AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 6 October 2020

I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:

Date:

Tuesday, 6 October 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

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Mayor Tenby Powell

Deputy chairperson

Cr Tina Salisbury

Members

Cr Jako Abrie

Cr Larry Baldock

Cr Kelvin Clout

Cr Bill Grainger

Cr Andrew Hollis

Cr Heidi Hughes

Cr Dawn Kiddie

Cr Steve Morris

Cr John Robson

Quorum

Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting frequency

Six weekly or as required for Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and other relevant legislative requirements.

Role

·         To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

Scope

·         Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·         The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

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

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

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

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

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

·         Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural matters

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

·         Adoption of Standing Orders.

·         Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·         Approval of Special Orders.

·         Employment of Chief Executive.

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

Regulatory matters

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 7

2          Public Forum.. 8

2.1            Public Forum: Liz Davies, SociaLink. 8

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 9

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 9

5          Change to the Order of Business. 9

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 10

6.1            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 March 2020. 10

6.2            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 March 2020. 22

6.3            Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2020. 36

6.4            Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 4 June 2020. 41

6.5            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 1 July 2020. 47

6.6            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 6 August 2020. 53

6.7            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 25 August 2020. 59

6.8            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 September 2020. 78

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 87

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 88

8.1            Robin Rimmer - Petition - Welcome Bay Estuary. 88

8.2            Alan Crofskey - Petition - Lavender Place Tree. 89

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 90

9.1            Recommendation from other Committees - Projects, Services and Operations Committee - 23 June 2020. 90

10       Business. 93

10.1          Temporary Alcohol Free Areas. 93

10.2          Totara Street Safety Improvements - Update. 103

10.3          Links Avenue Options Investigations. 167

10.4          Independent Hearings Commissioners and Staff RMA Delegations. 184

10.5          Lime NZ e-scooter trial approval 195

10.6          Approach to develop a Marine Facilities Strategy and Marine Facilities Development and Management Plan. 208

10.7          Match Fund Review.. 221

10.8          Code of Conduct Complaint 237

11       Discussion of Late Items. 243

12       Public Excluded Session. 244

12.1          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 March 2020. 244

12.2          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 March 2020. 245

12.3          Public Excluded Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2020. 245

12.4          Public Excluded Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 4 June 2020. 245

12.5          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 6 August 2020. 246

12.6          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 25 August 2020. 246

12.7          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 September 2020. 247

12.8          Direct appointment of consultancy services for Totara Street 247

12.9          Chief Executive's Annual Performance Review 2019-20. 247

12.10       Marine Precinct Covid19 Additional Relief Measure. 248

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

1            Apologies

2            Public Forum

2.1         Public Forum: Liz Davies, SociaLink   

3            Acceptance of Late Items

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

5            Change to the Order of Business


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 March 2020

File Number:           A11864936

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 March 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 March 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

10 March 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 10 March 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

2.1            Colin Shilston and Simone Cuers– Freedom Cabins in association with the Peoples’ Project 3

2.2            Heather Grace - Wakefield Drive trees. 4

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 4

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 4

5          Change to the Order of Business. 4

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 5

6.1            Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2019. 5

6.2            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2019. 5

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 5

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 5

8.1            Petition - Friederike Haffelder - Pedestrian and cyclist safety – Links Avenue/Golf Road.  Supported by Karen Laidlaw and Johann Breeuwer 5

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 6

9.1            Adoption of Standing Orders. 6

10       Business. 7

10.1          53 Wakefield Drive, Bethlehem - Prune of Notable London Plane Tree Request 7

10.2          Rental Car Depot Extension Capex. 9

10.3          Car Park Extension Capex Request 9

11       Discussion of Late Items. 10

12       Public Excluded Session. 10

 

 
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga
ON Tuesday, 10 March 2020 AT 9am

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Mark Smith (Manager: Spaces & Places), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Anne Blakeway (Manager: CCO Relationships & Governance), Warren Aitken (Team Leader: Parks & Environment), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

 

1            Apologies

Nil

2            Public Forum

2.1         Colin Shilston and Simone Cuers – Freedom Cabins in association with the Peoples’ Project

 

Key points

·         Supply was one of the four issues that needed to be considered to end homelessness.

·         Freedom Cabins provided an innovative solution to homelessness with a rent-to-buy scheme which provided an affordable rental with the option of owning the cabin in five years.

·         Freedom Cabins was working with the Peoples’ Project to provide social support and align the support services needed. 

·         The Peoples’ Project had housed 57 people in the last two years. There were approximately 80 people either homeless, living in cars or rough sleeping in Tauranga.

·         The Freedom Cabins rent-to-buy option offered an opportunity to gain equity over a five-year period.

·         Considered preferable to spread affordable housing throughout the city.

 

In response to questions

·         No more than two cabins would be interspersed together throughout Tauranga; a “scatterside” approach.

·         Requested assistance from council with identification of any Council land that could be made available at a low lease rate to run a working pilot project. 

·         Were open to all land options including private property. Cabins could be connected to the grid like a caravan, fully transportable; or could be standalone. 

·         There was ongoing discussion with the Ministry of Social Development and private individuals to refine the financial model and possible funding arrangements and financing rates.  The pilot project was important to tell the story to attract individual funders.

·         Freedom Cabins had met with a planning consultant to discuss planning requirements and restrictions; were looking for land in residential or commercial zones.

·         Expected some transience within the homeless community; the Peoples’ Project provided long-term wraparound services based on individual needs e.g. mental health, household management.

·         There were different types of homelessness – unsheltered homelessness; people that lived in overcrowded houses; couch surfing.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Tauranga City Council was working towards a Western Bay of Plenty solution with Western Bay of Plenty District Council and all relevant agencies via the Mayoral Taskforce for Homelessness.

