr John Robson

Seconded: Cr Andrew Hollis

That item 10.2 – Willow Street Precinct - be transferred into the Open section of this council meeting

In Favour: Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson

Against: Crs Larry Baldock, Jako Abrie, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and Tina Salisbury

Abstained: Cr Heidi Hughes

lost 3/7

5 Change to Order of Business

Nil

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 17 March 2020

Committee Resolution UR3/20/13

Moved: Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded: Cr Andrew Hollis

That the minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee meeting held on

17 March 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

It was requested that the report that had been forwarded to councillors and the speakers of item 2.1 – Public Forum of the 17 March 2020 Urban Form and Transport Development Committee meeting be made available to the public.

The report, Query to staff re closure of Gargan Road, can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Attachment

1 Query to staff re closure of Gargan Road

7 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8 Business

8.1 Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report - June 2020

Staff Andy Mead, Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning

Key points

· Preparation of the application for the Streamlined Planning Process was underway and needed to be lodged with the Minister for the Environment by June/July.

· The Maori Appellate Court had upheld the decision of the Maori Land Court to dismiss the application by the Te Tumu Kaituna 14 Trust for a change of status of land (from Maori land to general land) and a Trust order variation. The Trust had subsequently lodged an appeal and was considering whether or not to proceed with this.

· Population and dwelling development trends information continued to be monitored and reviewed with the revised COVID 19 projections to ensure projections remain as accurate as possible for the Long Term Plan (LTP).

· Community and key stakeholder engagement on the Te Papa Spatial Plan closed on 19 May 2020. A detailed analysis of the feedback received was currently being undertaken and it was expected that this would be presented at the July meeting of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee. Engagement would continue over the coming weeks and months.

In response to questions

· Funding of $200,000 currently in the draft Annual Plan would enable further work with the Te Tumu Kaituna 14 Trust to unlock development in the Te Tumu area.

· Populations predictions were initially high level. These were then allocated across the city and this process was currently underway. Updated population figures would be circulated to councillors when they became available.

· The Government was currently looking at a COVID Recovery Bill that would allow fast tracked resource consenting for significant infrastructure and housing projects. This could assist with greenfield projects.

· A technical study was currently underway in collaboration with Hamilton City Council to look at minimum dwelling densities in greenfield areas and how to better achieve a mix of dwelling typologies.

· 30 dwellings per hectare in the Tauriko area was realistic, however developers were currently at the 20-25 dwellings per hectare level.

· Work with the Ministry of Education for the provision for both primary and secondary schools in the Tauriko West area was well advanced.

· A report on engineering investigations in to transport options in the Welcome Bay and Ohauiti areas would be presented back to council in the next two to three months.

· There was no confirmed deadline for the response to National Policy Statement submissions but these were expected in the next few weeks.

· Projected required housing numbers over the next few years had been revised downwards due to COVID.

· An update report on Smith’s Farm would be presented to council over the coming months.

Committee Resolution UR3/20/14

Moved: Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded: Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee receives the Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report – June 2020.

Carried

8.2 Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme

Staff Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: Waters Strategy & Planning

Kate Dawkings, Senior Planning Engineer (Waters)

A copy of the staff presentation for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Attachments

1 Presentation - Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme

Key points

· Additional wastewater capacity was required for the Wairakei and Te Tumu growth areas.

· The Opal Drive pump station was no longer fit for purpose. It was currently overloaded and experienced failure during peak flows.

· New pump stations to improve network resilience and operation were proposed on designated Opal Drive and Wairakei sites.

· The projects were included in the 2018-2028 Long term Plan (LTP) and associated Infrastructure Strategy.

· Budgets had escalated due to:

- additional internal TCC costs, iwi monitoring, legal and other costs

- budgeting of 95^th percentile cost estimates

- revised cost estimates to reflect current market costs

- inclusion of additional items such as groundworks.

· Development contributions were likely to be under collected by approximately $15 million to $20 million.

At 1.24pm, Mayor Tenby Powell left the meeting.

In response to questions

· The most recent overflow event at the Opal Drive pump station was over a long weekend in 2018 following a heavy rain event. Overflows went into neighbouring residential properties.

· Sections of the current pipeline would remain to be used in emergencies.

· Confidence ratings were being considered in budget predictions for the LTP so it was better understood what budget matters mean.

· It was recognised that better communication with the public was required around why costs and budgets change over the lifetime of the project.

· The preferred option was chosen following a comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) process which included sensitivity testing of criteria weightings and project phases.

· TCC’s Community Development Team held the relationships around the lease and formal agreements for the transitional housing on the Opal Drive site. Communications and briefings had been held with the lease holders about the proposed upgrade to the pump station on the site. Other sites for the pump station had been investigated but none were appropriate for various reasons. Alternative sites for the nine houses that need to be removed would be investigated as a priority. This work is linked in with the Mayor’s Taskforce for Homelessness.

· Contractors would understand that the P95 percentile is the budget for a worst case scenario and not the actual budget level.

The recommendations were taken in parts.

Committee Resolution UR3/20/15

Moved: Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded: Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme report.

Carried

Committee Resolution UR3/20/16

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(b) Endorses the outcomes of the Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme.

(c) Agrees to proceed with the implementation of the Opal Drive Rising Main and Opal Drive Pump Station as a priority to service existing zoned land subject to budget being available through the 2020/21 Annual Plan and 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

(d) Agrees in principle to the delivery of the Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme subject to budget being available through the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

(e) Requests that TCC endeavours to minimise impacts on the Tauranga Community Housing Trust and Kainga Ora.

Carried

9 Discussion of Late Items

Nil

10 Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Committee Resolution UR3/20/17

Moved: Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded: Cr Tina Salisbury

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

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

10.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 17 March 2020

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

10.2 - Willow Street Precinct - Historic Issues

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

In Favour: Crs Larry Baldock, Heidi Hughes, Jako Abrie, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and Tina Salisbury

Against: Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson

carried 8/2

Carried

At 2.10pm, the meeting adjourned.

At 2.25pm, the meeting resumed in Public Excluded.

The meeting closed at 3.15pm.

The minutes of this meeting to be confirmed at the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 21 July 2020.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

9 Business

9.1 Tauranga City Plan Review Project

File Number: A11598995

Author: Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To provide an overview of the City Plan Review project and seek endorsement of the project plan.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Endorse the Tauranga City Plan Review – Project Plan (Attachment 1);

(b) Proceed with Option 4 to undertake a comprehensive review, incorporating the existing plan changes.

Executive Summary

2. The purpose of the Tauranga City Plan (City Plan) is to assist the Council in carrying out their functions, in order to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The City Plan covers all subdivision, land use and development, how and where the city grows and how natural and physical resources are managed.

3. The City Plan is a constantly evolving document because it is required to facilitate future growth demands and respond to changing resource management issues.

4. Council is required to publicly notify the next City Plan for formal submissions by April 2024 to meet Government timeframes under the National Planning Standards, which came into effect last year and apply to all local authorities. To meet this timeframe, the City Plan Review project must commence in the 2020/21 financial year. A significant amount of work is required to meet national and regional direction, and address key issues important to the community, tangata whenua and stakeholders.

5. The development of the next Tauranga City Plan will help implement Council’s blueprint for Tauranga, and is the next step in current planning work such as UFTI, the Te Papa spatial planning programme, housing choice plan change and planning for new greenfield development at Te Tumu and Tauriko West.

6. A project plan, resourcing plan and budget has been prepared. The project plan is included as Attachment 1. Two external engagement plans have also been prepared: ‘Communications and Engagement Plan’ and ‘Maori and Tangata Whenua Communications and Engagement Plan’ to ensure aligned timeframes and appropriate resourcing and budget is considered for these key workstreams.

7. Development of the next City Plan is to occur in six phases. Phases 1 and 2 are intended to start in July this year with key issues identified and discussed with tangata whenua, stakeholders, internal Council teams and the wider public. Issues and options will be presented to councillors and a discussion document prepared for community engagement in mid-2021. A draft City Plan will be produced for feedback in 2022 before the formal proposed new City Plan is presented to Council in late 2023 seeking approval to notify the new plan for submissions by April 2024.

8. Resourcing of the City Plan Review project includes five workstreams using internal staff supplemented by external support. The City Plan Review is a cross-organisation project, led from the City and Infrastructure Planning teams. The City Plan Review is included in the current Long Term Plan 2018-2028, however, has a budget shortfall of $2.0M assuming existing budgeted monies for the City Plan Review of $1.625M remain available.

9. Depending on Council direction, and in addition to the budget shortfall identified above, there is a significant risk that key projects feeding into the plan review are not currently fully resourced in terms of FTEs and budget, which will need to be considered through the draft LTP process, alongside the City Plan Review.

10. At a political governance level, the approach proposed by staff is to report and seek direction on the City Plan Review project as it progresses through the Urban Form and Transport Development (UFTD) Committee through a series of workshops and briefings. Any formal direction would be sought from the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee. Another option is to formally establish a City Plan Review Subcommittee of Council to provide governance oversight.

Background

11. The last City Plan Review commenced in 2008 and while the issues and challenges for Tauranga City under the Resource Management Act 1991 are similar, the legislative requirements, national and regional policy direction are more recent and place significant additional obligations on local authorities through their district plans.

12. The Resource Management Act 1991 requirements and the introduction national planning standards in April last year which all district plans must follow, as well as giving effect to national and regional policy statements.

13. The City Transformation Committee received a Quarterly Update report (DC349) at its 3 December 2018 meeting which endorsed the City Plan programme implementation findings and resolved to approve a number of important plan changes being progressed ahead of a full City Plan Review (Housing Choice Plan Change, Flooding from Intense Rainfall, and Earthworks Plan Changes).

14. There are a number of interdependencies in delivering the City Plan Review, including alignment with Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s review of its district plan, and timing of the review of the Regional Policy Statement by Bay of Plenty Regional Council, particularly the natural hazards framework and urban limits growth management.

Project Planning

15. The project plan outlines the key tasks, timeframes, costs and considerations associated with the review of the operative Tauranga City Plan. The project plan is included as Attachment 1.

16. The review of the City Plan every 10 years is a statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act. The project plan identifies four key drivers that require the City Plan to be comprehensively reviewed and amended:

Driver 1 – Key Challenges and Opportunities

Driver 2 – National and Regional Planning Issues

Driver 3 – Alignment with Council strategies

Driver 4 – Plan Usability and Legal Risk

17. The project plan sets out six phases for the City Plan Review project, with key milestones at each stage, including Phase 4 which sees public notification of the Proposed Tauranga City Plan by April 2024, and for the City Plan to reach the Council Decisions phase (Phase 6) by December 2025. An overview of the key stages for the City Plan Review project is set out in Attachment 2. The date of the plan becoming operative will depend on any appeals process that may follow, after Council’s decisions on submissions are publicly notified.

18. The project plan also outlines the proposed governance structure for the City Plan Review. This includes the proposal to report through the UFTD Committee to ensure oversight and support at the governance level for the City Plan.

19. Through workshops and correspondence, councillors will have the opportunity to identify issues. Staff can then consider those issues and provide options for the UFTD Committee to provide direction in Phase 1 and 2 of the project.

20. The project plan identifies the roles and responsibilities of the project governance and project management to enable the City Plan Review project to be progressed and delivered.

Strategic / Statutory Context

21. The City Plan must give effect to current national policy statements. There are also proposed new requirements through national policy statements for urban development, freshwater management, highly productive land and indigenous biodiversity.

22. In addition, since the last City Plan was adopted, changes have been made at a regional level, with a new Regional Coastal Environment Plan, Regional Natural Resources Plan and amendments to the Regional Policy Statement, in particular introducing more stringent requirements for managing natural hazard risk. The City Plan must not be inconsistent with regional plans.

23. The City Plan can also play a role in terms of implementing Council’s own vision and policies by focusing on those elements that have a resource management lens.

Options Analysis

24. There are four options considered for the City Plan Review.

Option 1 – City Plan roll-over

25. This option is to simply notify the current plan, without any changes made to it and address issues through the submissions process. However, the operative plan is no longer fit for purpose and the National Planning Standards require significant changes, to both format and content. In addition, while parts of the plan can be rolled-over, all objectives, policies and rules in the plan will be subject to formal submissions and appeal to the Environment Court. This option would likely increase the number of appeals and therefore costs to Council to resolve those appeals.

26. This option is not considered realistic, or able to be achieved, as it would not meet the statutory requirements of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consult and seek feedback from Ministers of the Crown, local authorities, tangata whenua and any affected persons in developing the proposed plan.

Option 2 – Delay City Plan Review

27. Under this option the review would commence in twelve or 24 months’ time, however this would require a truncated process to meet the April 2024 deadline for notification, whereby the new plan is largely dumped on stakeholders, tangata whenua and the wider public at the stage of notification. The formal RMA process would then follow.

28. The work to produce a fit for purpose planning document would be the same, however there would be limited stakeholder and tangata whenua engagement in developing the new plan. Statutory obligations on Council to consult with tangata whenua and consider their feedback may not be met and existing relationships and the principle of partnership may be adversely impacted. Some cost savings would be achieved however with less costs around engagement.

Option 3 – Comprehensive Review

29. Every aspect of the plan is reviewed under this option, using a mix of internal and external resources. Required technical work and investigations are undertaken to inform the development of the draft and proposed plan documents.

30. A draft plan would be released for stakeholder, tangata whenua and public input and comment, before the formal plan is prepared and notified.

Option 4 – Review incorporating existing plan changes

31. Prepare the City Plan by:

· Incorporating without substantive change parts of the plan that have recently been the subject of plan changes, or which remain fit for purpose. This would include the current Housing Choice, Earthworks, and Flooding from Intense Rainfall Events plan changes; and

· Implementing new structure planning, intensification and spatial planning projects (Te Tumu, Tauriko West, TBE extension, Keenan, Ohauiti South (potentially), Mt Maunganui and Otumoetai- Matua spatial plans etc.); and

· Comprehensive reviews of identified issues / areas needing review due to national/regional direction, or of importance/relevance for the city.

32. Option 4 is recommended as it enables national, regional and local issues to be considered and a ‘fit for purpose’ new plan developed in accordance with Government’s national planning standards and national policy statement requirements.

Financial Considerations

33. Resources required to achieve the project include extensive use of internal staff. External costs include project management, facilitation of community and tangata whenua engagement, legal advice and specific technical investigations. The project plan included as Attachment 1, considers the resourcing and budget required to progress the City Plan Review project.

34. The current Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 provides $1.625M over 10 years for the City Plan Review, however these budgets are not sufficient. Additional funding of $2.0M will be required, principally through consideration in the draft Long-Term Plan 2021-2031. For the 2020/21 financial year an additional $356,000 is required to commence the project, which will be funded from within the existing City and Infrastructure Planning activity budget, including the use of savings in salary budgets from unfilled vacancies.

35. Costs for undertaking the statutory part of the City Plan Review (post-April 2024) are included, however any Environment Court appeal processes are not included due to the uncertain nature of those costs which depend on whether submitters agree with Council’s decisions.

36. The project plan also proposes a 5% contingency in the budget to cover unforeseen costs in Phases 1 and 2, however there is risk of insufficient budget and resourcing should the scope increase to include other projects.

37. Identifying the staff resources and budget required to progress the City Plan Review does not include key projects that may feed into the City Plan. This includes future greenfield growth areas such as Keenan Road, Ohauiti South and Tauriko Business Estate, and future spatial planning of existing urban areas. The scope also does not include direction to undertake further investigations and studies in particular areas of the City (for example the Mount industrial area), or environmental sustainability topics (for example solar panels, use of greywater, compulsory water tanks). Councillors may direct staff to investigate such areas, however additional resourcing would be required.

Legal Implications / Risks

38. Section 79 of the RMA requires regional and territorial authorities to commence a review of their plans at least once every 10 years. The Tauranga City Plan was made fully operative in September 2013. Therefore, Council is now required to undertake a review of the City Plan.

39. Central government introduced the National Planning Standards to make council plans and policy statements easier to prepare, understand and comply with. The first set of planning standards came into force on 3 May 2019. The National Planning Standards require Council to publicly notify the next Tauranga City Plan for formal submissions by April 2024.

40. To meet this timeframe, the project is recommended to start in the 2020/21 financial year. A significant amount of work is required to meet national and regional direction and address key issues important to the community, tangata whenua and stakeholders.

41. The project plan includes a risk register, that will be revisited on a regular basis. The key risks identified are:

(a) Balance between enabling growth and ensuring high quality built form outcomes;

(b) Meeting community, tangata whenua and stakeholder expectations;

(d) Giving effect to strategic direction, including Urban Form and Transport Initiative and SmartGrowth;

(e) Timing of Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement review and potential challenges implementing some of the existing provisions of the RPS;

(f) Project scope increasing and resourcing being insufficient.

Consultation / Engagement

42. A Communications and Engagement Plan has been prepared as part of the project planning and is one of the five project workstreams. The engagement approach is to closely match the phases on the City Plan Review, ensuring that stakeholders and the community have input from the very first phase and throughout. A stakeholder mapping exercise was undertaken to understand those who will be interested and the range of channels that will be used to keep them informed and gain input at each phase. A synopsis of the Communications and Engagement Plan is included as Attachment 3.

43. The Tangata Whenua and Maori Engagement Plan was also prepared as part of the project planning as a key input to the Cultural/Tangata Whenua workstream. The engagement plan identifies more than 40 tangata whenua and Maori groups and organisations that may participate in the City Plan Review. Each of these groups will require different levels of engagement which has been identified for each phase. A synopsis of the Tangata Whenua and Maori Engagement Plan is included as Attachment 4.

44. These engagement plans also identify resourcing and budget required to undertake these workstreams which have been included in the project plan for the City Plan Review project.

Significance

45. The City Plan Review is of high significance as it affects a wide range of people, and there is the potential for large consequences for the city.

Next Steps

46. Commence the Tauranga City Plan Review project following endorsement of the project plan by the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee.