 

 

2.2         Heather Grace - Wakefield Drive trees

 

Key points

·         This was a collective request from the eight properties that were affected by the three trees on Wakefield Drive. 

·         Noted that the trees had been protected since 1995 and outlined their growth.

·         Outlined the hazards created by the trees; landowners were unable to prune or maintain the trees.

·         Emphasised the shadow cast by the trees on the various houses in Wakefield Drive and considered this was similar to the shadow cast by a four-storey building.  Houses on Edwin Grove were most impacted.

·         Protected trees on private property caused the most frustration.  It was a council responsibility to maintain council amenity assets e.g. street trees; should be the same policy for protected trees on private land.

·         Considered that the only option that would reduce the size of the trees appropriately was pollarding.

 

In response to questions

·         There would need to be a conversation held with the eight homeowners affected regarding any contribution to the cost of pruning.

·         The homeowners were open to a staged approach and understood that a pruning/pollarding process would take time, any reduction was better than no reduction.  Residents were concerned about safety, responsibility and liability and considered the risk should be reduced as soon as possible.

 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2019

Resolution  CO3/20/1

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

6.2         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2019

Resolution  CO3/20/2

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

8.1         Petition - Friederike Haffelder - Pedestrian and cyclist safety – Links Avenue/Golf Road.  Supported by Karen Laidlaw and Johann Breeuwer

The petition was tabled and a presentation provided.

 

Key points

·         The three presenters were parents that lived in the area.

·         Concerned for safety of children as they negotiated the corner between Links Ave and Golf Road.

·         The amount of traffic had increased significantly; posed significant risk to cyclists especially schoolchildren.

·         Cycling did not feel like a safe option for children. Safe cycle routes to school for children were key; children were less experienced and more at risk. 

·         The two-lane road had been turned into a three-lane road to accommodate increased bus capacity. 

·         Outlined the pros and cons of the current road design.  Buses and cars were very close to the edge of the road and the shared path.

·         Noted the guidelines on the NZTA website regarding footpaths: required lateral clearance of one metre on each side of a cyclist and a 1.5m separation between the path and an adjacent road.

·         Provided a commuter count.  For an hour between 8am and 9am there were 246 pedestrians and 186 cyclists.

·         Provided photos of the current situation with children cycling on the crowded footpath.  There was very little clearance between path and road.

·         Local schools were providing teachers at key risk points to ensure children’s safety. 

·         The free school bus service had reduced numbers of cars but increased number of pedestrians on the pathway used by cyclists.

·         Provided suggested solutions e.g. review the need for bus lanes, greater segregation between shared footpath and traffic, school buses stop at schools.

 

At 10:06 am, Cr Tina Salisbury left the meeting.

 

In response to questions

·         In the long term the positioning of the bus interchange would have an effect.  The current situation involved putting new uses and objectives into a street designed some time ago.  There was a need to look at the street and transport uses from a safe systems perspective; any factor failing should not result in death or serious injury for any user.

 

At 10:09 am, Cr Tina Salisbury returned to the meeting.

·         Council would be engaging with the community and bringing together a group of affected stakeholders in the area.

·         The petitioners considered action needed to be taken sooner rather than later due to the safety risks posed to the school children.

·         Moving of power poles could also be part of consideration for safety.

 

Discussion points raised

·         It was not acceptable to be putting in place measures that caused any safety issues. 

·         The issue needed to be looked at in the context of overall transport strategies; there were similar chokehold areas in other parts of the strategy.  Need to prioritise where action was needed first.

 

Resolution  CO3/20/3

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That Council receives the petition.

Carried

 

 

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

9.1         Adoption of Standing Orders

 

In response to questions

·         The Code of Conduct was scheduled to be considered at the 24 March 2020 Policy Committee meeting.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Need to ensure that audio visual facilities were appropriate and suitable for audio visual attendance.

·         Noted the new requirements for leave of absence under the proposed Standing Orders.

 

 

Resolution  CO3/20/4

Moved:       Cr Dawn Kiddie

Seconded:  Cr Steve Morris

That Council:

(a)     Approves the recommendations of the Policy Committee on 11 February 2020; and adopts the Standing Orders in Attachment 1, which includes the following changes:

(i)      Amended Principle 1.1 to include “Free speech: members will respect the diversity of thought and opinion that are part of a healthy democracy”.

(ii)     Members’ and public deputations right to attend by audio- or audio-visual link (Standing Orders 13.7 to 13.16).

(iii)     Casting vote provision for the Mayor or Chairperson, or any other person presiding at a meeting (Standing Order 19.3).

(iv)    Option B (medium) as the default provision for speaking and moving motions. (Standing Order 22.1).

(v)     Delegating to the Mayor the power to grant a leave of absence for Councillors in order to protect a members’ privacy (Standing Order 13.3) and a new definition of leave of absence to read “Leave of absence is a period of time, approved by the Mayor, for which an elected member is on leave from the duties of being an elected member.”

(vi)    Amend Standing Order 13.4 by deleting “For clarification, the acceptance of a member’s apology constitutes a grant of “leave of absence” for that meeting.

(vii)   Amend Standing Order 13.5 to include:

(i)      the minutes will record if a member is absent from the meeting on Council business.

(ii)      The minutes may record at the member’s request if the member is       absent due to sickness and other relevant reasons beyond the       member’s control.

(viii)   Delegating to the Chief Executive during the election interregnum period the authority to make decisions on urgent matters that cannot wait until the first meeting of the new Council. (New Standing Order 6.6).

(ix)    Time limit on movers of motions when speaking to the motion is reduced from 10 minutes to five minutes (Standing Order 21.2).

(x)     Adding that a procedural motion to close or adjourn debate can be taken after two speakers have spoken for the motion and two against or, in the chairperson’s opinion, it is reasonable to accept the closure motion (Standing Order 25.1).

Carried

 

10          Business

10.1       53 Wakefield Drive, Bethlehem - Prune of Notable London Plane Tree Request

Staff:         Mark Smith, Manager: Spaces & Places 

                  Warren Aitken, Team Leader: Parks & Environment

 

External:  Paul Kenny, Independent arborist

 

Key points

·         The report was taken as read.

 

In response to questions

·         Older trees could be damaged by pollarding. Generally, pollarding started when trees were young by pruning to develop that particular structure; cutting a mature tree was not considered pollarding and might cause damage through fungal infection.  An older tree could not repair large cuts, new growth might cover the cuts but decay would be present.  Severe pruning or pollarding then necessitated annual pruning.

·         Council inspected all tree stock, including notable trees, every three years; if a tree is considered dangerous or at risk of branch fall then action was taken.  Any sign of decay and imminent risk was acted on immediately; inspection frequency could also increase to every 12 months.

·         Noted that there were different opinions on safety of any particular tree.

·         London planes were a reliable broadleaf exotic tree with minimal large branch failures.

·         There were emergency works provisions that could be implemented that did not require consent; otherwise evidence was needed to support a resource consent application for pruning.

·         These trees were checked by arborists in September 2019.  No major concerns were found that would warrant any further any investigation.

·         The primary responsibility lay with the landowner in terms of liability. 

 

At 10.40am the meeting adjourned.

At 10.52am the meeting reconvened.

 

·         The removal of notable trees in Cliff Rd was through a notified resource consent process with no objections received.

·         Clarification was provided regarding pruning completed on one of the three trees concerned. A reduction by 25%-30% was able to be maintained without triggering rapid vigorous regrowth.

 

Discussion points raised

·         The contribution from residents was appreciated. 

·         Any loss of tree amenity was balanced by the nearby reserve and other trees in the vicinity.

 

Resolution  CO3/20/5

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receives this report

(b)     Acknowledges the request by property owners in Wakefield Drive associated with the three London Plane Trees; and

(c)     Approves the trees to have crown reduction to the maximum possible under the constraints of the City Plan.

(d)     Waives all Council Resource Management Act application and processing costs.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, John Robson and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

 

(e)     Assists with engaging qualified professionals to complete the application and physical works on a cost sharing basis with the property owners.  Cost sharing proportions decision delegated to the Chief Executive, made after discussion with property owners and affected residents.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout and Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Crs Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

carried 6/5

 

(f)      Notes the costs associated with implementing these resolutions is unbudgeted expenditure, and that there is no commitment to future costs.

(g)     Includes in the upcoming comprehensive City Plan review the Notable Tree provisions within Chapter 6 of the City Plan.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

Carried

 

 

10.2       Rental Car Depot Extension Capex

Staff:         Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Key points

·         Was continued increased rental car demand at the airport and a shortage of available carparks.

·         Would create 70 carparks.

 

In response to questions

·         There was minor impact on debt carried with payback within five years.

·         An increase in disabled parking was also included.

 

Resolution  CO3/20/6

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

(a)     Receive Report Rental Car Depot Expansions

(b)     Approve the addition $600k of capex. 

Carried

 

10.3       Car Park Extension Capex Request

Staff:         Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Key points

·         Would create 150 carparks.

 

In response to questions

·         There was no impact on residential rates; was a self-funding activity.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Noted that there were limited multi-modal options available at the airport e.g. no bus service.

 

Resolution  CO3/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Car Park Extension report.

(b)     Approves the additional unbudgeted $300,000 capex.

(c)     Approves the bringing forward of $385,000 capex budgeted from 2024.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Larry Baldock, Jako Abrie, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, John Robson and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Cr Heidi Hughes.

carried 10/1

Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil

12          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO3/20/8

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

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

12.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 December 2019

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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

12.2 - 2020 Appointment of Trustees to Tourism Bay of Plenty

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

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

12.3 - Our Place

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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

12.4 - Totara Farms Joint Venture Variation Agreement (Carrus Hickson Block Te Tumu)

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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

Carried

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 2pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on   

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.2         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 March 2020

File Number:           A11865555

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 March 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 March 2020 

  


UnconfirmedOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

24 March 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 24 March 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5          Change to the Order of Business. 3

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 3

Nil

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

10       Business. 5

10.1          Adoption of draft Annual Plan 2020/21. 7

10.2          Adoption of the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy. 10

10.3          Code of Conduct Complaint 10

11       Discussion of Late Items. 13

12       Public Excluded Session. 13

 

 
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga
ON Tuesday, 24 March 2020 AT 9am

 

PRESENT:              Mayor Tenby Powell (Chairperson), Cr Larry Baldock (Deputy Chairperson), Cr Jako Abrie (by audio link), Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr Steve Morris, Cr John Robson, Cr Tina Salisbury

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Nick Swallow (Manager: Legal & Commercial), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Scott MacLeod (Group Communication Advisor), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor).

 

1            Apologies

Nil

2            Public Forum

Nil

 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Resolution  CO4/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the late item Report: Emergency Provisions for COVID-19 be accepted for consideration as this item could not be delayed to another meeting as there was an urgent need to respond to the recent announcements by the Prime Minister in relation to alert level status for COVID-19.

Carried

 

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

The meeting agreed to take the report: Emergency Provisions for COVID-19 as the first item of business.

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

10          Business

10.1       Emergency Provisions for COVID 19 (late item)

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

                  Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services  

 

Key points

·         The impacts and constraints of COVID 19 alert levels on the ability of Council to continue its business were noted; and the suggested changes to governance structures to respond to the situation were outlined.