47. Budget and resources set out in the project plan will be considered through the next Long-Term Plan.

Attachments

1. Tauranga City Plan Review - Project Plan - A11624901 ⇩

2. Key Phases of the City Plan Review project - A11594509 ⇩

3. Synopsis of Communications and Engagement Plan for City Plan Review - A11624899 ⇩

4. Synopsis of Maori and Tangata Whenua Engagement Plan for City Plan Review - A11624902 ⇩

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

9.2 Te Papa Spatial Framework and Housing Choice Plan Change - Shape your City Engagement Summary and Response

File Number: A11621513

Author: Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To report to Council feedback received through the shape your city engagement for the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice; and to seek direction on the Te Papa Housing Overlay geographic extent and the built form options for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receive Shape Your City engagement reports (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2);

(b) Endorse Option 1 on the Te Papa Housing Overlay geographic extent to be proposed through the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice;

Executive Summary

2. Engagement with the community and stakeholders on the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change – Housing Choice was undertaken from 7 April 2020 to 19 May 2020.

3. Council asked the community and stakeholders for their feedback on proposed ideas, potential projects and initiatives to support growth in the Te Papa peninsula and on details of the draft plan change for housing choice through the shape your city engagement.

4. Over this time, a range of feedback was received. The feedback received from the community and stakeholders was generally supportive and that the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice are progressing in the right direction. Community feedback shows overall support for the ideas, projects, initiatives and rules proposed. An engagement report on the feedback received has been prepared and included as Attachment 1 for the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Attachment 2 for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice. There were two key themes received through feedback from stakeholders where direction is sought. A summary engagement has also been prepared on the ‘Shape Your City’ engagement which is included as Attachment 3.

5. The first key theme was the extent of the Te Papa Housing Overlay to enable increased height (4-6 storeys) through Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice and identified in the Te Papa Spatial Framework. In particular, feedback suggested that Merivale should be included within the Te Papa Housing Overlay for the plan change and housing choice area for the Te Papa Spatial Framework.

6. The second key theme was to provide for detached dwellings on smaller sites. This is in additional to duplex dwellings as proposed through Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice.

BACKGROUND

7. Engagement was undertaken from 7 April until 19 May 2020 with the community and key stakeholders on the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice. A summary of how the engagement occurred over this period was provided to the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 9 June 2020.

8. Technical work for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice is continuing in preparation for seeking notification on Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice and to seek adoption of the Te Papa Spatial Framework. This includes working through the requirements for natural hazards to ensure that Plan Change – 26 – Housing Choice gives effect to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement. There has been correspondence and meetings with Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoPRC) staff over the last 18 months to ensure there is alignment on how the plan change gives effect to the natural hazard policies. A city-wide risk assessment has been undertaken and Tauranga City Council staff are proposing to apply a spatial extent to remove areas of the city that are subject to high risk from natural hazards. This includes large areas of the coastal strip from Arataki to Papamoa. Staff are currently seeking confirmation from BoPRC that this approach gives effect to the natural hazard requirements.

9. At the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee meeting on 9 June 2020, the City and Infrastructure Planning team provided an update on plan changes. This included an update on using the Streamlined Planning Process for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice. The Streamlined Planning Process would enable Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice to be operative within 12-15months of notification. Staff have met with Ministry for the Environment to discuss the information requirements and timeframes to progress with the Streamlined Planning Process. Due to central Government elections, staff have been advised that it is extremely unlikely that we are able to utilise the Streamlined Planning Process, if notification is sought before the end of the year. While engagement is still underway at a Ministerial level, it is likely that Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice will follow the standard Schedule 1 Resource Management Act process, which means that the plan change will be subject to Environment Court appeals.

Te Papa Spatial Framework – Te Papa Housing Overlay Geographic Extent

10. The ‘Shape Your City’ engagement proposed a housing choice area through the Te Papa Plan Outcomes and Ideas discussion document, that identified areas to enable increased height and density through terraced housing and apartments.

11. Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice proposes to apply the Te Papa Housing Overlay to properties identified in the housing choice area. The Te Papa Housing Overlay is a rule framework that enables four to six storeys through a resource consent process, so that each application can be assessed on a site-by-site basis to ensure good outcomes are achieved for both future residents and neighbours. These will be non-notified providing that all the standards can be met. An example of a four-storey apartment that would be enabled through the Te Papa Housing Overlay is illustrated below in image 1.

Image 1 – Example of four storey apartment that would be enabled through the Te Papa Housing Overlay.

12. In identifying areas along the Te Papa peninsula that are appropriate to provide for additional height of four to six storeys, staff prepared a suitability analysis in the form of a heat map of showing appropriate locations for inclusion. This analysis measured the proximity to services such as public transport, commercial centres, open space and schools. These maps show that Merivale is not well located to centres, public transport and has limited connections to amenities. The suitability mapping prepared for the Te Papa peninsula are provided below in Image 2.

Image 2 – Suitability mapping of Te Papa Peninsula

13. Merivale also faces significant socio-economic challenges. It is among the most deprived 10% of New Zealand communities, with low levels of income, employment and educational attainment and it has some of the highest crime rates in Tauranga.

14. Accessible Properties have significant landholdings in the Gate Pa / Pukehinahina and Merivale area. There are opportunities for wider central government partnership, in the Gate Pa area as it is relatively well placed in terms of public transport and amenity to support growth in the near term, through the proposed Te Papa programme and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice.

15. Having regard to the above, it is considered an appropriate response to confirm funding and work with programme partners to put in place a project to the above challenges in Merivale before allowing higher densities that would currently be unsupported by the necessary physical and social infrastructure.

16. As Merivale is zoned Suburban Residential, Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice still applies where it is proposed to enable duplexes and comprehensively designed development. The proposed built form to be enabled is discussed further below.

17. Through the ‘Shape Your City’ engagement, a number of stakeholders from the development community have sought the inclusion of Merivale in the housing choice area for the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Te Papa Housing Overlay for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice to enable increased height and densities of four to six storeys.

18. Since receiving this feedback, staff have held follow up workshops with key stakeholders to discuss their concerns.

19. It is also noted that feedback was received from members of the community in opposition to higher densities, noting the existing challenges the community faces.

Plan Change 26 – Built Form Outcomes

20. Through the ‘Shape Your City’ engagement, Council sought feedback from the community and stakeholders on the draft provisions.

21. The Tauranga City Plan (City Plan) currently provides for one independent dwelling unit per 325m² of nett site area in the Suburban Residential Zone. The Suburban Residential Zone covers most of the City and is considered to be a ‘low’ density zone in the City Plan. This minimum lot size (325m² per dwelling) is one of the lowest in New Zealand for the equivalent low density general residential zone.

22. Engagement on draft provisions for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice proposed one duplex dwelling (two attached units) on a 400m² site as a permitted activity. Therefore, no resource consent is required if all standards can be met. The intention of providing for a duplex as a permitted activity on a 400m² site is when viewed from the street or neighbouring sites, a duplex dwelling appears as one large dwelling. An example of a duplex is illustrated below in image 3.

Image 3 – Example of duplex dwelling

23. Three or more units on a site, are provided for as a comprehensively designed development was also proposed through the engagement. The comprehensively designed development requires resource consent so that each application can be assessed on a site-by-site basis to ensure good outcomes are achieved for both future residents and neighbours. These will be non-notified providing that all the standards can be met. An example of a comprehensively designed development is illustrated below in image 4.

Image 4 – Example of comprehensively designed development on a 720m²site

24. For both duplexes and comprehensively designed development, Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice proposes to retain the building envelope that currently applies (including height, setback and overshadowing) in the Suburban Residential Zone. However, Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice proposes that the number of dwellings that can be established within the permitted building envelope is increased. This will maintain community expectations around the bulk, scale and location of buildings whilst enabling greater housing choice to meet the needs of the community and changing demographics.

25. Providing for attached dwellings as part of a duplex or comprehensively designed development will generally result in better design outcomes as we move towards smaller sites. Whereas with individual dwellings on small sites it may be challenging to achieve good design outcomes and to use the site efficiently without having unusable or wasted space. These challenges were identified through the architectural testing.

26. Under the proposed planning framework, it is possible to establish detached dwellings with a density of less than 325m² of nett site area through a resource consent process as a discretionary activity. Detached dwellings with a density of 325m²or more would remain as a permitted activity.

27. Despite general community support for the approach to duplexes and comprehensively designed development in the Suburban Residential Zone, six stakeholders from the development community and social housing sector sought amendments to the proposed provisions to provide for detached dwellings as a permitted activity (i.e. 1 unit/200m²) without needing a resource consent.

STRATEGIC / STATUTORY CONTEXT

28. The Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice deliver on the outcomes sought by the Urban Form and Transport Initiative, along with the draft Future Development Strategy and Tauranga Urban Strategy.

29. These projects have also been developed to align with the current central Government direction on the proposed National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD), which requires higher densities in close proximity to centres and public transport. Through the preparation of the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice, staff have applied those principles, but have refined and made recommendations based on local conditions. It is expected the approved NPS-UD will be released by central Government in the next month.

OPTIONS ANALYSIS

30. An options analysis has been undertaken for the two issues outlined above.

Te Papa Spatial Framework – Te Papa Housing Overlay Geographic Extent

31. Option 1 – Recommended

Identify Merivale for future inclusion in the housing choice area of the Te Papa Spatial Framework (to be considered for increased height of four to six storeys through the City Plan Review), with further programme development and required investment to be identified in the meantime.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· An agreed way forward with stakeholders (and potential programme partners) can be developed, to ensure a joined-up approach and support investment.

· Detailed technical assessments can be undertaken to consider future urban form implications.

· Will provide time to undertake engagement with the community and key agencies and take them on the journey while responding to local challenges.

· Time to consider appropriate funding to support the community for the future and increase suitable in terms of access to amenities, public transport and commercial centres.

· Plan change 26 would still provide significant redevelopment potential in the Merivale area through the duplex and comprehensively designed development provisions.

· Larger sites could be under-utilised in the short term; however, this can be managed through proactive partnering and communication with key stakeholders.

· Doesn’t align with key stakeholder aspirations; however, it is noted that key stakeholders are still very early in their planning phases.

32. There is risk with Option 1 that if the inclusion of Merivale is submitted on through Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice, this will be considered by the hearings panel and could be approved with limited wider community consultation.

33. Option 2 - Include Merivale in the housing choice area of the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Te Papa Housing Overlay for Plan Change 26 - Housing Choice.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Decision would align with key stakeholder views.

· Additional height (four to six storeys) is enabled within the next 2 years.

· Currently not supported by adequate infrastructure to support higher densities associated with apartments of four to six storeys, e.g. doesn’t score highly in the suitability assessment and no funding allocated in the LTP to address short falls (currently looking to address through IBC and LTP).

· Not within centres or high frequency public transport / rapid transit catchments.

· When overlaid with existing amenities (public transport, centres, schools and parks) it scores lower than other areas.

· Has some of the highest crime and violence in all of NZ and it might not be ready for change without significant investment.

· Need for additional community engagement.

· Infrastructure modelling hasn’t fully considered intensification in this area for four to six and further work will be required to determine capacity.

34. The risk with Option 2 is there will be negative social outcomes and that the community lose confidence that additional height and density in the form of apartment buildings is enabled in areas that are not well connected and require further investigation and funding to support growth.

35. Staff recommend Option 1 to identify Merivale for future inclusion in the housing choice area of the Te Papa Spatial Framework to be considered through the City Plan Review.

Plan Change 26 (Housing Choice) – Built Form Outcomes

36. Option 1 - Provides for duplex dwellings on 400m² site as a permitted activity (without requiring resource consent) and two detached dwellings on the same site would require discretionary resource consent if they don’t comply with the current 325m² minimum site size requirements.

37. Three or more dwellings on a site, are defined as a comprehensively designed development and would require consent for restricted discretionary activity.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Encourages alternative typologies such as duplexes and terraced/town houses. · Ensures that the outcomes are appropriate for a permitted activity within the Suburban Residential Zone. · Detached are enabled on sites of 325m² and duplex on 400m² can occur as permitted activity. · Provides for housing choice. · Similar approach to what other Councils are doing around New Zealand. · Detached dwellings on a site smaller than 325m² could be achieved through a discretionary resource consent, this would enable all matters to be considered. · Community feedback is in general support of this approach.	· Does not align with feedback from some key stakeholders regarding detached dwellings on smaller sites. · Detached dwellings on small sites would require resource consent for a discretionary activity, this has costs and uncertainty associated with it. · Tiny houses on a smaller site would remain a discretionary activity unless there are three or more and they would then be considered through a comprehensively designed development.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Encourages alternative typologies such as duplexes and terraced/town houses.

· Ensures that the outcomes are appropriate for a permitted activity within the Suburban Residential Zone.

· Detached are enabled on sites of 325m² and duplex on 400m² can occur as permitted activity.

· Provides for housing choice.

· Similar approach to what other Councils are doing around New Zealand.

· Detached dwellings on a site smaller than 325m² could be achieved through a discretionary resource consent, this would enable all matters to be considered.

· Community feedback is in general support of this approach.

· Does not align with feedback from some key stakeholders regarding detached dwellings on smaller sites.

· Detached dwellings on small sites would require resource consent for a discretionary activity, this has costs and uncertainty associated with it.

· Tiny houses on a smaller site would remain a discretionary activity unless there are three or more and they would then be considered through a comprehensively designed development.

38. Option 2 - Allow for two dwellings on a 400m² site (either attached or detached) as a permitted activity, but with additional performance standards that need to be met to ensure quality outcomes are still achieved for two units on a site. These would likely be around setbacks and overshadowing between buildings.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Addresses feedback from six stakeholders regarding detached dwellings on smaller sites.

· Provides for housing choice.

· No resource consent required and therefore no cost or uncertainty associated with obtaining a resource consent.

· Provides for tiny houses on smaller lots as a permitted activity.

· May result in low quality design outcomes so that fire rating requirements in the Building Act can be complied with (i.e. long blank walls without windows)

· Inefficient use of land may lead to unusable or wasted space.

· Likely to set precedent for vacant lots down to 200m² which would undermine the existing ‘low’ density zone.

· Site design may compromise onsite amenity and living conditions.

· Additional rules to prevent poor outcomes creates more complexity in achieving permitted activity status.

· Approach has not been tested with the community.

39. Option 3 - Provide for two or more dwellings (detached or attached) on a site as a restricted discretionary activity.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Ability to assess every application to ensure that the outcomes are appropriate.

· Restricted discretionary activity status provides greater certainty for applicants around what will be assessed rather than a discretionary activity status.

· Does not address feedback from stakeholders regarding detached dwellings on smaller sites as a permitted activity.

· This approach is inconsistent with the messaging that we have been giving to stakeholders to date.

· Duplexes would no longer be permitted as currently proposed.

· Cost to applicants of obtaining consent.

· Approach has not been tested with the community.

40. Option 4 – Recommended

Provide for duplex dwellings on 400m² site as a permitted activity (without requiring resource consent) and for two or more detached dwellings or three or more attached dwellings on a site as a comprehensively designed development. The comprehensively designed development would require consent for restricted discretionary activity but with additional performance standards that need to be met to ensure quality outcomes are still achieved for multiple units on a site. These would likely be around setbacks and overshadowing between buildings.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Encourages alternative typologies such as duplexes and terraced/town houses, but also retains consideration of detached dwellings on sites less than 325m².

· Ensures that the outcomes are appropriate for a permitted activity within the Suburban Residential Zone.

· Detached are enabled on sites of 325m² and duplex on 400m² can occur as permitted activity.

· Provides for housing choice.

· Two or more detached dwellings on a site could be achieved through a comprehensively designed development and provides the ability to assess every application to ensure that the outcomes are appropriate.

· Addresses feedback from stakeholders to some extent by providing easier pathway for dwellings such as tiny houses on smaller lots as a restricted discretionary activity rather than discretionary where anything can be considered.

· May result in low quality design outcomes so that fire rating requirements in the Building Act can be complied with (i.e. long blank walls without windows) unless additional rules are included.

· Additional rules to prevent poor outcomes creates more complexity in achieving development standards and non-notification provisions.

· Approach has not been tested with the community.

41. It is recommended to proceed with Option 4 as it enables greater housing choice and seeks to retain the bulk and location of dwellings consistent with the Suburban Residential Zone.

Financial Considerations

42. There no financial considerations associated with this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. There are no legal considerations associated with this report. Draft provisions and the s.32 report will be legally reviewed before seeking notification of Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice.

consultation / engagement

44. As set out above, engagement occurred over April and May on the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice. A summary of how the engagement occurred over this period was provided to the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 9 June 2020.

45. Engagement reports on the feedback received on the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice is included in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively.

46. Formal consultation on Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice will be undertaken in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

significance

47. These projects are of medium significance as Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice relates to changes to the City Plan that affects:

· large areas of the Tauranga community, being the Suburban Residential, City Living and Commercial zones; and

· a subgroup within the Tauranga community and the Te Papa Spatial Framework area from the central business district to Greerton.

48. These projects also flow from previous direction provided by Council.

NEXT STEPS

49. The Te Papa discussion document used for engagement will form the basis of the Te Papa Spatial Framework, which will be presented to Council in the second half of 2020. Community feedback will be used, alongside technical information, to determine priorities for the implementation plan and to identify areas which require further work.

50. The documents required to notify Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice will now be finalised for notification, taking into account the feedback received during this round of engagement and direction sought through this report. A report will be presented to Council seeking notification of Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 in the second half of 2020.

Attachments

1. Te Papa Community Engagement Outcomes - April/May 2020 - A11622857 ⇩

2. Plan Change 26 - Housing Choice - Community and Stakeholder Engagement Report and Appendices - July 2020 - A11615391 ⇩

3. Shape your City - Summary Engagement Report - July 2020 - A11619058 ⇩

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

PDF Creator

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

Project Description	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) The purpose of UFTI is to identify an integrated strategic approach for the development of the Western Bay of Plenty’s urban form and transport system. This includes delivering an integrated, strategic, shared funding programme with immediate and future priorities and investment opportunities in urban form, transport and other connected areas such as education and health.	· The Final Report for UFTI was endorsed by Tauranga City Council and the SmartGrowth partner Councils at the combined SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting on 1 July 2020. · The Government partners to UFTI are now progressing their own decision-making on the Final UFTI report. Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency are programmed to make their decision at their Board meeting in August 2020.	· Following decision-making by all Project partners the focus moves to progressing delivery of the Actions identified in the UFTI programme. · SmartGrowth’s existing governance model, now adjusted to bring in Ministerial representation, is the lead governance entity for overseeing delivery of UFTI. The SmartGrowth model is supported by a range of pre-existing and proposed coordinating committees and groups (e.g. Regional Transport Committee; Regional Passenger Transport Committee; Priority One) to enable this. · From a transport perspective the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan is a key process to progress the transport direction provided by UFTI. · From a land use planning perspective the development of the Western Bay of Plenty Spatial Plan is the process to progress the settlement pattern direction provided by UFTI.
Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP) The purpose of the TSP is to identify the preferred strategic form of the City’s key transport network to deliver appropriate levels of service for all transport modes. As part of this, there will be a specific focus on long-term options and solutions for key pinch points in the network such as the Hewletts Road area.	· Presentation of the TSP project to be provided as part of this UFTD Committee meeting. · The TSP project was endorsed by Tauranga City Council in September 2019. · Partnership based governance, management and technical project teams have been established to deliver the TSP. · The project partners include Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Port of Tauranga and KiwiRail. Iwi and Priority One representation is in the process of being confirmed. · A consultant team has been appointed to deliver the first stage of the TSP project, which is the development of a 30-year ‘System Operating Framework’ (SOF). · The SOF is a collaborative, evidence-based process which identifies mode conflicts and priorities, gaps in modal level of service, and can test options to respond to these gaps at a corridor and route level. · Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency have confirmed Funding Assistance Rate subsidy (65%) for SOF stage of the TSP project. Further decisions on FAR subsidy will be made by the NZTA based on the findings of the SOF.	Next steps for the project include: · Confirming primary and secondary routes for each mode (e.g. freight; public transport; cycling, general traffic). · Analysing the modal operating gaps at a corridor and route level. · Testing options to respond to modal operating gaps. · Developing the programme of activities (i.e. that respond to operating gaps) to support the Long-Term Plan/Regional Land Transport Plan/National Land Transport Plan processes. It is important for the TSP to demonstrate alignment to the strategic direction for land use and transport identified by UFTI. A process has been established by the project partners to resolve issues should the TSP, through further and more detailed corridor and route level analysis, identify issues that impact on the direction provided by UFTI.
Regional Mode Shift Plan	· NZTA has identified the need to develop a Mode Shift Plan (MSP) for public transport and active modes for the Bay of Plenty region by mid-2020. The development of the MSP is being co-ordinated by the NZTA and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council with input from local Councils. · The requirement for an MSP also applies to other high growth areas like Auckland (completed), Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown (all under-development). · The MSP will document and reflect key existing initiatives already underway or relevant to mode shift e.g. UFTI, TSP, Te Papa Spatial Plan, Cycle Plan. · It is understood that the content of the MSP will be taken account in future investment decision-making by the Transport Agency (e.g. an activity included in the MSP has the potential to be prioritised above other activities). The framework to outline this is likely to be released as part of the next draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport and possibly through the NZTA’s Investment Assessment Framework (which the NZTA uses to gives effect to the Government Policy Statement).	· Continue working with the NZTA and BoPRC to support the continued development of the MSP. · Confirm with NZTA the extent MSP will be used to inform future investment decision-making processes. · Provide a report to UFTD on the MSP, its content and the role it will perform for NZTA in any investment decision making processes.
IDC (Infrastructure Development Code) Transport Provisions Updating the transport provisions within the IDC to ensure future street designs can facilitate medium density developments and achieve improved street design for all people using streets.	· The Tauranga Streetscape design guide was endorsed by the City Transformation Committee in December 2018. · Work continues on developing the Streetscape design tool that will support the delivery of the Streetscape design guide. This will be a digital tool with the assessment framework and criteria to help inform the required elements in the street. This work involves stakeholders including developer and consultant testing / peer review. · Design diagrams that provide more detail of design elements in the street environment are also being developed and tested with stakeholders.	Next steps include: · Continue development of the digital tool · Identify updates required to the IDC to support the use of the tool and other project deliverables. · Inform wider development community of upcoming changes and provide an opportunity for further feedback (currently programmed for September). · Report to UFTD (currently programmed for October) on all the deliverables of this project.
Parking Strategy	· Investigations / evidence gathering to better understand key parking issues and opportunities facing Tauranga has been undertaken. This has identified the strategic outcomes that approaches to parking can contribute to. The work has also identified parking principles and example interventions to support achievement of those strategic outcomes. · Following the Parking Workshop with the Mayor and Councillors held in September 2019 the work was referred to UFTI to ensure alignment. This alignment has been confirmed and there is an action in UFTI to complete and implement the parking strategy project. · Separately the final National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) is expected to include direction on parking management (restricting or removing the ability to apply minimum parking requirements in District Plans). This is planned for mid 2020.	· Next steps include: 1. Complete the development of a Parking Strategy including further engagement with the community; 2. Consider the development of Parking Implementation Plans for particular areas of priority (e.g. City centre). This work could be developed with other wider planning projects; 3. Implementing the NPS-UD direction on car parking through our district plan.
Tauranga Transport Model	· Presentation of the Transportation Model to be provided as part of this UFTD Committee meeting. Continued focus on model build and management activities including: · Developing the TTSM and TTHM User Guide, Usage Agreement, and updating the Model partner Heads of Agreement (ongoing). · Developing an improved freight model and port forecasting model (ongoing), based on the latest regional freight data collected for UFTI. · Developing a framework by assessing needs and gaps of land use and transport integration models (ongoing). · Updating Household Travel survey data. · Build a new multi modal accessibility model, that will help inform accessibility measures for projects such as TSP. · Tour-based model build stage has commenced. · Update the employment projections for BAU, based on the Census 2018 data (expected mid 2020).	Key next steps include: · Prepare for TTSM recalibration based on census 2018 data (expected to be released mid 2020). · Setup Scatsim module in Aimsun with help of TTOC, thereby feeding real time traffic data to traffic model. · Developing scenario manager dashboard for managing multiple land use and network scenarios to support key planning processes like the TSP and the Intensification Plan Changes. · To share the assessment results of land use and transport integration procedures / models with the wider model group and agree on next steps (e.g. should we build a LUTI model or should we improve the current scenario management procedures?)
Eastern Corridor Transport Planning (Te Tumu & Wairakei)	A number of workstreams remain underway related to the Te Tumu structure planning process and the Comprehensive Development Consent for The Sands Town Centre in Wairakei: · Papamoa Eastern Interchange (PEI) providing access onto the Tauranga Eastern Link is in the detailed design stage. · The PEI and infrastructure to the Te Tumu boundary is approved for financing through the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). NZTA funding is also financed through the HIF, as opposed to the usual National Land Transport Funding (NLTF) funding mechanism; meaning the NZTA share of these projects is contingent on the development of Te Tumu. · Council and the NZ Transport Agency are progressing negotiations to secure funding from the NLTF for the infrastructure to the Te Tumu boundary, Wairakei town centre and Te Tumu internal infrastructure independent of the HIF via the approval of individual Point of Entry documents. This approach will initially mean that Council will take on the risk of the Te Tumu funding share of the infrastructure until such time that funding approval is received from the NZ Transport Agency. · The PEI is critical to drive development of the Sands Town Centre and the developer has requested that Council investigate options for delivering it independent of Te Tumu. This would require NZTA funding to be re-prioritised through the National Land Transport Fund and for Discussions are underway with developers. · Te Tumu structure planning is ongoing. Transport modelling is largely complete at the development scale and now into detail of intersection and corridor design. The structure plan includes a protected public transport lane and high-quality walking and cycling connections. · Comprehensive development consent for the Sands Town Centre has been approved.	· Feedback received from the NZ Transport Agency on the business case Points of Entry has sought additional information to determine the appropriate pathway forward via the NZ Transport Agency processes. These on-going discussions remain live between the Council and the NZ Transport Agency to continue progressing via the wider workstream meetings to be scheduled. · The NZ Transport Agency has expressed concerns regarding the financial viability of the PEI being progressed ahead of the Te Tumu development. · Reviewing options for the timing, funding and construction of PEI, co-ordinated with NZTA funding discussions · Detailed transport modelling and cross section design for the Te Tumu structure plan, to be workshopped with developers · Complete detailed design of PEI and Te Okuroa Drive. · Continue to progress the cost share discussions between Te Tumu developers and town centre developers for transport infrastructure within the town centre area that has wider benefit.

Project Description

Current Update (key matters)

Next Steps and Identified Risks

Planning Projects

Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI)

The purpose of UFTI is to identify an integrated strategic approach for the development of the Western Bay of Plenty’s urban form and transport system. This includes delivering an integrated, strategic, shared funding programme with immediate and future priorities and investment opportunities in urban form, transport and other connected areas such as education and health.

· The Final Report for UFTI was endorsed by Tauranga City Council and the SmartGrowth partner Councils at the combined SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting on 1 July 2020.

· The Government partners to UFTI are now progressing their own decision-making on the Final UFTI report. Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency are programmed to make their decision at their Board meeting in August 2020.

· Following decision-making by all Project partners the focus moves to progressing delivery of the Actions identified in the UFTI programme.

· SmartGrowth’s existing governance model, now adjusted to bring in Ministerial representation, is the lead governance entity for overseeing delivery of UFTI. The SmartGrowth model is supported by a range of pre-existing and proposed coordinating committees and groups (e.g. Regional Transport Committee; Regional Passenger Transport Committee; Priority One) to enable this.

· From a transport perspective the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan is a key process to progress the transport direction provided by UFTI.

· From a land use planning perspective the development of the Western Bay of Plenty Spatial Plan is the process to progress the settlement pattern direction provided by UFTI.

Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP)

The purpose of the TSP is to identify the preferred strategic form of the City’s key transport network to deliver appropriate levels of service for all transport modes. As part of this, there will be a specific focus on long-term options and solutions for key pinch points in the network such as the Hewletts Road area.

· Presentation of the TSP project to be provided as part of this UFTD Committee meeting.

· The TSP project was endorsed by Tauranga City Council in September 2019.

· Partnership based governance, management and technical project teams have been established to deliver the TSP.

· The project partners include Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Port of Tauranga and KiwiRail. Iwi and Priority One representation is in the process of being confirmed.

· A consultant team has been appointed to deliver the first stage of the TSP project, which is the development of a 30-year ‘System Operating Framework’ (SOF).

· The SOF is a collaborative, evidence-based process which identifies mode conflicts and priorities, gaps in modal level of service, and can test options to respond to these gaps at a corridor and route level.

· Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency have confirmed Funding Assistance Rate subsidy (65%) for SOF stage of the TSP project. Further decisions on FAR subsidy will be made by the NZTA based on the findings of the SOF.

Next steps for the project include:

· Confirming primary and secondary routes for each mode (e.g. freight; public transport; cycling, general traffic).

· Analysing the modal operating gaps at a corridor and route level.

· Testing options to respond to modal operating gaps.

· Developing the programme of activities (i.e. that respond to operating gaps) to support the Long-Term Plan/Regional Land Transport Plan/National Land Transport Plan processes.

It is important for the TSP to demonstrate alignment to the strategic direction for land use and transport identified by UFTI. A process has been established by the project partners to resolve issues should the TSP, through further and more detailed corridor and route level analysis, identify issues that impact on the direction provided by UFTI.

Regional Mode Shift Plan

· NZTA has identified the need to develop a Mode Shift Plan (MSP) for public transport and active modes for the Bay of Plenty region by mid-2020. The development of the MSP is being co-ordinated by the NZTA and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council with input from local Councils.

· The requirement for an MSP also applies to other high growth areas like Auckland (completed), Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown (all under-development).

· The MSP will document and reflect key existing initiatives already underway or relevant to mode shift e.g. UFTI, TSP, Te Papa Spatial Plan, Cycle Plan.

· It is understood that the content of the MSP will be taken account in future investment decision-making by the Transport Agency (e.g. an activity included in the MSP has the potential to be prioritised above other activities). The framework to outline this is likely to be released as part of the next draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport and possibly through the NZTA’s Investment Assessment Framework (which the NZTA uses to gives effect to the Government Policy Statement).

· Continue working with the NZTA and BoPRC to support the continued development of the MSP.

· Confirm with NZTA the extent MSP will be used to inform future investment decision-making processes.

· Provide a report to UFTD on the MSP, its content and the role it will perform for NZTA in any investment decision making processes.

IDC (Infrastructure Development Code) Transport Provisions

Updating the transport provisions within the IDC to ensure future street designs can facilitate medium density developments and achieve improved street design for all people using streets.

· The Tauranga Streetscape design guide was endorsed by the City Transformation Committee in December 2018.

· Work continues on developing the Streetscape design tool that will support the delivery of the Streetscape design guide. This will be a digital tool with the assessment framework and criteria to help inform the required elements in the street. This work involves stakeholders including developer and consultant testing / peer review.

· Design diagrams that provide more detail of design elements in the street environment are also being developed and tested with stakeholders.

Next steps include:

· Continue development of the digital tool

· Identify updates required to the IDC to support the use of the tool and other project deliverables.

· Inform wider development community of upcoming changes and provide an opportunity for further feedback (currently programmed for September).

· Report to UFTD (currently programmed for October) on all the deliverables of this project.

Parking Strategy

· Investigations / evidence gathering to better understand key parking issues and opportunities facing Tauranga has been undertaken. This has identified the strategic outcomes that approaches to parking can contribute to. The work has also identified parking principles and example interventions to support achievement of those strategic outcomes.

· Following the Parking Workshop with the Mayor and Councillors held in September 2019 the work was referred to UFTI to ensure alignment. This alignment has been confirmed and there is an action in UFTI to complete and implement the parking strategy project.

· Separately the final National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) is expected to include direction on parking management (restricting or removing the ability to apply minimum parking requirements in District Plans). This is planned for mid 2020.

· Next steps include:

1. Complete the development of a Parking Strategy including further engagement with the community;

2. Consider the development of Parking Implementation Plans for particular areas of priority (e.g. City centre). This work could be developed with other wider planning projects;

3. Implementing the NPS-UD direction on car parking through our district plan.

Tauranga Transport Model

· Presentation of the Transportation Model to be provided as part of this UFTD Committee meeting.

Continued focus on model build and management activities including:

· Developing the TTSM and TTHM User Guide, Usage Agreement, and updating the Model partner Heads of Agreement (ongoing).

· Developing an improved freight model and port forecasting model (ongoing), based on the latest regional freight data collected for UFTI.

· Developing a framework by assessing needs and gaps of land use and transport integration models (ongoing).

· Updating Household Travel survey data.

· Build a new multi modal accessibility model, that will help inform accessibility measures for projects such as TSP.

· Tour-based model build stage has commenced.

· Update the employment projections for BAU, based on the Census 2018 data (expected mid 2020).

Key next steps include:

· Prepare for TTSM recalibration based on census 2018 data (expected to be released mid 2020).

· Setup Scatsim module in Aimsun with help of TTOC, thereby feeding real time traffic data to traffic model.

· Developing scenario manager dashboard for managing multiple land use and network scenarios to support key planning processes like the TSP and the Intensification Plan Changes.

· To share the assessment results of land use and transport integration procedures / models with the wider model group and agree on next steps (e.g. should we build a LUTI model or should we improve the current scenario management procedures?)

Eastern Corridor Transport Planning (Te Tumu & Wairakei)

A number of workstreams remain underway related to the Te Tumu structure planning process and the Comprehensive Development Consent for The Sands Town Centre in Wairakei:

· Papamoa Eastern Interchange (PEI) providing access onto the Tauranga Eastern Link is in the detailed design stage.

· The PEI and infrastructure to the Te Tumu boundary is approved for financing through the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). NZTA funding is also financed through the HIF, as opposed to the usual National Land Transport Funding (NLTF) funding mechanism; meaning the NZTA share of these projects is contingent on the development of Te Tumu.

· Council and the NZ Transport Agency are progressing negotiations to secure funding from the NLTF for the infrastructure to the Te Tumu boundary, Wairakei town centre and Te Tumu internal infrastructure independent of the HIF via the approval of individual Point of Entry documents. This approach will initially mean that Council will take on the risk of the Te Tumu funding share of the infrastructure until such time that funding approval is received from the NZ Transport Agency.

· The PEI is critical to drive development of the Sands Town Centre and the developer has requested that Council investigate options for delivering it independent of Te Tumu. This would require NZTA funding to be re-prioritised through the National Land Transport Fund and for Discussions are underway with developers.

· Te Tumu structure planning is ongoing. Transport modelling is largely complete at the development scale and now into detail of intersection and corridor design. The structure plan includes a protected public transport lane and high-quality walking and cycling connections.

· Comprehensive development consent for the Sands Town Centre has been approved.

· Feedback received from the NZ Transport Agency on the business case Points of Entry has sought additional information to determine the appropriate pathway forward via the NZ Transport Agency processes. These on-going discussions remain live between the Council and the NZ Transport Agency to continue progressing via the wider workstream meetings to be scheduled.

· The NZ Transport Agency has expressed concerns regarding the financial viability of the PEI being progressed ahead of the Te Tumu development.

· Reviewing options for the timing, funding and construction of PEI, co-ordinated with NZTA funding discussions

· Detailed transport modelling and cross section design for the Te Tumu structure plan, to be workshopped with developers

· Complete detailed design of PEI and Te Okuroa Drive.

· Continue to progress the cost share discussions between Te Tumu developers and town centre developers for transport infrastructure within the town centre area that has wider benefit.