Resolution  CO4/20/2

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)       Receives the report “Emergency Provisions for COVID-19”

(b)       Establishes an Emergency Committee with a membership of three consisting of the Mayor Tenby Powell as the Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor Larry Baldock as the Deputy Chairperson and one other elected member selected in the following order:

·               Councillors Kelvin Clout and Steve Morris (Standing Committee Chairpersons – with preference being given with the Chairperson whose portfolio aligns with the matter of urgency being considered)

·               Councillors Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Dawn Kiddie and Heidi Hughes (Standing Committee Deputy Chairpersons - with preference being given with the Deputy Chairperson whose portfolio aligns with the matter of urgency being considered)

·               Councillors John Robson, Andrew Hollis and Bill Grainger

In the event that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor are unavailable three elected members in the order as stated above.

(c)       Adopts the following Emergency Committee’s Terms of Reference:

(i)        To determine matters within the authority of Tauranga City Council where the urgency of those matters precludes a full meeting of the Council, or its committees, or emergency legislation is enacted and the Council or its committees are unable to meet.

(ii)       To exercise all Council functions that cannot be exercised by the Council or its committees using its standard processes and procedures due to a pandemic, other natural disaster or state of emergency, except for those that:

·                have been delegated to staff; or

·                cannot be delegated as set out in Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 which are:

(a)     the power to make a rate; or

(b)     the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)     the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d)     the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)     the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f)      the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g)     [Repealed]

(h)     the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy. or

·                cannot be delegated by the Council as set out in any other legislation.

(iii)      The Emergency Committee can only be activated by resolution of Council for specific emergency events, or where resolution by Council is not possible, on the joint authority of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and the Chief Executive.

(iv)      The Emergency Committee will report to the Council (at the next available full meeting of Council) summarising the Committee’s activities and any decisions made over the period.

(v)       The quorum for the Emergency Committee will be two members.

(vi)      The Emergency Committee will meet as required.

(vii)     When an Emergency Committee meeting has been called, Councillors will be notified details by email and agendas and minutes will be circulated electronically. Public notice requirements as set out in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 will apply.

(d)       Delegates to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Chief Executive, the authority to activate the Emergency Committee during the COVID-19 emergency when a resolution of Council is not possible.

(e)       Activates the Emergency Committee from 24 March 2020 to operate during Alert Levels 3 and 4 of the COVID-19 Emergency and suspends all other Committees, apart from the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee.

(f)        Establishes that the quorum for the Council’s Standing Committees during the COVID-19 emergency will be two members to be physically present.

(g)       For the purposes of the COVID-19 emergency, delegates to the Chief Executive all the Council’s powers, duties, and responsibilities that the Council can lawfully delegate to officers, including the ability to enter into any contract and/or to authorise any level of expenditure (“Emergency Delegation”).   This Emergency Delegation does not include (or limit) the powers, duties, and responsibilities that the Council has already delegated to the Chief Executive under delegations in force at this time, or any authority to make any Council decisions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (which shall be dealt with in accordance with that Act). This Emergency Delegation is subject to the following conditions:

(i)        It may be exercised only in circumstances where the Council and its committees are unable or unavailable to hold meetings that comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987;

(ii)       The Chief Executive may only exercise the Emergency Delegation in consultation with the Mayor (or if the Mayor is unavailable, the Deputy Mayor, or if the Deputy Mayor is unavailable, the Chairperson of the relevant committee, or if the Chairperson of the relevant committee is unavailable, the Deputy Chairperson of the committee).

(iii)      Any decisions made and documents executed in exercising the Emergency Delegation must be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.

(iv)      This Emergency Delegation may be revoked at any time by the Council.

(v)       In the event there is any inconsistency between this Emergency Delegation and any other delegation made by the Council, this Emergency Delegation takes precedence.  For the avoidance of doubt, this means that the contract value and other limits specified in the Chief Executive’s delegations under clause 6 of Council’s Procurement Policy (relating to approval of exemptions to open procurement and contract variations) will not apply while this Emergency Delegation is in effect, thus enabling the Chief Executive to approve these no matter the contract value or contract variation parameters during the effective period of this Emergency Delegation.

(h)       Delegates the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Executive to Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth, as Acting Chief Executive in the event that the Chief Executive is unable to fulfil his duties due to COVID-19; and

(i)         Agrees that where the Acting Chief Executive is unable to fulfil her duties due to COVID-19, the Chief Executive’s delegated powers, duties and responsibilities will be transferred to the next designated General Manager in the following order:

·               Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

·               Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

·               Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

·               Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

·               Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People and Engagement

Carried

 

10.2       Adoption of draft Annual Plan 2020/21

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

                  Christine Jones, General Manager: Growth & Strategy       

 

Key points

·         Noted the impact of COVID-19 on the community and the economic environment.

·         Outlined key topics in the draft Annual Plan.

 

 

In response to questions

·         Implications of different levels of capital adjustment were clarified.  Noted that the assumed debt provision could be significantly different if any operational costs were debt funded.  The  opening debt position for the year could be significantly higher and the debt/revenue ratio remain an issue.

·         Varying levels of the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) and the impact on ratepayers were discussed.  Options were provided for Council decision; the total rates “pie” stayed the same but how to divide it between ratepayers was a political decision.

·         There was no requirement to follow a Special Consultative Procedure; Council could choose its level of engagement and consultation approach. 

·         The narrative to the community was a real issue as there was a question around the ability of the community to fund infrastructure development over the next 12 months.  Conversations were underway with central government regarding post-COVID recovery and development, including the delivery of housing and infrastructure.

·         Further possible levers and issues could be identified in the consultation document without a position being expressed.  Debate on the issues and decisions as required could take place when the Annual Plan was adopted in June.  Council’s proposal needed to be clear in the draft Annual Plan, but other options could be included for consultation to allow room for reconsideration in June.

 

 

At 9.40am the meeting adjourned.

At 9.57am the meeting reconvened.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Important to provide flexibility to manage in the current uncertain times.

·         Noted that this was not a time for business as usuaI; was a need to recognise the severity of COVID-19 and to soften the blow of rates increases. 

·         Was a need to focus on essential services in the next 12 months. 

 

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)     Notes the decision of the 4 March Policy Committee was for an overall rates increase of 12.6% for the 2020/21 year.  This rates level was to increase  financial capacity for the Council to deliver infrastructure to support growth and was approved prior to the arrival of COVID-19;

(b)     Notes that Council is seeking to achieve a balance between being cognisant of the impact of COVID-19 while also continuing to invest in our city, meeting the infrastructure needs of our community and providing a sound platform for the city to recover;

(c)     Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document (CD) for public consultation and the Draft Annual Plan 2020/21 supporting financial information, with the following amendments:

i)       Debt management levy to be removed from the draft Annual Plan;

          ii)       Commercial differential of 1.2 and Uniform Annual General Charge of 15% as per          the Long-Term Plan;

          iii)      Disclosure that Council has considered and will continue to consider other   options for rates including a commercial differential between 1.3:1 and 1.2:1 and the UAGC between 10% and 15%, and that feedback on these other options is        sought.

(d)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft 2020/21 User Fees and Charges as the basis for public consultation;

(e)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft Revenue and Financing Policy as the basis for public consultation;

(f)      Authorises the Chief Executive to approve drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document and Statement of Proposals for User Fees and Charges and the Revenue and Financing Policy to give effect to the above resolutions of Council, to provide disclosure on COVID-19 issues associated with the Annual Plan and to address minor matters;

(g)     Continues to work on understanding the impact and opportunities of COVID-19 for the city, identify options to meet the needs of the city with a strong focus on recovery, and listen to the community feedback with a view to reflecting this in the final Annual Plan to be adopted post consultation;

(h)     Will assess and revise the $30 million capital adjustment and other operational funding considerations as part of the Annual Plan adoption process;

(i)      Report back on options to assist those most in need before finalising the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

 

Resolution  CO4/20/3

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That clause (c)(ii) be amended to read “ Commercial differential of 1.2 and Uniform Annual General Charge of 10% as per the Long-Term Plan”.

 

Carried

The substantive motion was then put:

 

Resolution  CO4/20/4

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)     Notes the decision of the 4 March Policy Committee was for an overall rates increase of 12.6% for the 2020/21 year.  This rates level was to increase  financial capacity for the Council to deliver infrastructure to support growth and was approved prior to the arrival of COVID-19;

(b)     Notes that Council is seeking to achieve a balance between being cognisant of the impact of COVID-19 while also continuing to invest in our city, meeting the infrastructure needs of our community and providing a sound platform for the city to recover;

(c)     Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document (CD) for public consultation and the Draft Annual Plan 2020/21 supporting financial information, with the following amendments:

i)       Debt management levy to be removed from the draft Annual Plan;

          ii)       Commercial differential of 1.2 and Uniform Annual General Charge of 10% as per          the Long-Term Plan;

          iii)      Disclosure that Council has considered and will continue to consider other   options for rates including a commercial differential between 1.3:1 and 1.2:1 and the UAGC between 10% and 15%, and that feedback on these other options is        sought.

(d)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft 2020/21 User Fees and Charges as the basis for public consultation;

(e)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft Revenue and Financing Policy as the basis for public consultation;

(f)      Authorises the Chief Executive to approve drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document and Statement of Proposals for User Fees and Charges and the Revenue and Financing Policy to give effect to the above resolutions of Council, to provide disclosure on COVID-19 issues associated with the Annual Plan and to address minor matters;

(g)     Continues to work on understanding the impact and opportunities of COVID-19 for the city, identify options to meet the needs of the city with a strong focus on recovery, and listen to the community feedback with a view to reflecting this in the final Annual Plan to be adopted post consultation;

(h)     Will assess and revise the $30 million capital adjustment and other operational funding considerations as part of the Annual Plan adoption process;

(i)      Report back on options to assist those most in need before finalising the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Carried

 

10.2       Adoption of the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager, Strategy & Growth       

 

Key points

·         The main points of the draft Policy were outlined.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Noted that the development of this policy was a substantial and challenging piece of work.

·         Hoped that there would be a move by central government to allow the inclusion of a contingency figure.

 

Resolution  CO4/20/5

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Adopts the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy for public consultation

(b)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy as the basis of public consultation;

(c)     Authorises the Chief Executive to approve minor drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy prior to printing if necessary

Carried

At 10.23am the meeting adjourned.

At 10.39am the meeting reconvened.

 

 

At 10:40am, Cr Andrew Hollis left the meeting.

At 10.40am, Cr Dawn Kiddie left the meeting.

 

10.3       Code of Conduct Complaint

The Deputy Mayor assumed the Chair for this item of business.

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive   

 

Key points

·         The Deputy Mayor introduced the item and explained the process to be followed.

·         The Chief Executive advised that the complaint and investigation process had been in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct and the recommendations were there for Council consideration.

·         Noted that Crs Hollis and Kiddie had left the meeting for this item of business as they were affected parties; no other councillors identified as affected parties.

 

Mayor Tenby was invited to make a statement:

·         Admitted he had made mistakes and apologised to councillors and the community for his behaviour.

·         Acknowledged a lack of trust between elected members; noted frustration at the internal damage and division within Council.

·         Commented on councillors’ disruptive behaviour on social media.

·         Emphasised the need to work in partnership with iwi.

 

At 10:44 am, Mayor Tenby Powell left the meeting.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Elected members needed to behave professionally and respectfully, and be aware of the impact of their behaviour.  Personal derogatory remarks of any form, verbal or on social media, were unacceptable.

·         From a staff and organisation point of view, appropriate apologies had been made.

·         Councillors needed to be able to disagree and respect differing points of view without being disagreeable.  Full and frank debate was an important part of democratic decision making.

·         Focus must be on robust decision-making for the city.