Project	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
BayLink update	· The BayLink project is led by NZTA and involves the upgrade of SH2 between BayPark, the Truman Lane roundabout and Bayfair/Girven Road intersection. · Due the decision to include a pedestrian and cycling underpass in the project, additional engineering design works are now being undertaken by NZTA to confirm how this will be constructed. As a result the investigation into the public transport priority and improved at-grade pedestrian-cycle crossing was paused. · Recent discussions with NZTA have advised that broader investigations of the role of the State Highway 2/Maunganui Road in providing for public transport priority is required to then support the investigation into how public transport priority may then need to be delivered through the BayLink project area. This broader investigation can be undertaken through the TSP project which will identify ‘primary’ routes for different modes across the network.	· Progress through the TSP project the identification of the ‘primary’ public transport routes including for SH2/Maunganui Road. Once this information is available there is the opportunity to consider the need for further investigation into the potential for public transport priority on this part of the network. · Ongoing design and construction works are ongoing in the interim.
State Highway 2 North (Waihi To Tauranga including the Tauranga Northern Link	· In January 2020 the Government announced the New Zealand Upgrade Programme (NZUP) (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/nz-upgrade/overview/) · For the BoP, the $993m investment package includes the TNL ($478m) and the SH2 Te Puna to Omokoroa ($455m) projects. Relevant links: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/nz-upgrade/waikato-and-bay-of-plenty-package/tauranga-northern-link/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/nz-upgrade/waikato-and-bay-of-plenty-package/te-puna-to-omokoroa/ · NZTA have now commenced the procurement process to appoint suppliers to design and construct the TNL project. It is understood that the NZTA aim to conclude this procurement process by the end of 2020.	· The development of the Transport System Plan ‘System Operating Framework’ is the process being used to inform several final design elements of the SH2 TNL and Omokoroa to Te Puna improvement projects. This includes the approach to: o How a ‘managed lane’ arrangement works and integrates with the wider network; o The role of public transport on the existing State Highway 2 and TNL; o How to achieve the right ‘around’ v ‘across’ the harbour traffic pattern through design of the TNL / Takitimu Drive intersection and 15^th Avenue on-ramp. · TCC is also working with NZTA on a range of issues associated with design, network capacity, the continuity of managed lanes and safety for the section between 15^th Ave and the TNL/Takitimu Dr interchange that sit outside of the TSP project. · NZTA are still to confirm their process for considering matters like the potential tolling of TNL and the revocation of the existing State Highway 2 through Bethlehem and Te Puna that is bypassed by the project.
Western Corridor (SH29 Tauriko / Tauriko West) In 2018 the development of a Detailed Business Case (known as the ‘Early Works’ package) to identify the transport activities to open-up the initial stages of the Tauriko West area for approximately 3,000 new households started. This project was established to progress investigations as a result of the ‘Long-term business case’ being placed on hold by the NZTA. In late 2019 the NZTA announced that it would re-started the Long-Term Detailed Business Case to identify improvements to SH29 and other improvements (local road; public transport; walking & cycling) to enable growth in the wider Western Corridor.	*Tauriko Long-Term Detailed Business Case* · The NZTA has developed a project programme and defined the next steps for this project. This has involved re-establishing the Project governance structures which include TCC representatives, re-confirming and refining the Project’s investment objectives, and assessing the ‘long-list’ options for responding to the issues facing the SH29 corridor. · Discussions are underway with NZTA on scope issues associated with the business case to ensure a comprehensive approach is taken to transport planning in the area. This includes components of the State Highway network as well as future stages of the proposed western corridor ring road. *Tauriko Early Works Detailed Business Case* · Preferred improvement options are in the process of being confirmed to support further community engagement later this year. · Key elements of the Early Works improvement package include: o SH29 / Cambridge Rd / Whiore Avenue intersection. o A new access to Tauriko West from SH29 near the existing service station. o A southern roundabout connection to the Tauriko Business Estate and Tauriko West o The western corridor ring road Stage 1 (linking SH29 through the Tauriko Business Estate to SH36) o Walking / cycle paths and bus infrastructure · To enable an Early Works package to progress with support from NZTA it will be necessary for developers and councils to commit to a complimentary set of initiatives such as minimum densities (likely to be in excess of 20 dwellings / ha), delivery of PT services, a package of Travel Demand Management initiatives and the delivery of bus priority measures and cycleway improvements.	*Tauriko Long-Term Detailed Business Case* · Continue assessment of the ‘long-list’ options to then take forward for multi-criteria analysis to identify a preferred option. · Ensure all options have been captured in the long-list assessment. · Agree scope issues with NZTA. *Tauriko Early Works Detailed Business Case* · Prepare scope for additional study on a future ring road between the Tauriko Business Estate and SH36, to align with wastewater and storm water studies. This focuses on the crossing of the Kopurererua Stream and the form of the connection to SH36. · Further development of design to respond to the completed Road Safety Audit process. · Preparation for community engagement later this year.

Project

Current Update (key matters)

Next Steps and Identified Risks

State Highways Projects

BayLink update

· The BayLink project is led by NZTA and involves the upgrade of SH2 between BayPark, the Truman Lane roundabout and Bayfair/Girven Road intersection.

· Due the decision to include a pedestrian and cycling underpass in the project, additional engineering design works are now being undertaken by NZTA to confirm how this will be constructed. As a result the investigation into the public transport priority and improved at-grade pedestrian-cycle crossing was paused.

· Recent discussions with NZTA have advised that broader investigations of the role of the State Highway 2/Maunganui Road in providing for public transport priority is required to then support the investigation into how public transport priority may then need to be delivered through the BayLink project area. This broader investigation can be undertaken through the TSP project which will identify ‘primary’ routes for different modes across the network.

· Progress through the TSP project the identification of the ‘primary’ public transport routes including for SH2/Maunganui Road. Once this information is available there is the opportunity to consider the need for further investigation into the potential for public transport priority on this part of the network.

· Ongoing design and construction works are ongoing in the interim.

State Highway 2 North (Waihi To Tauranga including the Tauranga Northern Link

· In January 2020 the Government announced the New Zealand Upgrade Programme (NZUP) (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/nz-upgrade/overview/)

· For the BoP, the $993m investment package includes the TNL ($478m) and the SH2 Te Puna to Omokoroa ($455m) projects. Relevant links:

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/nz-upgrade/waikato-and-bay-of-plenty-package/tauranga-northern-link/

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/nz-upgrade/waikato-and-bay-of-plenty-package/te-puna-to-omokoroa/

· NZTA have now commenced the procurement process to appoint suppliers to design and construct the TNL project. It is understood that the NZTA aim to conclude this procurement process by the end of 2020.

· The development of the Transport System Plan ‘System Operating Framework’ is the process being used to inform several final design elements of the SH2 TNL and Omokoroa to Te Puna improvement projects. This includes the approach to:

o How a ‘managed lane’ arrangement works and integrates with the wider network;

o The role of public transport on the existing State Highway 2 and TNL;

o How to achieve the right ‘around’ v ‘across’ the harbour traffic pattern through design of the TNL / Takitimu Drive intersection and 15^th Avenue on-ramp.

· TCC is also working with NZTA on a range of issues associated with design, network capacity, the continuity of managed lanes and safety for the section between 15^th Ave and the TNL/Takitimu Dr interchange that sit outside of the TSP project.

· NZTA are still to confirm their process for considering matters like the potential tolling of TNL and the revocation of the existing State Highway 2 through Bethlehem and Te Puna that is bypassed by the project.

Western Corridor (SH29 Tauriko / Tauriko West)

In 2018 the development of a Detailed Business Case (known as the ‘Early Works’ package) to identify the transport activities to open-up the initial stages of the Tauriko West area for approximately 3,000 new households started. This project was established to progress investigations as a result of the ‘Long-term business case’ being placed on hold by the NZTA.

In late 2019 the NZTA announced that it would re-started the Long-Term Detailed Business Case to identify improvements to SH29 and other improvements (local road; public transport; walking & cycling) to enable growth in the wider Western Corridor.

Tauriko Long-Term Detailed Business Case

· The NZTA has developed a project programme and defined the next steps for this project. This has involved re-establishing the Project governance structures which include TCC representatives, re-confirming and refining the Project’s investment objectives, and assessing the ‘long-list’ options for responding to the issues facing the SH29 corridor.

· Discussions are underway with NZTA on scope issues associated with the business case to ensure a comprehensive approach is taken to transport planning in the area. This includes components of the State Highway network as well as future stages of the proposed western corridor ring road.

Tauriko Early Works Detailed Business Case

· Preferred improvement options are in the process of being confirmed to support further community engagement later this year.

· Key elements of the Early Works improvement package include:

o SH29 / Cambridge Rd / Whiore Avenue intersection.

o A new access to Tauriko West from SH29 near the existing service station.

o A southern roundabout connection to the Tauriko Business Estate and Tauriko West

o The western corridor ring road Stage 1 (linking SH29 through the Tauriko Business Estate to SH36)

o Walking / cycle paths and bus infrastructure

· To enable an Early Works package to progress with support from NZTA it will be necessary for developers and councils to commit to a complimentary set of initiatives such as minimum densities (likely to be in excess of 20 dwellings / ha), delivery of PT services, a package of Travel Demand Management initiatives and the delivery of bus priority measures and cycleway improvements.

Tauriko Long-Term Detailed Business Case

· Continue assessment of the ‘long-list’ options to then take forward for multi-criteria analysis to identify a preferred option.

· Ensure all options have been captured in the long-list assessment.

· Agree scope issues with NZTA.

Tauriko Early Works Detailed Business Case

· Prepare scope for additional study on a future ring road between the Tauriko Business Estate and SH36, to align with wastewater and storm water studies. This focuses on the crossing of the Kopurererua Stream and the form of the connection to SH36.

· Further development of design to respond to the completed Road Safety Audit process.

· Preparation for community engagement later this year.

Project	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
Multi Modal Projects
Bus facility – Arataki	· Report on this Project is on the main UFTD agenda.
Bus Facility – City Centre	· Awaiting wider Elected Member feedback on City Centre and Civic Administration Building (CAB) matters.	· Further work is on hold until direction from Elected Members on the City Centre and CAB is received.
Cameron Road Corridor Improvements The project is focused on achieving improved multi-modal outcomes and enabling quality intensification outcomes on the Te Papa peninsular. A staged delivery of the full Cameron Road corridor project is underway. The current stage focusses on the short to medium term (out to 10 years) and the section of Cameron Road from Harrington Street to Seventeenth Avenue.	· Development of a Single Stage Business Case which includes the development of a preferred option to progress to preliminary design continues. · Three concept design options have been developed and are now undergoing further testing to enable the preferred option (determined through a multi-criteria analysis process with project partners for Council endorsement) to be fully supported.	· Testing of concept options to provide quantitative evidence for supporting preferred option through to preliminary design. · Engagement with Community Liaison Group (CLG) planned for during preliminary design, to assist with the development of localised design responses, i.e. parking and loading bays relocation etc. · Engagement with Stakeholders planned towards end of preliminary design stage to explain outcomes and obtain feedback. · Working with Iwi reps will continue through preliminary design phase to ensure cultural connections within the designs. A significant placemaking cultural component up front of the detailed design stage is also recommended. · UFTD reporting of preliminary design for approval to proceed to public consultation anticipated September 2020. This would also enable the project to be progressed to detailed design.
Cycle Plan Implementation	· The preliminary investigation into all possible cycle routes in the Mount/ Bayfair/ Arataki and the Bellevue/ Otumoetai areas with key connections to schools and high-density employment areas is complete. · This work needs to be considered in the context of the development of the System Operating Framework for the WBOP Transport System Plan in terms of the priority provided to other modes (e.g. bus; freight) on routes. · The continuation of the project is contingent on completion of the System Operating Framework. · Engagement with key stakeholders will commence during July and August to receive their feedback into the work completed to date. · Ngatai Road walking, cycling and safety improvement project is under construction.	· Route Options commence in the two areas. These investigations will include alignment with the System Operating Framework and is likely to be subject to a joint business case approach to include the cycle corridors.
Public Transport (PT) Implementation Plan 2019-2022 Project to provide a detailed plan to implement the PT Blueprint	· The PT Blueprint was developed in 2017, providing an overview of planned improvements to the public transport network. · BoPRC have provided a first version of an Implementation Plan that outlines confirmed projects, uncommitted projects, and UFTI-related projects. TCC, WBOP and NZTA have provided input to the plan. The Implementation Plan is a living document and will be updated by the Regional Council.	· TCC staff continue to work with BoPRC on the PT Implementation Plan. · Larger projects such as interchanges, park n ride, building PT capability into the transport model, and PT priority (such as Cameron Road) are included in the implementation plan and are reported separately. Smaller projects include: o Roll out of bus shelters. All approved shelters have been installed, hearings can now be reinstated to make decisions on unapproved shelters (this was on-hold due to COVID-19) o Roll out of realtime information boards which is ongoing o Enforcement of bus priority measures

Project	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Funding Risk associated with receiving NZTA support funding for key transport projects.	· Submission of TCC and NZTA co-funded business cases for transport infrastructure investment has been delayed because of the COVID-19 lockdown. NZTA board approvals for funding that were expected to take place in May 20 were delayed during lockdown and will now take place in August 2020. This has not disrupted the expected progression of TCC co-funded business cases. · Maunganui Road Single Stage business case to secure NZTA funding approval is complete. Final detailed design currently in progress. · Domain Road Single Stage business case is now complete, and funding has been approved by NZTA. Physical implementation work is continuing as planned prior to the COVID-19 lockdown. · Te Papa Spatial Framework Indicative Business Case now in the final peer review and economic evaluation stage prior to submission for funding approval. Submission to the NZTA board for approval is expected to occur in August 2020. · The NZTA Investment Decision Making Framework review is now complete. TCC has been an active participant in this review advocating for recognition of wider community and social benefits to be included alongside the traditional transport outcomes. Wider Economic Benefits are now applied in addition to transport outcomes which will broaden the applicability of the investment framework. · The NZTA Low Cost / Low Risk (LC/LR) Review is now complete. TCC has been an active participant in this review, especially in advocating for an increase to the funding cap and increased planning detail prior to the approvals process. The funding cap is now lifted to $2M per project from $1M, with increased scrutiny of project scope, timeline, and design to ensure work fits with local and national priorities. · The NZTA Single Stage Business Case (Lite) (SSBC(L)) Project is now complete. This project provides an abbreviated pathway to secure funding for projects which have less complexity and risk. TCC has been an active participant in this review. This provides us the ability to expediate several TCC projects at potentially less cost than would have been expected under previous requirements. SSBC(L) bridges the gap between LC/LR projects ($2M) and full SSBC projects ($15M+). · Several workstreams remain underway in relation to the Te Tumu structure planning process and the Comprehensive Development Consent for The Sands Town Centre in Wairakei; o The Papamoa Eastern Interchange (PEI) providing access onto the Tauranga Eastern Link is included within the detailed design stage. o The PEI and internal infrastructure up to the Te Tumu western boundary has been approved for financing through the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). NZTA funding is also financed through the HIF, as opposed to the usual National Land Transport Funding (NLTF) funding mechanism; meaning the NZTA share of these projects is contingent on the development of Te Tumu. o Tauranga City Council and the NZTA are progressing negotiations to secure funding from the NLTF for the infrastructure up to the Te Tumu western boundary. The Wairakei town centre and Te Tumu internal infrastructure is independent of the HIF finance via the approval of individual Point of Entry documents. This approach will initially mean that Council will take on the risk of the Te Tumu funding share of the internal infrastructure until such time that funding approval is received from NZTA. o The PEI is critical to drive development of the Sands Town Centre and the developer has requested that Council investigate options for delivering it independently of the Te Tumu development. This would require NZTA funding to be re-prioritised through the National Land Transport Fund. Discussions are underway with developers. o Te Tumu structure planning is ongoing. Transport modelling is largely complete at the development scale and now into detail of intersection and corridor design. The structure plan includes a protected public transport lane and high-quality walking and cycling connections. o Comprehensive development consent for the Sands Town Centre has been approved. · Tauriko Early Works consultancy WSP has revised the original Offer of Service so that the expanded scope includes the Tauriko Business Estate Ring Road and connection to State Highway 36. · TCC and NZTA have submitted a Point of Entry to the NZTA delegations’ approvals committee for urgent works to improve safety for vulnerable road users (primarily cyclists and pedestrians) on Totara Street following a recent fatality. Approval is expected in early July 20.	· Risk of certain projects not receiving funding in a timely manner, or not at all. This is largely dependent on the impact of COVID-19 on NZTA revenue collection through fuel tax and registration fees. The impact is not yet known. The NZTA have advised that additional scrutiny is being applied by their Board to funding decisions, but they have also advised TCC to continue with submissions for co-funding as previously expected. · Continue to work with NZTA on co-funded business cases for example the UFTI, Cameron Road short-term multi-modal SSBC and the Transport System Plan. · Feedback received from NZTA on the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) business case Point of Entry has indicated the need for additional information to determine the appropriate pathway. · Current discussions between TCC and NZTA will continue and will likely be expanded to include additional workstreams. This will be especially important to address NZTA concerns regarding the financial viability of the PEI being progressed ahead of the Te Tumu development, and for reviewing options for the timing, funding and construction of PEI, coordinated with NZTA funding discussions · Detailed transport modelling and cross-section design for the Te Tumu structure plan will be workshopped with developers in coming months. This will progress the detailed design of PEI and Te Okuroa Drive towards completion. · TCC will continue to progress the cost share discussions between the Te Tumu developers and town centre developers for transport infrastructure within the town centre area so that has wider benefit. · NZTA and TCC expect to approve the revised WSP Offer of Service for the Tauriko Early Works business case ring road and SH36 connection. · TCC and NZTA expect to commence physical works to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians on Totara Street in late 2020. Preliminary design has been completed in advance so that once NZTA funding approval is secured, work can commence prior to the peak user period over summer.

Project

Current Update (key matters)

Next Steps and Identified Risks

Projects - Funding

Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Funding

Risk associated with receiving NZTA support funding for key transport projects.

· Submission of TCC and NZTA co-funded business cases for transport infrastructure investment has been delayed because of the COVID-19 lockdown. NZTA board approvals for funding that were expected to take place in May 20 were delayed during lockdown and will now take place in August 2020. This has not disrupted the expected progression of TCC co-funded business cases.

· Maunganui Road Single Stage business case to secure NZTA funding approval is complete. Final detailed design currently in progress.

· Domain Road Single Stage business case is now complete, and funding has been approved by NZTA. Physical implementation work is continuing as planned prior to the COVID-19 lockdown.