·         Any penalty should be commensurate with the offence.

·         There needed to be a clear statement about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

·         The Code of Conduct allowed a councillor to make public an opinion that was contrary to Council’s position.

 

At 11.12am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.18am the meeting reconvened.

 

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Code of Conduct Complaint”; and

(b)     Notes the findings of the independent investigation; and

(c)     Concurs with the findings of the independent investigation that the subject of this complaint did constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct;

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

(d)     Requests that the respondent make a written apology to:

                   (i) Cr Andrew Hollis

       (ii) Cr Dawn Kiddie

       (iii) remaining elected members, and

       (iv) all Tauranga City Council staff;

 

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That (d)(iii) remaining elected members, and (d)(iv) all Tauranga City Council staff be deleted.

In Favour:       Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Heidi Hughes and Steve Morris

Against:           Crs Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger and John Robson

carried 5/3

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That recommendation (e) be added – That a letter of censure be written to Mayor Powell.

carried 8/0

The substantive motion was then put in parts:

 

Resolution  CO4/20/6

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Code of Conduct Complaint”; and

          (b)     Notes the findings of the independent investigation.

Carried

Resolution  CO4/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

          (c)     Concurs with the findings of the independent investigation that the subject of this                      complaint did constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Carried

Resolution  CO4/20/8

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

 (d)    Requests that the respondent Mayor Powell make written apologies to:

          (i)      Cr Andrew Hollis;

          (ii)     Cr Dawn Kiddie.

 (e)    Writes a letter of censure to the respondent, Mayor Powell.

Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil

12          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO4/20/9

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, apart from Mr Max Pedersen, Mr David Lambie and Mr Mark McGuinness as their expert knowledge of commercial property and development will assist with the discussion on agenda item 12.1.

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

12.1 - Council Accommodation Strategy

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

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

Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.40am and reconvened in Public excluded session.

 

The meeting closed at 1.12pm.

 

 

The minutes of this meeting to be confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on  

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.3         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2020

File Number:           A11869141

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDExtraordinary Council Meeting Minutes

28 April 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Extraordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 28 April 2020

 


Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

3          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

4          Change to the Order of Business. 3

5          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3

6          Discussion of Late Items. 3

7          Public Excluded Session. 4

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Extraordinary Council Meeting

HELD BY THE Tauranga City Council by VIDEO CONFERENCE, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 28 April 2020 AT 11am

 

PRESENT:              Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Larry Baldock, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr Steve Morris, Cr John Robson, and Cr Tina Salisbury.

                                 Mr Bruce Robertson, Chairperson, Finance, Audit and Risk Committee.

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Nick Swallow (Manager: Legal and Commercial), Graeme Frith (Team Leader: Legal), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor).

 

 

 

1            Apologies

Nil

 

2            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

 

3            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

 

4            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

 

5            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

 

6            Discussion of Late Items

Nil

 

 

 

 

7            Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO7/20/1

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting except for Helen Rice, Partner, and Tyler Bellingham, Associate, of Rice Speir, whose specialist litigation knowledge will assist Council with its discussion; and Bruce Robertson, independent Chairperson of Council’s Finance, Audit and Risk Committee.

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

7.1 - Cayman Apartments, 29 Maunganui Road, Mount Maunganui

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

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

Carried

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 11.18am.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary meeting of the Tauranga City Council held on 6 October 2020.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.4         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 4 June 2020

File Number:           A11875586

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 4 June 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 4 June 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDExtraordinary Council Meeting Minutes

4 June 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Extraordinary Council Meeting

Thursday, 4 June 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

3          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

4          Change to the Order of Business. 3

5          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

6          Discussion of Late Items. 4

7          Public Excluded Session. 4

7.1            Harington Street Transport Hub. 4

8          Public Excluded resolutions released into the public domain – Harington Street Transport Hub. 5

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Extraordinary Council Meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers,

91 Willow Street, Tauranga

ON Thursday, 4 June 2020 AT 9am

 

PRESENT:              Mayor Tenby Powell (Chairperson), Cr Larry Baldock (Deputy Chairperson), Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Andrew Hollis (by video link), Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr Steve Morris, Cr John Robson and Cr Tina Salisbury

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Nick Swallow (Manager: Legal & Commercial) Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), and Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor)

 

 

Personal statement

Cr Baldock was granted permission to address the meeting by the Chairman under Standing Orders 14.7(c) and (d).  Cr Baldock refuted comments made by other councillors about his role in stopping debate during the Council meeting of 19 May 2020, and noted that the closure motion in question was seconded and would have required a majority to pass; unfortunately, the motion was not properly put to the vote.  The Chief Executive was requested to prepare a report to analyse what happened in the meeting, particularly in terms of Standing Orders 21.6, 25.2(b) and 25.3, to be discussed at the Standing Orders training scheduled for 8 June.  Based on the outcome of that report; elected members’ obligations under the Members’ Code of Conduct in relation to making comments about the behaviour of other councillors could be emphasised.

The Chief Executive confirmed that a report would be prepared for the 8 June 2002 training session.

 

1            Apologies

Nil

 

2            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

 

3            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

 

4            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

 

 

5            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

 

6            Discussion of Late Items

Nil

 

 

7            Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO12/20/1

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, except for David Cunliffe, Reuben Cairns-Morrison, Malcolm Sabourin,  Nathan Spier and Rosemary Gibson as their specialist knowledge and experience will assist Council with its discussion.

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

7.1 - Harington Street Transport Hub

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

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

Carried

 

 

 

 

 

8            Public Excluded resolutions released into the public domain – Harington Street Transport Hub

The Council resolved in the public excluded section of the meeting to transfer the resolutions passed at the 4 June 2020 Council meeting regarding the Harington Street Transport Hub into the public domain.