· Te Papa Spatial Framework Indicative Business Case now in the final peer review and economic evaluation stage prior to submission for funding approval. Submission to the NZTA board for approval is expected to occur in August 2020.

· The NZTA Investment Decision Making Framework review is now complete. TCC has been an active participant in this review advocating for recognition of wider community and social benefits to be included alongside the traditional transport outcomes. Wider Economic Benefits are now applied in addition to transport outcomes which will broaden the applicability of the investment framework.

· The NZTA Low Cost / Low Risk (LC/LR) Review is now complete. TCC has been an active participant in this review, especially in advocating for an increase to the funding cap and increased planning detail prior to the approvals process. The funding cap is now lifted to $2M per project from $1M, with increased scrutiny of project scope, timeline, and design to ensure work fits with local and national priorities.

· The NZTA Single Stage Business Case (Lite) (SSBC(L)) Project is now complete. This project provides an abbreviated pathway to secure funding for projects which have less complexity and risk. TCC has been an active participant in this review. This provides us the ability to expediate several TCC projects at potentially less cost than would have been expected under previous requirements. SSBC(L) bridges the gap between LC/LR projects ($2M) and full SSBC projects ($15M+).

· Several workstreams remain underway in relation to the Te Tumu structure planning process and the Comprehensive Development Consent for The Sands Town Centre in Wairakei;

o The Papamoa Eastern Interchange (PEI) providing access onto the Tauranga Eastern Link is included within the detailed design stage.

o The PEI and internal infrastructure up to the Te Tumu western boundary has been approved for financing through the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). NZTA funding is also financed through the HIF, as opposed to the usual National Land Transport Funding (NLTF) funding mechanism; meaning the NZTA share of these projects is contingent on the development of Te Tumu.

o Tauranga City Council and the NZTA are progressing negotiations to secure funding from the NLTF for the infrastructure up to the Te Tumu western boundary. The Wairakei town centre and Te Tumu internal infrastructure is independent of the HIF finance via the approval of individual Point of Entry documents. This approach will initially mean that Council will take on the risk of the Te Tumu funding share of the internal infrastructure until such time that funding approval is received from NZTA.

o The PEI is critical to drive development of the Sands Town Centre and the developer has requested that Council investigate options for delivering it independently of the Te Tumu development. This would require NZTA funding to be re-prioritised through the National Land Transport Fund. Discussions are underway with developers.

o Te Tumu structure planning is ongoing. Transport modelling is largely complete at the development scale and now into detail of intersection and corridor design. The structure plan includes a protected public transport lane and high-quality walking and cycling connections.

o Comprehensive development consent for the Sands Town Centre has been approved.

· Tauriko Early Works consultancy WSP has revised the original Offer of Service so that the expanded scope includes the Tauriko Business Estate Ring Road and connection to State Highway 36.

· TCC and NZTA have submitted a Point of Entry to the NZTA delegations’ approvals committee for urgent works to improve safety for vulnerable road users (primarily cyclists and pedestrians) on Totara Street following a recent fatality. Approval is expected in early July 20.

· Risk of certain projects not receiving funding in a timely manner, or not at all. This is largely dependent on the impact of COVID-19 on NZTA revenue collection through fuel tax and registration fees. The impact is not yet known. The NZTA have advised that additional scrutiny is being applied by their Board to funding decisions, but they have also advised TCC to continue with submissions for co-funding as previously expected.

· Continue to work with NZTA on co-funded business cases for example the UFTI, Cameron Road short-term multi-modal SSBC and the Transport System Plan.

· Feedback received from NZTA on the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) business case Point of Entry has indicated the need for additional information to determine the appropriate pathway.

· Current discussions between TCC and NZTA will continue and will likely be expanded to include additional workstreams. This will be especially important to address NZTA concerns regarding the financial viability of the PEI being progressed ahead of the Te Tumu development, and for reviewing options for the timing, funding and construction of PEI, coordinated with NZTA funding discussions

· Detailed transport modelling and cross-section design for the Te Tumu structure plan will be workshopped with developers in coming months. This will progress the detailed design of PEI and Te Okuroa Drive towards completion.

· TCC will continue to progress the cost share discussions between the Te Tumu developers and town centre developers for transport infrastructure within the town centre area so that has wider benefit.

· NZTA and TCC expect to approve the revised WSP Offer of Service for the Tauriko Early Works business case ring road and SH36 connection.

· TCC and NZTA expect to commence physical works to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians on Totara Street in late 2020. Preliminary design has been completed in advance so that once NZTA funding approval is secured, work can commence prior to the peak user period over summer.

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

Project Description

Current Update (key matters)

Next Steps and Identified Risks

Planning Projects

Wastewater Projects

Eastern Corridor wastewater study

Study purpose is to review corridor needs and progress a concept to renew and upgrade the existing wastewater trunk network (including pump stations) from the boundary of Te Tumu to the Te Maunga wastewater treatment plant.

Much of the upgrades to the wastewater system along the eastern corridor are required regardless of whether Te Tumu is being developed to accommodate growth in Papamoa and Wairakei and to address existing operational and renewal issues.

· Feasibility study has been finalised and identified a preferred route alignment. Natural hazards resilience a key consideration in options assessment.

· Finalised feasibility study has been presented to UFTD committee on the 9th of June and endorsed in principal.

· The estimated costs of the concept in the LTP were reviewed as part of this study and a significant increase of $40m from the previously budgeted cost was identified. Updated estimates for the programme is base cost of $100 million with 95^th percentile estimate of $150 million. This additional cost is based on providing flexibility for growth, improving resilience, and considering the constructability and risk management costs through existing urban areas and roads.

· An independent consultancy (ALTA) engaged to review costs, programme schedule and procurement options. ALTA report has been received and is currently internally reviewed.

· The programme is currently being packaged up, so it can move from this feasibility stage to preliminary design and detailed design for staged delivery.

· The main risk is the ability for Council to fund and finance the project within its wider fiscal constraints and in the context of additional growth-related project costs emerging in other parts of the City (eg Western Corridor and Te Papa).

· Develop a programme of communication and engagement with the community as the project will go through a range of established urban areas and communities.

Western Corridor Wastewater Study

Study purpose is to identify preferred trunk network (including pump stations) to service the western growth area, including Tauriko West, Lower and Upper Belk, Keenan, Joyce and Merrick Road areas. Some of these areas have been confirmed by the SmartGrowth Partnership for urbanisation while others are potential long-term growth options. The network would connect to the recently completed Southern Pipeline via Maleme Street, Greerton. A core consideration for this study is the staging to service the various planned and potential growth areas over time.

· The feasibility study has been finalised and presented to council.

· Council endorsed the proposed solution and endorsed the timely implementation of the interim part of the solution subject to budget being available.

· The preliminary design of the interim solution has been commissioned and is being progressed.

· The estimated cost for the delivery of this western wastewater extension to the network to service the identified growth areas is $110m (P50).

· There is minimal budget set aside in the current LTP for these projects as it was previously thought that the existing network had capacity to service growth for the next 10 years. However, higher than anticipated growth (especially within the Tauriko Business Estate) has used capacity faster than anticipated. The scale of investment required is also more substantial than originally thought.

· Further review and internal assessment of the concept and costs, including P95 estimate.

· Project has significant cost and will add to TCC’s fiscal pressure.

· The main risk is the ability for council to fund and finance the project within its wider fiscal constraints and being able to deliver the interim solution in line with expected development timeframes for Tauriko West and proposed extension of TBE.

Project Description	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
Planning Projects
Wastewater Projects
City Intensification (Te Papa)	· The strategic wastewater model is now sufficiently advanced, so it could be used for modelling of intensification scenarios, and is now being used for LTP and 30 year infrastructure planning. · Spatial Planning exercise is underway to identify areas where intensification in Te Papa can be facilitated more easily or require wastewater upgrades first. This will be based on Te Papa intensification maps used for public engagement. · Further refinements of infrastructure investment requirements are underway to facilitate Te Papa intensification plan.	· Develop wastewater cost estimate for 30-year infrastructure and 10-year LTP.
Te Maunga Ocean Outfall Project The ocean outfall is a critical component of the public wastewater network. It is in poor condition (both landward and marine sections) and cannot physically withstand the pressures required to deliver the consented maximum discharge rate of 900 L/s. Increasing wastewater flows due to growth are also raising the average daily volumes and peak flows placing further pressure on the outfall system. These constraints mean that Council must, to build resilience and mitigate the consequence of failure undertake a review into the future of the marine section and upgrade the landward section. The landward upgrade is programmed to commence in the 2020/21 financial year (late 2020) and the marine section is currently programmed in the LTP to be operational by 2028.	· The need for this project is being discussed with the Wastewater Review Committee. Members of the committee raised concerns about the use of the previous desludging pond as a flow balancing pond. The full removal of this pond would require a wider assessment of storage and flow management options throughout the network. · The feasibility of relining the existing marine section of the outfall pipe has been assessed and concluded that relining is generally possible. Further tests to confirm the condition of the existing pipe line need to be carried out before a final call on this option and the potential cost can be made. This is currently being delayed due to COVID. · Further refinements of the costs for the marine section of the outfall indicate cost range from $20m (relining option) to $78m (new outfall option). The implications of the pond availability for flow balancing on the options needs to be considered.	· Carry out current pipe conditions tests over the next couple of months (delayed due to COVID). · Continue discussions with Wastewater Review Committee. · Continue with the implementation of the landward section of the coastal outfall. · Carry out a review of the coastal outfall options in consideration of the identified issues. This will be done in line with the strategic wastewater planning and modelling project.

Project Description	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
*Western Corridor Water Supply Study* The purpose of this study is similar to the western corridor wastewater study outlined above but in relation to potable water supply. The western corridor is and will be serviced by the existing water take at Joyce Road.	· A concept for servicing these western growth areas has been developed. Initial concept estimates undertaken for the last LTP and 30-year infrastructure plan indicated costs of around $62 million excluding additional costs for land purchases. $15 million of the $62 million are in the current LTP. · The purpose of this new study is to take it from concept through a feasibility study to confirm the preferred option, and to refine cost estimates. · The contract for this study was awarded to WSP and the final delivery date for this study is September 2020. · As part of this work it has become apparent that the city’s water supply is under more pressure than previously understood. This will largely be relieved when the Waiari water supply comes on stream – currently scheduled for 2022. However further investigations are required to ensure the potential of the Waiari supply and existing trunk infrastructure is maximised to relieve existing and emerging water supply constraints in parts of the city such as the Western Corridor.	· Complete planning study and related investigations into Waiari water supply and integrate outcomes into the next LTP. · Servicing additional growth areas in the western corridor will most probably be restricted through the short-term availability of water supply from our existing water takes and treatment plant capacity until the new water take from Waiari and all related network upgrades have been carried out. Again, this may create some challenges to fully align with development timeframes for Tauriko West and the proposed extension of the Tauriko Business Estate. · This may also have implications for the ability to accommodate large water users, including TCC facilities like a new aquatic facility.
*Eastern Corridor Water supply* (extension of current pipeline work from Waiari to the Mount)	· Stage 1 is currently being delivered by the PMO. · Stage 2 (Welcome Bay roundabout to Mangatawa) requires a feasibility study before it can move forward to delivery · Stage 3 (Mangatawa to Mount Maunganui) is in the concept planning stage. · Budget in the current LTP for these two stages are around $30 million each. · Concept study for Stage 3 is now underway. This study will look at all potential options.	· The aim is to get the concept study finalised in order to reconfirm the budgets for the next LTP and to ensure that planning is being carried out in time. · The Papamoa and Mount suburbs are currently being supplied with water from the Joyce Treatment Plant. The extension of the Waiari water supply all the way to the Mount is critical to take off pressure on the Joyce supply network so capacity can be reallocated to service growth in the western corridor.
*City Intensification (Te Papa)*	· Spatial Planning exercise is underway to identify areas, where intensification in Te Papa can be facilitated more easily or require water supply upgrades first. This will be based on Te Papa intensification maps used for public engagement. · An initial assessment showed that some parts of Greerton already have a low level of service for water supply. With the current water supply network system any growth in Te Papa will further impact on this low level of service. · Water intensification modelling has been completed. · Further refinements of infrastructure investment requirements are underway to facilitate Te Papa intensification plan.	· Develop water cost estimate for 30-year Infrastructure Strategy and 10-year LTP.

Project Description	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
*Tauriko West comprehensive stormwater consent* The purpose of this project is the preparation of a comprehensive stormwater resource consent for this growth area to be lodged at the time of the plan change notification to ensure good alignment of stormwater and land use planning. The resource consent will guide how developers manage stormwater in Tauriko West. Stormwater infrastructure costs fall on developers not the Council.	· An initial planning assessment against current policy and regional plan provisions has been carried out. · A stormwater design philosophy has been drafted for the Tauriko West development area, which will form the basis of the stormwater management plan and any associated consent applications. Landowners and developers are currently providing input into this document. · A stormwater management plan to support the comprehensive consent application is currently being developed taking into consideration the proposed changes to the National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standard for Freshwater Management. · Consultant services have been procured to prepare the comprehensive stormwater consent application which will be processed by the Bay of plenty Regional Council.	· Progress development of stormwater consent application. · Ensure consent is aligned with final NPS and NES Freshwater proposals. A result of this alignment there is some rethinking required on how to balance freshwater health and developable land yields, which are currently being worked though with the respective landowners and developers.
*Kaituna Overflow* The Kaituna overflow is a proposed stormwater channel to allow excess floodwater in Papamoa, Wairakei and Te Tumu to spill into the Kaituna River rather than flood the community. Planning for a flood relief overflow on the coast has been ongoing since the 1990s, and in 2008 the Kaituna overflow was consented through the Papamoa Comprehensive Stormwater Consent. The Kaituna overflow channel is required to be constructed as part of the development of Te Tumu. It will be integrated into the development to provide amenity and recreational values as well as flood management	· Preliminary design of the overflow has recently been undertaken to understand scale and costs of the required infrastructure. This includes an increase in scale from the original concept to cater for increased development and climate change. · Negotiations are ongoing to identify the preferred location and land value for the overflow route. · Natural hazard assessment is being undertaken for a range of hazards in Te Tumu to mitigate risk. Building on learnings from Canterbury earthquakes, the overflow channel design will need significant geotechnical works to mitigate risks from the banks spreading in an earthquake. · This adds significantly to the cost estimate, which is now in the order of $40 million for land, construction and mitigation.	· Continue natural hazard investigation and mitigation to understand various options and costs. · Continue engagement with Regional Council and tangata whenua on stormwater planning. · Risks include effects on project viability through national policy changes, opposition to works, and further cost estimate escalation. Council is engaging with stakeholder to understand and mitigate these risks.
*Nanako Stormwater Consent* A stormwater consent is required to enable discharge of stormwater to the Nanako Stream to enable development of residential zoned land in the Pyes Pa West (The Lakes) area, primarily the undeveloped land in the vicinity of Kennedy Road. The consent will require construction of stormwater devices like ponds, and wetlands, as well as improvements to Kennedy Road where this acts as a dam.	· The stormwater solution for this area is currently being refined and the design to enable Kennedy Road embankment to act as a large dam is currently being progressed. · Effected landowners have been updated about the progress and have been informed about the preferred solution. · The finalised stormwater solution forms the basis for stakeholder and community engagement currently being carried out.	· Lodge stormwater consent application with BOPRC. A preapplication meeting has been held on 13th of May and lodgement is anticipated by mid July 2020. · Progress required land acquisitions – initial discussions with landowners identify that there are some risks around land acquisition. If necessary, Council has compulsory acquisition powers under the Public Works Act. It appears that land acquisition processes may delay the ability to deliver the stormwater system necessary to enable land development to continue.
City Intensification (Te Papa)	· The Te Papa design sprint identified that the idea of opening up overland flow/stream corridors with the aim of reducing the amount of flood prone areas is sensible. These blue/green networks would also contribute to the amenity value of the area. · An example sub-catchment project is underway to explore options to resolve wider flooding and the establishment of a blue/green network.	· Continue to explore establishment of blue/green network for Te Papa and general stormwater network capacity for 10-year rainfall event LOS. · Develop stormwater cost estimate for 30-year infrastructure strategy and 10-year LTP.
Large Dam Safety Upgrades (City Wide)	· A desk top assessment identified around 40 dams in the Tauranga city area, which would be covered by the new dam safety regulation. In our asset database we only have 3 dams listed. · A meeting with Trustpower Dam Safety Expert was held during Level 4 lockdown and emphasised planning related issues identified by TCC staff. (Operational matters were also covered in this meeting.)	· The new regulation is supposed to be gazetted mid this year. The operations team will then have to implement procedures for looking after these dams. · The Waters Strategy and Planning Team intends to put a programme in place to check risk and structure of dam, and then remediate shortcomings. There is no budget set aside for this.

Project Description

Current Update (key matters)

Next Steps and Identified Risks

Planning Projects

Stormwater Projects

Tauriko West comprehensive stormwater consent

The purpose of this project is the preparation of a comprehensive stormwater resource consent for this growth area to be lodged at the time of the plan change notification to ensure good alignment of stormwater and land use planning.

The resource consent will guide how developers manage stormwater in Tauriko West. Stormwater infrastructure costs fall on developers not the Council.

· An initial planning assessment against current policy and regional plan provisions has been carried out.

· A stormwater design philosophy has been drafted for the Tauriko West development area, which will form the basis of the stormwater management plan and any associated consent applications. Landowners and developers are currently providing input into this document.

· A stormwater management plan to support the comprehensive consent application is currently being developed taking into consideration the proposed changes to the National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standard for Freshwater Management.

· Consultant services have been procured to prepare the comprehensive stormwater consent application which will be processed by the Bay of plenty Regional Council.

· Progress development of stormwater consent application.

· Ensure consent is aligned with final NPS and NES Freshwater proposals. A result of this alignment there is some rethinking required on how to balance freshwater health and developable land yields, which are currently being worked though with the respective landowners and developers.

Kaituna Overflow

The Kaituna overflow is a proposed stormwater channel to allow excess floodwater in Papamoa, Wairakei and Te Tumu to spill into the Kaituna River rather than flood the community. Planning for a flood relief overflow on the coast has been ongoing since the 1990s, and in 2008 the Kaituna overflow was consented through the Papamoa Comprehensive Stormwater Consent. The Kaituna overflow channel is required to be constructed as part of the development of Te Tumu. It will be integrated into the development to provide amenity and recreational values as well as flood management

· Preliminary design of the overflow has recently been undertaken to understand scale and costs of the required infrastructure. This includes an increase in scale from the original concept to cater for increased development and climate change.

· Negotiations are ongoing to identify the preferred location and land value for the overflow route.

· Natural hazard assessment is being undertaken for a range of hazards in Te Tumu to mitigate risk. Building on learnings from Canterbury earthquakes, the overflow channel design will need significant geotechnical works to mitigate risks from the banks spreading in an earthquake.

· This adds significantly to the cost estimate, which is now in the order of $40 million for land, construction and mitigation.

· Continue natural hazard investigation and mitigation to understand various options and costs.

· Continue engagement with Regional Council and tangata whenua on stormwater planning.

· Risks include effects on project viability through national policy changes, opposition to works, and further cost estimate escalation. Council is engaging with stakeholder to understand and mitigate these risks.

Nanako Stormwater Consent

A stormwater consent is required to enable discharge of stormwater to the Nanako Stream to enable development of residential zoned land in the Pyes Pa West (The Lakes) area, primarily the undeveloped land in the vicinity of Kennedy Road. The consent will require construction of stormwater devices like ponds, and wetlands, as well as improvements to Kennedy Road where this acts as a dam.

· The stormwater solution for this area is currently being refined and the design to enable Kennedy Road embankment to act as a large dam is currently being progressed.

· Effected landowners have been updated about the progress and have been informed about the preferred solution.

· The finalised stormwater solution forms the basis for stakeholder and community engagement currently being carried out.

· Lodge stormwater consent application with BOPRC. A preapplication meeting has been held on 13th of May and lodgement is anticipated by mid July 2020.

· Progress required land acquisitions – initial discussions with landowners identify that there are some risks around land acquisition. If necessary, Council has compulsory acquisition powers under the Public Works Act. It appears that land acquisition processes may delay the ability to deliver the stormwater system necessary to enable land development to continue.

City Intensification (Te Papa)

· The Te Papa design sprint identified that the idea of opening up overland flow/stream corridors with the aim of reducing the amount of flood prone areas is sensible. These blue/green networks would also contribute to the amenity value of the area.

· An example sub-catchment project is underway to explore options to resolve wider flooding and the establishment of a blue/green network.

· Continue to explore establishment of blue/green network for Te Papa and general stormwater network capacity for 10-year rainfall event LOS.

· Develop stormwater cost estimate for 30-year infrastructure strategy and 10-year LTP.

Large Dam Safety Upgrades (City Wide)

· A desk top assessment identified around 40 dams in the Tauranga city area, which would be covered by the new dam safety regulation. In our asset database we only have 3 dams listed.

· A meeting with Trustpower Dam Safety Expert was held during Level 4 lockdown and emphasised planning related issues identified by TCC staff. (Operational matters were also covered in this meeting.)

· The new regulation is supposed to be gazetted mid this year. The operations team will then have to implement procedures for looking after these dams.

· The Waters Strategy and Planning Team intends to put a programme in place to check risk and structure of dam, and then remediate shortcomings. There is no budget set aside for this.

Project Description	Current Update (key matters)	Next Steps and Identified Risks
Three Waters Modelling Projects
Water Supply Modelling	· A functional network model to inform planning and operational decision-making is in place for the whole city. · The water supply planning model has been updated and is now available to support LTP and 30-year infrastructure planning.	· Next steps are to continue to: - Use the model to support planning to inform next LTP and current water supply management, - Use the model to test water demand management options in regard to their effects on the water supply network, and - Explore hydrological model option for resilience planning to fully understand the cities vulnerability of instream low flows and demand needs.
Wastewater modelling	· Dry weather models including all network pipes in place for the whole city. However, wet weather situations are not satisfactorily reflected in model. · A strategic model (reflecting the main trunk network) is currently being built, which will be calibrated to simulate wet weather events. A good understanding of the network performance during wet weather is critical to understand risks of potential overflows into our streams and harbour. · Strategic monitoring of wet weather flows in the network is accompanying the build-up of the strategic model. · Initial results of the strategic model are expected to inform the next LTP discussion. However, further refinements will be expected thereafter for the following LTP. · The calibrated strategic model has been delivered and has been used for intensification modelling.	· Modelling and planning is now being carried out to support the LTP and 30-year Infrastructure Strategy.
Stormwater modelling	· Detailed flood models in place for all urban areas. · Updates to these models are ongoing to include new developments across the city, updated information on climate change (e.g. rainfall intensities and sea level rise) and general modelling improvements. · The updated Greerton model has been finalised. · All urban flood models have been updated to support Plan Change 27 (TCC Flood Hazard). · Gaps in the rural area have been filled through “Rapid-Flood-Hazard-Modelling”. Results are now being incorporated in city wide flood hazard mapping updates.	· Refine presentation of flood model outputs, so flood plains, overland flow paths, and flood prone areas are clearly distinguished on our future flood maps. · Development of business case to develop hydrological models for every day flows and water quality for consideration in development of the LTP.

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

9.4 Emergency Vehicle Access 17th Avenue to State Highway 2/29

File Number: A11610168

Author: Peter Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To provide the Urban Form and Transport Committee (UFTD) with a summary of the findings of the ‘17^th Avenue Emergency Access Study’ (the Study) and to obtain direction from UFTD on the Study’s options assessment, conclusions and recommendations to confirm the next steps with this investigation.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Agrees to not progress with further investigation including design and engagement on a potential 17^th Avenue emergency vehicle access to state highway.

(b) Agree that the Cameron Road short-term multi-modal project will consider how responses may support improved access for emergency vehicles (through use of bus clearways; intersection priority) along Cameron Road.

(c) Agrees Tauranga Transport Operating System SCATS investigation (through TTOC) will consider the benefits of purchasing a module with an extension element for emergency vehicles.

Executive Summary

2. As part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process Council requested an investigation of the issues and feasibility of providing an emergency vehicle access from 17^th Avenue to State Highway 29/Takitimu Drive (SH29) and SH2/Tamatea Arikinui Drive (SH2).

3. The Order of St John Ambulance facility is located on 17th Avenue. Currently, to access SH29/Takitimu Drive southbound ambulances travel via either Cameron Road to Barkes Corner or Elizabeth Street. To access SH2, northbound ambulances travel via Cameron Road to 15^th Avenue.

4. An emergency access directly from 17th Avenue to SH29 and/or SH2 would provide quicker response times to areas to the south such as the Tauriko and The Lakes, and the north such as Bethlehem.

5. The Investigation (refer Attachment 1) considered design feasibility, planning, geotechnical, stormwater, traffic and safety issues, risks and benefits of an emergency vehicle access. It also considered the estimated cost for planning, design and construction. The investigation report includes a large number of appendices providing detailed and technical information on geotechnical borehole information, utilities, cables and planning maps. These appendices were deemed too detailed for inclusion in this report. A copy of the full Aurecon report and all technical appendices is available on request.

6. The Investigation identified likely improved response times for ambulances to the south in particular, but also a number of relatively significant issues with providing access. These issues related to providing a safe access point to state highway, and the geotechnical conditions of the area.

7. The Investigation also identified that since Councils request for this Investigation the Government has confirmed the implementation of the SH2 Tauranga Northern Link (TNL) project. The TNL includes an on-ramp from 15^th Avenue to SH29 in close proximity to a potential 17^th Avenue emergency vehicle access. The new 15^th Avenue on-ramp will provide improved emergency to SH29 but also constraints in terms of access from 17^th Avenue to SH29.

8. The new 15^th Avenue on-ramp is to be constructed within the next 5 years meaning any new emergency vehicle access, if able to be provided, would need to be removed within 5 years (probably less to allow for construction of the new off-ramp).

9. The costs of a potential emergency vehicle access are estimated to be in the order of $750,000. There is currently no project in the Long Term or Annual Plan which provides for these.

Background

10. During the annual plan process in 2019, Council asked staff to investigate the issues associated with providing an emergency vehicle access to SH29 and SH2 from 17^th Avenue.

11. The Order of St John ambulance facility is located on 17^th Avenue. Currently, there is no direct access from 17^th Avenue to either state highway. The route to access SH2 towards Bethlehem, is via Cameron Road and 15^th Avenue. To access SH29 for areas in the west, access may be via Cameron Road and Barkes Corner to SH29a or Elizabeth Street to access SH29. A direct access for emergency vehicles from 17^th Avenue to SH29 or SH2 would provide a quicker response time to emergencies events.

17^th Avenue

12. The proposed site for an emergency vehicle access is located within the Kopurererua Valley Reserve between the north western end of 17^th Avenue and the divergence of the westbound SH2 and SH29. The site is located adjacent to a skatepark at the south western side of the reserve. 17^th Avenue is a cul de sac at its northern western end and used by pedestrians and cyclists entering the Kopurererua Valley and the Historic Village. Image 1, below, shows the general layout and key features of the location of the potential emergency vehicle access.

Image 1: Location for potential emergency vehicle access

The Tauranga Northern Link (TNL)

13. In late 2019 the Government announced the implementation of the SH2/TNL project. The Government announcement identified that construction would commence in late 2020. The NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA), as the Governments delivery agent for the TNL, are now progressing the procurement process to appoint contractors to deliver the project. This is programmed to be completed in late 2020.

14. A key element of the TNL project is the construction of an onramp from the 15^th Avenue to SH29. An NZTA image of this on-ramp is shown on Image 2, below. The new on-ramp is over and across some of the same land and area required for a potential 17^th Avenue emergency vehicle access.

Image 2: NZTA image on new TNL 15^th Avenue onramp

15. The timing for construction of the new 15^th Avenue on ramp within the wider TNL construction programme is still to be confirmed. Discussions with NZTA have identified that it’s very unlikely that an on ramp and an emergency access from 17^th Avenue can both be provided. Further, that once construction for the 15^th Avenue on ramp commences it is very likely that any emergency vehicle access would need to be removed.

Cameron Road short-term Multi-modal project

16. The Cameron Road short-term multimodal project (Stage 1: CBD to 17^th Avenue) is currently in development. This project has the following goals:

(a) Improving the bus network.

(b) Improving safety for people who travel by bike.

(d) Making Cameron Road an attractive area where people want to spend time (e.g. improve the street corridor through plants, green areas, and improved street furniture).

17. Currently this project is developing options to meet the above goals. The options include interventions like bus clearways, bus lanes and other bus priority measures (e.g. signal pre-emption at intersections) on Cameron Road between 15^th Avenue and 17^th Avenue. These elements of the Cameron Road project could, if agreed through the projects development, improve emergency vehicle access along Cameron Road.

SCATS Traffic control system

18. Tauranga’s traffic signals use the ‘SCATS’ technology. SCATS is a traffic control system designed to optimise traffic ﬂow. Innovations are emerging to equip buses and/or emergency vehicles with GPS trackers and connectivity modules that can influence signalling systems and in doing so adjust the traffic flows.

19. The Tauranga Transport Operating Centre (TTOC) are currently considering purchasing a Public Transport module for SCATS. An extension of this system for emergency vehicles is also possible. Further investigation is however required to confirm the feasibility, timing and cost of this technology for Tauranga. If feasible then its implementation could improve emergency vehicle access along Cameron Road.

Strategic / Statutory Context

20. Improving emergency vehicle access supports the Community Outcomes most related to:

(a) Is inclusive, safe, resilient and healthy

(b) Has predictable travel times and travel choices

Options Analysis

21. Five potential routes between 17^th Avenue and SH29 and SH2 were identified. These are shown on Image 3, below:

Image 3: Potential Emergency Vehicle Access Routes

22. Of the five potential route options, one route (Option 1, shown below in Image 4) has been investigated in detail. An initial high-level assessment of the issues of the 5 route options identified either issues common to Option 1 or significant constraints with the other 4 options (e.g. topographical / steep gradient; impact on flooding storage area; wetland) meaning Option 1 was identified as most feasible and appropriate to investigate in more detail.

Option 1

23. This option follows the existing bund, approximately via the existing cyclepath/footpath towards the existing stream where a new culvert or bridge structure would be required to enable access to the state highway.

24. The access route would be one-way only. It would cater for ambulances (i.e. vehicles smaller than 2.4m wide and 7m in length), and when used by an emergency vehicle not cater for combined use with pedestrians and cyclists. The access would have an operating speed of 20km per hour. The access would be unsealed.

25. The access would be protected and controlled by an automatic security gate system and security fencing to ensure no unauthorised vehicles can access the route.

Image 4: Option 1 – potential route for emergency vehicle access

26. The investigation into the feasibility and issues with Option 1 identified:

Planning/consenting:

27. Regional Council consent requirements for land disturbance, stormwater discharge to land and water, potential discharge of contaminants (from road/traffic), disturbance of a stream bed, surface water diversion and installation of a culvert.

28. City Council consent requirements for earthworks, vesting of the access and contaminated land. It is noted that other consenting requirements may be required once further technical details and detailed design is confirmed.

29. NZTA requirement for ‘limited access’ approval.

Reserve:

30. The Reserve Management Plan supports access for emergency vehicles. However, there is a need to consider the effects on reserve users and stakeholder engagement/consultation if appropriate before agreeing any works. Ngai Tamarawaho would need to be engaged with further in this process and more generally on the proposal for emergency vehicle access.

Flooding:

31. Widening of the stopbank may impact on the stormwater storage area on the south eastern side of the stopbank thereby requiring further works in this area.

Geotechnical:

32. While considerable geotechnical investigations have been undertaken of the area in the past there is a need for further analysis to support detailed design and specification of works associated with the access.

Safety:

33. Option 1 is in close vicinity of a high pedestrian and cyclist environment (e.g. access to Koprererua Valley) and recreational facilities (skate park; cycle training area), and crosses over existing pedestrian and cycling paths. People (including children) using these paths and facilities may be distracted and not notice or expect an emergency vehicle on the access.

34. Risks associated with the introduction of an access onto the 80km/h state highway:

(a) Emergency vehicles would enter state highway at a location where drivers are making changes/decisions to either access SH29 (Toll road) or SH2 to Bethlehem. Introducing an access point in this high speed (80km/h) area has the potential of serious injury or crash.

(b) Although there is 260m of sight distance from the Option 1 entry point along state highway, which exceeds the safe stopping distance at 80km/h speed limit, there is a real risk that drivers may be exceeding the speed limit within this area.

(c) A warning system/signals to slow or stop state highway traffic to allow an emergency vehicle to enter the flow, may cause operational and safety issues with end and side swipe type crashes. The approach to the Option 1 access point on state highway has no convenient position for signage due to retaining walls, the steep bank and no clear berm space for installation.

(d) Security fencing and automated gate system would be necessary to prevent unauthorised use of the access on both directions. Construction of a security fence introduces a roadside hazard adjacent to the state highway. There is also a risk of system failure (of automated gate, if installed), preventing emergency vehicles to access the state highway, without the possibility to turn around in case of system failure.

35. The NZTA have advised that the schemes proposed would need to be designed in greater detail and subject to pre-construction safety audits to determine if the proposed connections to the on ramp can be achieved safely.

36. On the basis of the issues identified through the Investigation the Table below provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of progressing with further design of an emergency vehicle access from 17^th Avenue to SH29 and SH2.

Option 1: Proceed with further design on emergency vehicle access on 17^th Avenue
Advantages	Disadvantages
Potential to deliver faster response time for emergency vehicles via 17^th Avenue (for a relatively short period of time, maybe 2-3 years until the TNL 15^th Avenue on-ramp construction commences).	Potential abortive investigation and design costs, which are currently unbudgeted, should the identified safety issues (access to SH; access through the Reserve), geotechnical and stormwater issues prove unable to be sufficiently addressed. Potential for the investment (preliminary estimated at c.$750,000) benefits not to be realised given the likely need to remove any access once construction of the TNL 15^th on ramp commences.
Recommended?	No

Option 2: Not proceeding with further design of an emergency vehicle access on 17^th Avenue
Advantages	Disadvantages
Alternative solutions to provide improved emergency vehicle access to the state highway could be investigated through signalisation improvements and other project development (e.g. Cameron Road short term multi model project) and improvements will be made through the construction of a southbound 15^th Ave connection to Takitimu Drive as part of the TNL project	The advantages of improved emergency access is unlikely to be realised until the TNL 15^th on ramp is operational. Improved signalisation may improve access along Cameron Road but the 15^th Avenue on ramp is important to providing better access to state highway. This may be up to 5 years away.
Recommended?	Yes

Financial Considerations

37. The preliminary cost estimate of the Option 1 concept identifies that an emergency vehicle access could cost in the order of $750,000. There is currently no project in the Long Term or Annual Plan which provides for these estimated costs.

Legal Implications / Risks

38. There are no legal implications/risks associated with the findings of the Investigation. Should UFTD resolve to progress further design of Option 1 then there are a number of risks (e.g. safety; engagement; cost) that would need to be further investigated and addressed prior to a decision to progress to construction. A summary of the risks is provided below and provided in more detailed in Appendix 1.

Table 1: Risk outcomes

Risk Assessment Table
Ability to deliver	High
Planning	Medium
Geotechnical	High
Stormwater	Low-Medium
Traffic and Safety	High
Existing Utilities	Low

Consultation / Engagement

39. A meeting with a representative of the Order of St John identified that improved response times would be desirable. It would contribute to reduced vehicle use times and thereby increase their availability but more importantly improve their response times to emergency events. The Order of St John have simulated/modelled that based on the 2018/2019 financial year call outs a direct access to SH29 would improve the average response time throughout the region by 0.2 minutes per journey.

40. NZTA have advised that they are supportive in principle of the concept but note that the concept needs to be designed in greater detail and subject to pre-construction road safety audits to determine if an emergency vehicle access can be achieved safely. The NZTA note that connections of this type are unusual and present significant risks and challenges to the designer, due to the differential volumes and speeds of vehicles of merging traffic at the intersection (access / state highway).