Resolution  CO12/20/2

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report, Harington Street Transport Hub;

(b)     Endorses the recommended option of abandoning completion of the Harington Street Transport Hub;

(c)     Notes the key communication messages which are drafted with an assumption that the recommended option is endorsed; and that, in the event of another decision, key messages will be re-drafted accordingly;

(d)     Notes that the Chief Executive will instruct Rice Speir to pursue cost recovery options.

Carried

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 10.58am.

 

The minutes of this meeting to be confirmed at the Ordinary meeting of the Tauranga City Council held on 6 October 2020.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.5         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 1 July 2020

File Number:           A11865581

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 1 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 1 July 2020 

  


UnconfirmedOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

1 July 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Wednesday, 1 July 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5          Change to the Order of Business. 3

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 3

Nil

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

10       Business. 4

10.1          Adoption of Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) Final Report 4

11       Discussion of Late Items. 5

12       Public Excluded Session. 5

Nil

 

 
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE TrustPower, Suite 1 (first floor), 81 Truman Lane, Mt Maunganui
ON Wednesday, 1 July 2020 AT to start at the conclusion of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting no earlier than 1pm

 

PRESENT:              Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Tina Salisbury, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Larry Baldock, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Steve Morris, Cr John Robson

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Andy Mead (Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support).

 

1            Apologies

Apology

Resolution  CO15/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the apologies for lateness received from Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Dawn Kiddie and Cr Bill Grainger be accepted.

Carried

 

2            Public Forum

Nil

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

10          Business

10.1       Adoption of Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) Final Report

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

                 

Key points

·         Noted that this was a collaborative piece of work with agreement to work together to move forward and create an integrated plan.

·         Noted the significant shortfall of land and housing supply and the urgent need to address transport and housing issues.

·         Tauranga City Council was moving forward with UFTI aligned work such as Te Tumu and Tauriko, intensification plan changes and multi modal transport options.

 

 

Discussion points raised

·         The document should lead to the delivery of transport and housing solutions for the city; would demonstrate to the community that there was a strategy to move the city forwards. 

·         Noted the honesty and good intent shown in the collaborative process between the authorities and agencies.  Success would be measured at the 2022 election.

·         Emphasised the need to plan for a potential Western Bay population of 400,000; this initiative would be the powerhouse for this strategic planning.

 

Resolution  CO15/20/2

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Urban Form and Transport Initiative Final Report July 2020.

(b)     Endorses the UFTI Report as a Programme Business Case to guide land use and transport investment processes under a range of plans and work programmes, including Long Term Plans, the Regional Land Transport Plan and the National Land Transport Plan and the first iteration of the new Joint Spatial Plan for the western Bay of Plenty sub-region.

(c)     Notes the role of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group as the Portfolio Manager for the Programme and requests the Chair prepares a reporting framework for SmartGrowth Leadership Group approval at its next meeting.

(d)     Requests that the SmartGrowth Leadership Chair develops a project plan for the finalisation of the new Joint Spatial Plan including an iwi spatial layer and public engagement to be completed by 1 April 2021.

(e)     Notes that the SmartGrowth Leadership Group has delegated the Leadership Group Chair and Deputy Chair authority to make minor changes to the final Urban Form and Transport Initiative Programme Business Case to address errors or omissions.

(f)      Approves the Urban Form and Transport Initiative Final Report July 2020.

(g)     Acknowledges the work and contribution of the UFTI team; the Project Leadership Team and Chair; partner governance and staff including government officials; tāngata whenua; stakeholders and SmartGrowth Forums in the preparation of the UFTI Programme Business Case.

Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil

12          Public Excluded Session 

Nil

 

The meeting closed at 2pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.6         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 6 August 2020

File Number:           A11876654

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 6 August 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 6 August 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

6 August 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Thursday, 6 August 2020

 


Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5          Change to the Order of Business. 3

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 3

Nil

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

10       Business. 4

Nil

11       Discussion of Late Items. 4

12       Public Excluded Session. 4

12.1          Strategic Options for 40 Harington Street Property. 4

12.2          Harington Street Transport Hub. 4

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Thursday, 6 August 2020 AT 11am

 

PRESENT:              Cr Tina Salisbury (Chairperson), Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Larry Baldock, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr Steve Morris and Cr John Robson

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Brigid McDonald (Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation), Graeme Frith (Team Leader: Legal), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services) and Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support).

                                 External: Nathan Speir, Partner, and Rosemary Gibson, Senior Associate; Rice Speir

 

1            Apologies

Resolution  CO19/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the apology for absence from Mayor Tenby Powell be received and accepted.

Carried

 

 

2            Public Forum

Nil

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

 

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

10          Business

Nil

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil 

12          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO19/20/2

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

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

12.1 - Strategic Options for 40 Harington Street Property

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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

12.2 - Harington Street Transport Hub

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

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

 

(b)     Permit Nathan Speir and Rosemary Gibson from Rice Speir to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of litigation and commercial mediation.

.Carried

 

The meeting closed at 12.30pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 6 October 2020

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.7         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 25 August 2020

File Number:           A11862786

Author:                    Jenny Teeuwen, Committee Advisor

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 25 August 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 25 August 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

25 August 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 25 August 2020

 


Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

2.1            Margaret Murray-Benge – Waste and Recycling. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5          Change to the Order of Business. 4

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 4

6.1            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020. 4

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

10       Business. 4

10.1          Avocado Tree 5 Thirteenth Avenue. 4

10.2          Māori Representation. 7

10.4          Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services. 9

12       Public Excluded Session (Part 1) 11

12.1          Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services (confidential) 11

10       Business (Continued) 11

10.4          Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services (Continued) 11

10.3          STV Electoral System.. 12

10.5          Proposal to declare Wharf Street east as a Pedestrian Mall 12

10.6          Wharf Street - Licences to Occupy. 13

10.7          Three Waters Sector Reform Programme and Stimulus Funding. 13

10.8          Proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.. 14

10.9          CCO Final Statements of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23. 14

11       Discussion of Late Items. 15

12       Public Excluded Session (Part 2) 15

12.2          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 30 July 2020. 16