41. NZTA also note that given the short-term nature of the emergency vehicle access due to the construction of the TNL 15^th Avenue on-ramp, it is questionable if the benefits sought are sufficient to off-set the risks and potentially significant costs that may be incurred during the necessary development of the options to determine feasibility. There is as risk that these professional service costs may be abortive if a safe solution cannot be developed.

42. Ngai Tamarawaho have advised that while the principle of improving response times for ambulances is supported, they would be concerned if this impacted on the aspiration to develop a more formal entrance to the Kopurererua Valley from 17th Avenue. They also noted a concern related to potential impacts (e.g. sedimentation) on the Kopurererua stream and wetland as a result from construction and subsequent use of an access. Ngai Tamarawaho also identified with the issues of how safe access from 17th Avenue to state highway could be provided and how any access could be provided given the TNL 15th Avenue on-ramp is to be constructed.

Significance

43. From a financial perspective, both construction costs and annual operating costs are considered to be classified as ‘low’ significance. However, the construction of an emergency vehicle access may be of wider public interest depending on potential safety issues it presents for those people using the skate park, accessing the Kopurererua Valley, or using State Highways 29 and 2.

Next Steps

44. If UFTD decides to proceed with Option 1 the following next steps can be undertaken:

(a) Development of a preliminary design to enable identified issues/risk and costs to be better understood including through a road safety audit.

(b) Engagement with the NZTA on a preliminary design.

(d) Engagement/Consultation with key stakeholders, including the Order of St John, local community including Reserve users, and Bay of Plenty Regional Council (stormwater consent).

45. If UFTD decide to proceed with Option 2 the following next steps can be undertaken:

(a) Through the Cameron Road short-term multi-modal project ensure consideration is given to how responses may support improved access for emergency vehicles (through use of bus clearways; intersection priority) along Cameron Road.

(b) Through TTOC’s SCATS investigation consider the benefits of purchasing a module with an extension element for emergency vehicles.

Attachments

1. 17th Ave to SH2/29 Emergency Access Feasibility Assessment (Aurecon) - A11630550 ⇩

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

9.5 Arataki Bus Facility

File Number: A11599530

Author: Clare Cassidy, Principal Transport Planner

Peter Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner

Alistair Talbot, Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To provide the Urban Form and Transport Committee (UFTD) with a summary of the findings of the Arataki Permanent Bus Facility work and to obtain direction from the committee on the assessment and recommendations to confirm the next steps.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the report “Arataki Bus Facility”

(b) Agrees to progress concept design, costing and planning for both shortlisted sites (Bayfair and St. John Ambulance site off Girven Road) using funding included in the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Executive Summary

2. High quality public transport infrastructure supports the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s Public Transport Blueprint (‘Blueprint’), which is endorsed by Council.

3. The temporary bus facility on Farm Street is the second busiest public transport destination in Tauranga but is not satisfactory for bus users or local residents and creates issues from a network perspective. Local safety and multi-modal improvements cannot be progressed until a permanent location for the facility has been determined.

4. Sites throughout Arataki have been assessed with the area around Farm Street generally performing best as it provides good access to key destinations as well as the residential catchment north of State Highway 2. Two sites have been shortlisted: part of Arataki Park currently used by St. John Ambulance on Girven Road; and a location within the Bayfair Site accessed from Farm Street.

5. Since the last paper to Council (DC272 in September 2019) considering the St. John site on Girven Road, staff have been working with Bayfair and their owners, to find a suitable site on their land, and bring it up to the same level of understanding. Both sites have significant, but very different advantages, disadvantages and risks to be considered. This report is intended to update Council on progress and determine next steps for public engagement and the project as a whole.

Background

Arataki as a PT origin and destination

6. The current facility has the second highest boarding numbers for the city. This reflects the key destinations nearby as well as being a location serving a significant residential catchment. Whilst the number of transfers at Bayfair has increased since the Blueprint Network went live, boardings originating at the facility (not transfers) have consistently exceeded 20,000 people per month. Total boardings (including transfers) have exceeded 30,000 for five of the last recorded six months.

7. Arataki is a significant PT destination regardless of whether a hub and spoke model where the facility also accommodates transfers is retained or not. Safe, convenient and comfortable public transport facilities in the Arataki area are of strategic importance to the success of the public transport network and therefore the transport network as a whole.

The existing (temporary) bus facility

8. The bus facility on Farm Street adjacent to the Bayfair Mall has been operational since mid-2018. The facility is intended to be a temporary one, until a long-term solution is found.

9. The temporary facility does not provide an adequate level of service for the large number of people that access public transport there. There is inadequate seating and shelter, and poor legibility with very limited scope to improve the facility at its current location. A survey of people using the facility in 2019 identified that seating and shelter were their key problems with the current on-street facility.

10. Some Farm Street residents are concerned about the volume and speed of buses and traffic as well as social issues occurring at the bus facility. There are wider concerns for the safety of other road users, particularly those on bikes and walking to local schools. Whilst some issues have been addressed, further improvements within Arataki cannot be progressed without determining the long-term location and format of the bus facility.

Network impacts of the current facility and routing considerations

11. The existing facility does not perform from a network perspective, as there is no ability for buses to turn around safely, necessitating a loop around local streets. In turn, this looping increases the impact of the facility on residents. 31 buses per hour depart from the existing bus facility, although without the need for looping, this would represent 21 movements per hour (since many “terminating” services layover for a few minutes and become a departing service). Bay of Plenty Regional Council have identified that a facility allowing buses to turn around would allow them to remove all buses from Leander Street and almost halve the number of current movements along Farm Street. The cost of this additional running for the BoPRC is approximately $34,000/annum.

12. Regardless of the location of the permanent bus facility, it is likely that Grenada Street, Farm Street and Links Ave will continue to form the key route for public transport through the Arataki area. Whilst State Highway 2 can carry express services between Papamoa, Mount Maunganui and the CBD, the local street network provides PT access for Arataki residents from Sandhurst Drive to Golf Road within a convenient and safe walk distance that does not require crossing of the state highway.

13. Alongside the PT Facility project, a wider project to manage transport movements through the Arataki area, provide for the safe movement of all road users and improve amenity needs to be progressed. Confirming the long-term location for the Arataki bus facility is essential to successfully progressing this.

Shortlisting of potential sites for the bus facility

14. Sites throughout the Arataki area as well as north of State Highway 2 have been assessed for a permanent facility, with the area around Farm Street generally performing best as it serves the key destinations in the area as well as the residential catchment. The preference for a location close to Bayfair and Farm Street was re-confirmed by BoPRC in May 2019.

15. Sites to the north of State Highway 2 were not considered appropriate (even if an underpass were included in the BayLink project), as they would either require buses to bypass the Arataki area and use SH2, meaning that the Arataki community would lose access to public transport, or buses would have to divert to the north SH2 and back again adding time, cost and unreliability into the network as well as undermining legibility and customer experience.

16. Despite this, the driving range site adjacent to the Matapihi Road intersection was looked at in more detail and discounted due to a lack of adequate space (particularly for future proofing); access undermining the efficiency of the BayLink signals; and impact on the operation of the golf course.

17. Two sites have been shortlisted following numerous reports to Council: part of Arataki Park currently used by St. John ambulance on Girven Road; and a location within the Bayfair Site accessed from Farm Street.

Progress on the Bayfair site

18. Since the last report to Council on 10 September 2019, staff have been working with Bayfair and their owners, to understand costs and whether there is a mutually agreeable location that works from a size and operations perspective. This work has been completed and now brings the Bayfair site up to the same level of understanding as the St. John site from a design feasibility and land cost perspective.

19. A constraints mapping exercise undertaken with Bayfair and their consultants identified that there was only one feasible site within their land holding that had adequate space available and met the bus access requirements. This site is accessed off Farm Street and is in the parking area behind the Farmers store. A concept layout was produced to determine the land area required and negotiate costs with Bayfair.

20. Whilst Bayfair are working with Council to find a mutually acceptable solution, they are unwilling to enter into negotiations to sell the land required. This is a common approach from such developments and has been the case on projects involving other shopping centres in the city. Discussions have been based on entering into a long-term lease arrangement should the site on Bayfair be chosen as the preferred location. These are discussed in more detail in Confidential Attachment 1.

Progress on the St. John site

21. The focus of the report to Council in September 2019 was on the St. John site, and issues around: planning and the Reserves Act; site size; access and feasibility. Subsequent work has focused on access from Girven Road.

Assessment of the two sites

22. The assessment of customer and network factors for the St. John site against the Bayfair off street option has been updated by Abley Transportation Consultants to reflect the increased understanding of the format and location of the Bayfair option. This table is attached in Attachment 3. Indicative drawings of the St. John site are attached in Attachment 4, and indicative drawings of the Bayfair site are attached in Attachment 5. The table gives an analysis of each site from the perspective of the PT network issues and customer needs but does not assign a level of importance to each factor. For example, safety issues created at one site, would have a higher level of importance than other issues that may be mitigated in some way. Staff commentary on the assessment is included in the following paragraphs along with consideration of other factors based on planning, funding and community issues.

Key assumptions used in the assessment

23. If the St. John site were selected, bus stops would still be required on Farm Street close to the existing location to provide access to the community living between Girven Road and Concord Ave who would otherwise have a significant walk distance to access public transport. This would require a full stop to be provided on both sides of Farm Street to avoid the existing loop model using Leander Street and to reduce the number of bus movements along Farm Street.

24. For the St. John site, it is assumed that buses originating to the east of the bus facility (Papamoa, Wairakei, Te Puke etc.) will terminate at the facility and not travel down Farm Street. This would not significantly reduce the number of services travelling down Farm Street because the majority of terminating services become a new service after laying over for a few minutes. However, this would create additional walk distance and conflict points for passengers accessing the Bayfair Mall which is the key destination for people travelling to the facility.

Network factors

25. Overall, from a bus and transport network perspective, the Bayfair site continues to perform better than the St. John option. The key issues relate to the likely bus and pedestrian demands on the planned traffic signals at Marlin Street and the manoeuvring and conflict point issues relating to either possible layout for the St. John site.

26. The St. John site does allow a greater scope for future expansion of the facility if required, whilst any expansion of the Bayfair site would likely need to be accommodated on-street.

27. All services originating from Mount Maunganui and Tauranga would have a longer distance to travel to the St. John facility compared to a Bayfair facility with a risk to reliability through the Marlin Street signals. This would only be partially offset by the reduced distance for services from the east, which are fewer.

28. The planned traffic signals at Marlin Street would need to include a fourth arm to accommodate the bus facility on Girven Road. This would allow buses to safely enter and exit the facility and also provide for pedestrian access between the bus facility and Bayfair. The right turn bay required for buses to access the facility would require some localised widening on Girven Road, between the Marlin Street and Grenada Street intersections.

29. Transport modelling undertaken in Aimsun indicates that the intersection should function with an adequate level of service. The fourth arm and high pedestrian demands would result in additional delays on Girven Road and in one scenario this would result in trips diverting to other parts of the transport network. However, the model shows that those diversions can be accommodated on the local network. A memo summarising the modelling results is included in Attachment 6.

30. There are two potential layout options for the St. John site, both of which create issues with regard to potential pedestrian and bus conflicts. The option for St. John which does not encroach further into the reserve requires two-way flow for buses with high potential for manoeuvring conflicts and / or buses queuing back into the intersection. The option that does encroach further into the reserve would result in additional loss of parking and longer detour distances for passengers transferring between services. Both options create significant risk for bus vs pedestrian conflicts.

31. The layout issues for the St. John site also affect the legibility of the facility for passengers. Whilst the legibility issues could be partially designed out and addressed through wayfinding, the conflict points and likely safety issues cannot be designed out and are considered to have a high potential significance.

32. More bus bays can be accommodated at the St. John site, with a greater ability to future proof for expansion. BoPRC have indicated that the current requirement is for six bays, with a preference to be able to expand to 8-10 bays in the medium term. At the Bayfair Site this expansion would only be feasible by using bays on the Farm Street side of the facility.

33. All options allow for independence of bus movements and would result in the loss of parking spaces.

34. The St. John site would require greater provision of facilities for both drivers and passengers, but it would be feasible to include these in the project.

Customer Factors

35. The Bayfair site strongly outperforms the St. John site from a passenger perspective.

(a) Safety issues exist for the St. John site in terms of vehicle and pedestrian conflict that cannot be designed out. Safety issues for the wider local road network would exist regardless of the bus facility location and mitigation measures for them will be a key part of the next stage of the project.

(b) Personal safety and social issues for the Girven Road site would be problematic due to the lack of passive surveillance from pedestrians and traffic. The main waiting area would be towards the eastern side of the site and away from Girven Road. Lighting and CCTV would help to mitigate this, but it would not perform as well as the Bayfair site which is busier and overlooked by residents as well as the day/night activity of the Mall.

(c) Both likely layouts for the Girven Road option would create issues for transferring passengers, in terms of the likely walk distance and number of crossing points within the facility to access different stops.

(d) A survey of bus users undertaken in 2019, identifies a strong preference for the facility to be located at or very close to the existing facility. The survey also identified that Bayfair (or a home within a short walk) are the key destinations for trips ending at the facility (rather than other destinations around Girven Road). If stops are retained on Farm Street, this would be more of an issue for passengers originating in and to the east of the facility, however, the stops on Farm Street would need to be high quality and provide adequate shelter for the volumes of passengers likely to use them.

(e) The Bayfair option has much larger residential catchment (within a short walk) than the Girven Road option, which again would be less of an impact with high quality stops and shelters on Farm Street.

Planning issues and timeframes

36. The Bayfair site would require resource consent, which could be a lengthy and contested process due to likely opposition from affected residents. It is possible that any decision by Council could be appealed to the Environment Court.

37. The St. John site would require the reserve status of the site to be revoked, a likely lengthy public process that requires Ministerial approval (Ministry of Conservation). It is likely that any resource consent needed for the development of a permanent bus facility on the St John site would require public notification and could also be appealed to the Environment Court.

Community issues

38. Both options reduce but don’t remove buses from Farm Street. Bus stops will continue to be required on Farm Street, either as stops and shelters on both sides of the road if the main facility is elsewhere, or integrated into a facility at Bayfair.

39. Wider work needs to be undertaken to resolve bus network issues for both Farm Street residents and the wider Arataki community. Significant engagement activities will be required to determine how best this can be achieved.

40. The St. John site has not yet been tested with residents on Girven Road and Gloucester Road that would be affected by that option. There is a potential for opposition from those residents and from users of the bus network. The footprint of any facility on Arataki Park would require the removal and relocation of the existing playground and potentially some other facilities. The bus facility would also affect the directness of the planned route through Arataki Park for pedestrians and cyclists.

41. As part of the investigations for the Council paper on 10 September 2019, initial discussions have been held with St John Property and Facilities Manager (Central Region) in relation to Council exploring options for an Arataki bus facility on a number of sites, including investigations into using the site currently occupied by St John on Girven Road. St John explained they are open to further discussions with Council about future options for this facility, including the possibility of re-location or co-location.

Key risks

42. If Bayfair was discounted and the Reserves Act process for the St. John site is unsuccessful, Council could be left with no viable option on the table. This is also likely to create a negative response from BoPRC and from bus users as well as undermining the attractiveness of Public Transport for potential users.

43. Council would need to work with Bayfair on design of a facility on their land, which could have potential to inflate costs related to design and structural / amenity elements of the design.

44. Initial conversations have been held with Auckland Transport to understand experience with bus facilities located on private land. Whilst examples exist, it was noted that risks could occur over future maintenance, growth, (minor) improvements or upgrades. Whilst tenants of a shopping centre have the option to terminate a contract over time, with significant investments on private land, Council would have limited options to change things in future. As a result, Auckland Transport has a preference to develop bus facilities on Council owned land if possible.

45. If Council engages with the community on both sites, there is a reputational risk if for any reason (such as issues with the planning process or cost) Council chooses the site that is “less popular” with the community. This approach would also require a lengthier process, where Council would engage on the two sites, and again on wider network improvements once a site is selected.

46. If Council engages on Bayfair being a preferred option with the engagement based around how that facility and the surrounding transport network can best be designed to resolve community issues, this is likely to create significant negative response from Farm Street residents. However, if planning processes were unsuccessful the St. John site would not be precluded.

47. In terms of the Bayfair option, the current terms agreed in principle includes a Relocation Clause. This enables AMP to relocate the bus interchange after the first five years. If relocation occurs in years 5 – 20, this will be at the cost of the Lessor (AMP), and the Lessor is to consult with Council. If relocation occurs from year 20 onwards, this will be at Council’s cost. AMP’s position is that they wish to retain flexibility for any future expansion plans which may arise over time.

48. Valuation advice in relation to the Bayfair option indicates that almost all ground leases are in some way tied to land values, and therefore land value escalation carries significant risk to any ground lessee (Council). This is discussed further in the Memo and valuation advice in Confidential Attachments 1 and 2.

Strategic / Statutory Context

49. High quality public transport infrastructure supports the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s Public Transport Blueprint, which is endorsed by all of the transport partners. The goals of the Arataki Multi Modal project also support the Tauranga Cycle Plan. Improved public transport infrastructure and services also relate to the Tauranga Transport Programme and the wider work being undertaken through the Urban Form and Transport Initiative.

OPTIONS ANALYSIS

50. Council has been keeping the Arataki community informed via e-newsletter and drop-in sessions with staff and Councillors. There has been a gap in communication during Covid-19 and the approach to engagement with both Arataki residents, plus key stakeholders, bus users and the wider community needs to be agreed to move forward with the project.

51. A pilot engagement approach is being developed for the Arataki area by the engagement team in partnership with Transport and other teams within Council. This identifies that there are a range of activities and potential projects within the area from various parts of Council and other agencies. To date, engagement and consultation has been carried out on project basis meaning that:

· Many projects are working with different residents and interest groups which is inefficient and tiring.

· The narrative is often focused at the project/task level rather than a big picture whole of programme discussion.

· The project teams don’t always have visibility and understanding of what other teams are doing.

· As a programme our work can feel disjointed to groups/community.

52. The proposed approach is to create an overarching stakeholder reference group that would act as a programme steering group guiding the projects made up of delivery agencies and representatives from the various interest groups within the Arataki community bringing all views into one arena. This group would not make decisions but would consider and report on all matters related to projects before going to Council for decision and allow a forum for the community to raise matters of interest or concern to the community and delivery agencies. The final approach and structure will be very much dependent on what the community tell us about how they want to engage with Council and other agencies. It is anticipated that engagement with a reference group would occur ahead of wider public engagement.

53. Council can opt to choose a preferred site and engage on that basis through the stakeholder reference group, or to engage on both options. An alternative to this approach would be to use the analysis undertaken to date to feed into the Transport System Plan and the Single Stage Business Cases that will be undertaken over the next 12 months so that the location of the bus facility and measures on the wider transport network can be considered as part of the wider project. There are advantages and risks to each approach that are described in the table below.

Option Description

Pros

Cons

Option 1

Produce concept designs for both options ahead of engaging on both options to determine how best any negative impacts can be mitigated.

Recommended

Allows both options to be fully considered (which maximises chances of achieving NZTA funding)

Cost estimates can be produced for both options

Less risk that no viable option will be found

Allows impacts on residents, commuters and bus users for both sites to be considered to enable a mitigation plan to be developed for both sites

Increases analysis and costs to develop concepts for both sites and undertake a longer engagement process

Likely negative response from Farm Street residents

The engagement could be perceived as allowing the community to determine a preferred site which could create reputational issues if that site cannot be progressed.

If Girven Road was the site favoured by the community, there remains a risk around the reserve revocation/reclassification process being successful.

Option 2

Discount Bayfair as an option now, and work towards the St. John site as the preferred option.

Not recommended

Simplifies and reduces cost of next steps.

Allows the engagement to clearly focus on resolving issues on local streets with the community.

Provides early clarity to Bayfair AMP.

Potential risk to NZTA funding if a viable and technically preferred option is discounted early.

Council would be left with no viable option if St. John site failed to progress through planning process if Bayfair option has been relinquished.

Safety issues with the favoured site that it is not possible to design out

Potential negative response from neighbouring residents on Girven Road and Gloucester Street who have not been consulted to date.

Likely negative response from bus passengers and transport partners that a site that disadvantages them significantly has been favoured without consultation.

Option 3

Discount St. John as an option now and work towards the Bayfair site as the preferred option

Not recommended

Simplifies and reduces cost of next steps.

Allows the engagement to clearly focus on resolving issues on local streets with the community.

Provides early clarity to Bayfair AMP and avoids the Bayfair option being lost.

The St. John site could still be pursued if the Bayfair site did not progress.

Potential risk to NZTA funding if a viable option is discounted early.

Likely negative response from Farm Street residents.

Likelihood that Council will have to cover the lease costs without funding from NZTA.

Option 4

Use all of the analysis undertaken to date to inform the Transport System Plan, leaving the final location and network treatments to be considered through the single stage business cases

Not recommended

Consolidates Business Cases and Engagement approaches affecting the area.

Delay in decision making likely to result in Bayfair option being precluded, so if St. John site did not get through the planning process there could be no viable option left.

Delay likely to create issues for the local community and increase the amount of time until improvements on local streets can be progressed.

Delay would increase the period of time that bus users have a sub-standard facility.

Potential requirement for business case for bus facility to be progressed separate but aligned to wider area focussed business case(s).

Financial Considerations

Costs

54. The land related costs associated with the St. John Site and the Bayfair site are discussed in Confidential Attachment 1.

55. The current concepts for both sites have been developed to determine whether they have an adequate footprint to accommodate the type of facility that is required. Further development of the concept(s) will be required before high-level cost estimates can be produced. Additionally, improvements to the local street network will need to be designed and considered to ensure that all users can be accommodated safely and efficiently.

56. There are a number of unknowns around the planning processes for both sites (in terms of both costs and timeframes) and around issues such as underground service relocations. These should be refined through the next stages of the project.

57. An assessment of similar facilities elsewhere in New Zealand indicates a likely capital construction cost in the range of $5M - $15M for which there would be an application for 51% co-investment from Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency. This excludes land related costs (such as leases, or demolition / relocation of buildings) but does include street improvements to accommodate the facility (such as localised widening etc).

58. It is anticipated that these costs would be prioritised through the 2021-31 Long Term Plan Process. $400,000 is included in the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan to progress with design, planning and engagement.

Funding issues

59. Both options require an NZTA business case process to be followed to attract funding from the NLTF. A point of entry is in development and the situation has been discussed with NZTA.

60. There will be a likely crossover of some issues between the Arataki Bus Facility and Multi-modal Stage 2 project and one of the Single Stage Business that is progressed through the Transport System Plan. This provides an opportunity for the projects to be combined into a wider Business Case approach, however this would see the resolution of the issue with the temporary facility delayed further. An alternative approach is to ensure close alignment of the projects as they development to support integration and coordinated delivery.

61. NZTA have informally identified that they are unlikely to fund lease costs for Bayfair site or any relocation costs for St. John.

62. There may be an opportunity to seek a contribution from BoPRC for the bus facility. BOPRC have previously indicated a willingness to enter into discussions on contribution to public transport infrastructure. In a letter to TCC on 21 May 2019, BoPRC outlined their preference for a new facility close to Bayfair on Farm Street. This was re-confirmed in April 2020. Whilst BoPRC have stated that they could accept a facility on the St. John site, selection of that site could make funding from them less likely.

Consultation / Engagement

63. The proposed engagement approach across the wider programme of activities in the Arataki area (as described in the options section) will be refined ahead of further engagement being undertaken.

Significance

64. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 these projects will have a medium to high significance as they progress, due to a potentially high level of public interest. Through the development of the project, engagement plans will be prepared to reflect this. It is expected that the capital investment for construction of a facility will be considered through the 2021-31 Long Term Plan Process.

Next Steps

65. Next steps for the project are:

(a) Further develop concept plans and visualisations for the chosen option(s) for the purposes of public engagement.

(b) Develop cost estimates for the chosen options, based on the concept plans.

(c) Continue “point of entry” conversation with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency to determine Business Case Approach and commence the business case

(d) Scope stage 2 of the Arataki Multi-Modal project to reflect the option(s) chosen and likely impacts on the local street network.

(e) Use the engagement process developed for the wider area to test the option(s) with stakeholders and the wider community.

Attachments

1. Confidential Memo Arataki bus facility oprions TCC and AMP lease negotiations - A11632800 - Public Excluded

2. Updated Telfer Young advice on AMP lease proposal Farm St - A11614452 - Public Excluded

3. Arataki Bus Facility - shortlisted sites analysis - A11630519 ⇩

4. Indicative drawings for the St John's site - A11630516 ⇩

5. Indicative drawings for the Bayfair site - A11630511 ⇩

6. Girven Road Bus Facility Modelling Report (Beca) - A11624915 ⇩

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

21 July 2020

9.7 Infrastructure Resilience Projects Proposed Scope Cost and Programme for LTP

File Number: A11394406

Author: Steve Raynor, Resilience Specialist: Infrastructure & Urban Form

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To provide an update on the emerging outcomes of the three-year Infrastructure Resilience Project in terms of risks identified, and projects identified for future prioritisation to build a resilient citywide infrastructure.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the Infrastructure Resilience Projects Proposed Scope Cost and Programme for LTP report.

(b) Notes the progress made on the Infrastructure Resilience Project.

Executive Summary

2. The Infrastructure Resilience Project, started in 2017, has reached the point where potential hazard prone assets throughout the City have been identified and potential mitigation projects scoped and costed. Some 300 projects have been identified, rated for risk reduction and resilience contribution

3. At this time, it is appropriate to inform the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee of the overall project progress, approach taken and emerging outcomes of this work, prior to the progression of projects into a prioritisation process and, following that process, consideration of inclusion in the 2021-31 LTP and 30 year Infrastructure Strategy.

4. Progressing these identified projects can overtime aid to the establishment of a genuinely resilient city infrastructure Background

Background

5. The Infrastructure Resilience Project began in 2017 with the United Nations five priorities for reducing disaster losses as the underpinning approach developed for project progression within the set project plan. At that point there was clear awareness that:

· TCC did not know, nor understand all natural hazard susceptibilities, including the potential effects of sea level rise and

· TCC had not determined the consequences (and therefore overall risk) to infrastructure assets, and potential mitigations to reduce that risk.

6. The Infrastructure Resilience Project formed with the goal of directly addressing these unknowns and through research and design establishing an approach to deliver resilient infrastructure for TCC horizontal assets of three-waters and roads.

7. A key milestone in the project is concluding the identification of potential “at risk” assets and determining appropriate risk reduction measures (i.e. mitigation) to improve resilience and identify costs for prioritisation prior to consideration of inclusion into the 2021-31 LTP.

8. These risk mitigation projects have now been identified through mapping natural hazards and TCC infrastructure assets in a GIS database, assessing risk, identifying risk mitigation measures, costings those measures and determining prioritisation for implementation. When implemented these works will:

· Add security to already planned infrastructure investment;

· Build robustness and rapid recovery principles into our infrastructure assets; and

· Integrate future proofing into asset design and construction, including the renewal of existing assets.

Updating and Concluding Natural Hazard Susceptibility Modelling

9. TCC holds the following natural hazard information, either developed ahead of this project or developed as part of this project. This information considers a range of natural hazard event likelihood/recurrence and associated potential sea level rise impacts. All information is in the public realm, and currently utilised across a range of planning, LGA 2004, CDEM 2002 and RMA 1991 and BA 2004 processes.

· Tsunami

· Earthquake

o Tauranga Shaking Model

o Liquefaction and Lateral Spread

· Sea Level Rise

· Inundation from storms (inner harbour)

· Erosion

o Open Coast

o Inner Harbour

· Flooding from intense rainfall

10. TCC also holds information on slope instability and is presently updating this information, which is due to be completed in November 2020. This updated hazard mapping will be released to the affected landowners and be available for use in all regulatory and resilience processes at that time.

11. All hazards used in the Infrastructure Resilience Project are spatially mapped within GIS to show each hazard in terms of different return periods and time horizons. An example is inundation is mapped with 50-year, 100-year and 500-year return period storm events and each of these are mapped with sea-level rise projections for 2080 and 2130 which are the current, 50-year and 100-year scenarios. This provides an extensive database for analysis and use in determining risk.

12. The asset databases for 3-waters and roads have been reviewed and updated to reflect current criticality and importance ratings.

Mapping TCC 3-Waters and Roading Infrastructure Assets with Hazards

13. Locations where multiple assets are potentially exposed to multiple hazards (and therefore at risk) have been identified and the risks analysed. To achieve this the hazard maps are overlaid on the asset databases in spatial GIS software. The resulting intersections identify risk “hot-spots” where multiple assets are impacted by multiple hazards. Hot-spots are established as projects to be investigated. These are location-based projects rather than asset-based. Each project addresses all assets and all hazards within its boundary.

14. Each hot-spot is analysed in terms of risk. This is a measure of likelihood of a natural hazard event and the consequence of that event with outage times factored in to provide a risk rating for the project area as it is currently.

15. For all identified projects a concept design of mitigation measures has been carried out. As the projects were geographically based this provided opportunity to explore options that completely removed assets from hazard zones as well as straight forward strengthening or new material options. The risk factor was re-evaluated in the post-mitigation condition therefore providing a risk rating before and after the mitigation.

16. Cost estimates for each project considered are based on the concept mitigation design. Consistent construction and material rates were used across all the projects to ensure all estimates were comparable. The estimates included allowance for consenting. Land acquisition was identified in some projects, but no cost estimate attempted for land purchase.

17. It is noted that specific items of major infrastructure that are already under evaluation, such as bridges, treatment plants and reservoirs are not included in the above Project work as they are already covered, in terms of consideration of resilience improvement individually by the asset owner. Further, in regard to all identified projects the proposed solution is put forward as largely an improvement approach to the infrastructure. As project concept designs would be proposed through funding and prioritisation processes there is the ability to reconsider the option put forward, the solution proposed or consider alternative solutions such as adaptive approaches, or removal outright (i.e. retreat).

Strategic / Statutory Context

18. Building a resilient City was a strategic goal established in 2017 with robust infrastructure and urban form being the first and underlying components of the wider consideration of moving towards a resilient City. Creating resilient communities, governance and environments are future sectors to be progressed.

19. Further, TCC has responsibilities under a range of legislative functions to understand natural hazards, natural hazard risk and reduce this risk. This includes the consideration of the effects of climate change (i.e. sea level rise) over 100 years.

Options Analysis

20. Following the process outlined in the background section of this report, each individual project has been rated for its contribution of robustness and reliability to assets throughout the City.

21. In order to compare mitigation projects for prioritisation several metrics were established for each project. There were

(a) Existing risk rating. Numerical value in the current state representing likelihood and consequence.

(b) Post mitigation risk rating. Numerical value after mitigation works completed

22. Project selection and prioritisation can be achieved by any combination of these parameters plus consideration of cost. Approximately 30 projects have more than one option representing alternatives for cost verses risk improvement. These metrics will be used to analyse these alternatives. The remainder of the projects offer a single solution and prioritisation can also be achieved by application of the same metrics.

23. Attachment A provides example “Natural Hazards Risk Mitigation Project Definition Sheet”. Each of the 300 mitigation projects has a similar summary sheet which is supported by a concept design drawing and a cost estimate. All these details are accessible live through the GIS tool developed for this project.

24. These projects stand alongside already identified and separately studied bridge and reservoir projects.

25. The list of all projects considered provides a reasonably complete forecast of what is required to build genuinely resilient infrastructure for the whole City.

26. They key findings are as follows:

· 270-300 projects across the City have been identified;

· Most projects integrate with previously forecast renewals and upgrades which are already part of Councils’ asset management program;

· 24 projects indicate that long term solutions may require the removal of infrastructure from those areas (i.e. adaptation, or relocation may be more appropriate strategy than defence strategies via construction improvements);

· The estimated cost of the total improvement program is between $850-950million. This includes $60-120million of pre-budgeted renewals.

· The programme of the work can be undertaken as part of existing long term renewals projects, with projects selected for prioritisation to be implemented over time (i.e well beyond the 2021-31 LTP).

Project Prioritisation Process

27. Following this project update to the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee, the next steps will be to consider the inclusion and timing of individual projects in the 2021-31 LTP.

28. Inclusion in the 2021-31 LTP would be the subject of future direction and resolution by the Committee in regard to an in-principle delivery of the mitigation project programme developed out of the prioritisation of projects. Delivery of any projects would then be subject to the inclusion of the project, alignment with renewals programs and budget being available.

29. The staff project prioritisation will be a cooperative process between asset operator’s, asset managers, infrastructure planners and resilience specialist, with oversight by the General Manager: Strategy & Growth and General Manager: Infrastructure and guided by the financial envelope available.

30. Draft prioritising metrics have been calculated for each project to enable them to be ranked by multiple criteria to assist decision making. Primary evaluation rankings will be: -

· Highest current risk level;

· Greatest resilience improvement; and

· Best resilience benefit to cost ratio.

31. Projects that are not proposed to be included in the 2021-31 LTP can be held for future years and would be recognised in the 30-year Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial Considerations

32. Projects identified through the Infrastructure Resilience Project will be subject to an initial staff prioritisation for the 2021-31 LTP, in accordance with the above project selection process. It is noted that the Resilience Project has a ‘holding’ capital budget associated with it, as an outcome of the last LTP of $175 million.

33. It is proposed that projects would be timed to coincide with pre-planned and pre-budget renewals work to minimise cost and disruption.

34. Consideration of priorities and funding for the programme of works will be addressed through the development of the next LTP, and balanced with other Council priorities in that process.

35. Every project completed would improves city resilience to natural hazards and provides additional security to private and public investment.

Legal Implications / Risks

36. The key risks identified as part of this project are listed below:

(a) Exposure of assets. There are an identified 300 projects which are identified as being susceptible to natural hazards and therefore a consequence on community, in terms of that hazard being potentially exposed and therefore, subject to outage, resulting in a range of risks (i.e environment, social, loss or decrease of level of service).

(b) Risks associated with deferring implementation of the programme. This exacerbates existing identified risks to assets, under threat of natural hazard events. This could result in operation issues, risks environmental and community consequences associated with the loss of infrastructure LOS, or lifelines, based upon failure of the land, or the hazard occurring.

(c) Financial risks. The costs for this programme are significant. Recent work has attempted to provide considered cost estimates with funding risk included, which mitigates (but does not eliminate) the risks of significant budget overruns as part of specific design of mitigations, and implementation.

Consultation / Engagement

37. Consultation on the outcomes of natural hazard susceptibility mapping occurs as part of the outcome of the hazard mapping.

38. No consultation has occurred as part of this project. Wider consultation on the delivery of a resilient City will occur through the 2021-31 LTP and decision making on prioritisation on projects.

39. External engagement will proceed as appropriate depending on the scale and location of the particular project, when it is prioritised for implementation.

Significance

40. The delivery of a resilient city, and the proposed program and budget is important, as the project is subject to future LTP prioritisation and funding decisions, at this time the report is not deemed significant.

41. This Resilience Project will produce a program of work for a significant improvement to the resilience of the City through management (i.e. protection) of strategic assets across the whole City providing a safer environment for the community

42. Implementation of identified resilience projects will keep city infrastructure operating more effectively in extreme natural hazards events and support urban planning by removing people and assets from hazard exposed situations

Next Steps

43. Staff to complete the technical prioritisation process of resilience projects, as identified in this report, including participation of the asset owner, asset management and planning teams.

44. Report outcomes of technical prioritisation process to Urban Form and Transport Development Committee. Elected member discussion on risk levels, risk acceptability, prioritisation and funding for inclusion in the draft 2021-31 LTP process.

45. Following the adoption of the final LTP Council staff will commence implementation of selected projects through options analysis, detailed design and construction.

Attachments

1. Appendix 1: Sample Natural hazards Risk Mitigation Project Definition Sheet - A11614074 ⇩


AGENDA Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Tuesday, 21 July 2020
I hereby give notice that an Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 21 July 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Council Chambers 91 Willow Street Tauranga
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