12.3          Recommendation from other committees - Finance, Audit & Risk Committee - 11 August 2020. 16

12.4          Direct Procurement of Consultancy services for Awaiti Place Flood Mitigation Project 16

12.5          Direct Procurement of Holiday Cabins – Mount Beachside Holiday Park. 16

12.6          2020 Tourism Bay of Plenty trustee appointment 16

12.7          Chief Executive's Annual Performance Review 2019-20. 16

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 25 August 2020 AT 9.30am

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Carlo Ellis (Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Sam Fellows (Manager: Environmental Regulation), Cathryn Taylor (Waste Planning Manager), Doug Spittle (Team Leader: Urban Places), Brendan Bisley (Director of Transport), Anne Blakeway (Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

 

1            Apologies

Nil

 

2            Public Forum

2.1         Margaret Murray-Benge – Waste and Recycling

Key points

·                Commended staff who had worked tirelessly to bring forward a proposal that was beneficial to all in Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty.

·                Believed the project was a recipe for success and endorsed Tauranga City Council (TCC) to go ahead with the project.

·                Advocated for a ‘pay as you throw’ option.

 

The Mayor thanked Ms Murray-Benge for her presentation.

 

 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

 

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

 

5            Change to the Order of Business

The Mayor indicated that the meeting would move into Public Excluded after item 10.4 - Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services.  The item had a public excluded component and this would enable the discussion of the item to continue.

 

 

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020

Resolution  CO22/20/1

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

 

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

 

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

 

10          Business

10.1       Avocado Tree 5 Thirteenth Avenue

Staff           Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

A copy of all presentations and tabled documents for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

The following members of the public had been granted permission to speak to the meeting on this item.  Presenters were allotted five minutes each.

 

Brian Askin

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree. 

·                The site could be easily developed with a single street access and shared driveway. 

·                There had been no substantive reason to overturn the original Council decision to decline the application for the tree to be removed.

·                It was clear the only reason to remove the tree was to facilitate the proposed development.

 

Aaron Collier

·                Mr Collier was a Planner and appeared in support of Brian and Gabrielle Askin.

·                Believed the resource consent applicant had sought to over-intensify the site by not complying with a number of standards in the City Plan.

·                Believed that it was poor planning to unbundle the tree component from the rest of the resource consent application.

·                Believed the applicant’s resource consent required public notification.

·                The site had over 23m of frontage and there were other options for access that had not been considered by the applicant.

·                Contrary to the suggestion in the staff report, the applicant’s proposal was not located in the Te Papa intensification area.

 

Barbara and Graham Fraser

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree.

·                The developers had put a lot of pressure on council staff to move quickly towards granting consent for cutting down the tree and for the resource consent for the development.

·                Believed there were serious breaches and rule abuses contemplated in the applicant’s design.

·                The issue could be simply resolved by modifying the design to enable a single, shared driveway.

·                The decision to remove the tree failed to consider the amenity value of established trees in the older, more established neighbourhood.

·                The tree should not be treated as a private asset.  The neighbourhood believed it to be their asset.

 

Phil Green

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree. 

·                Presented his case by taking the voice of the avocado tree.

 

Christine Price

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree. 

·                Believed due process had not been carried out in this instance.

·                Believed that the developers had simply assumed that the tree would be cut down.

·                28 submissions had been received opposing the removal of the tree.

·                The tree was a highly valued and key asset of the area.

·                St Mary’s School was nearby and three car parks were outside the proposed development.  Potentially one of those carparks would go.

·                A shared driveway provided a solution that would allow the tree to remain.

 

Amanda Moore

·                Ms Moore was a Planner and appeared for the applicant.

·                The proposed development achieved good design principles and realised good amenity outcomes.

·                Replacement trees would be provided, funded by the applicant.

·                The development was consistent with Tauranga’s City Plan and New Zealand Urban Design principles.

·                A future resource consent would be lodged for subdivision.

·                The proposed development fulfilled the need for further housing.

 

Brendan Gordon

·                The removal of the tree sat outside of the resource consent process.

·                The development was fully compliant.

·                The development was not an intensive development; not exaggerative or overstepping requirements.

·                A shared driveway was not an ideal design scenario.

·                The tree would be replaced.

 

Garry and Luanne Bettelheim

·                Had answered all council queries in a timely manner and willingly agreed for the resource consent to be delayed for the hearing at today’s meeting.

·                The Bettelheims were a family, not developers.

·                At seven metres, the proposed homes had significantly more setback than was permitted.  Both neighbours would retain and enhance their current aspects.

·                Evidence of tree removals in the street over the years proved mitigation planting could achieve positive outcomes in an appropriate timeframe.

·                The fruit from the tree was beneficial to a limited number of people.  The fruit was too high to access.  Rotten fruit was left for rats and seagulls.

·                The whole community was not opposed to the removal of the tree.

 

In response to questions

·                There were two processes - a resource consent application that included a design which required the removal of the tree to gain access to the site, and the tree was situated on the berm and the applicants required permission from the land owners (council) to remove the tree to gain access to the site.

·                The resource consent application was on hold. No decision had been made.  A decision could be made by council that the tree be removed subject to the resource consent successfully going through the regulatory framework.

·                Any replacement tree would offset the amenity value of the removed tree as much as was possible.

·                If the removal of the tree was declined by council, the applicant would not have access to the site with the current design and it was unclear whether a re-design was possible.

·                The owners intended to replace the tree with three trees, one big and two small.  The size of any replacement trees was dependent on the available space and the location of any underground services.

 

At 10.37am, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 10.45am, the meeting resumed.

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Heidi Hughes

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council decline the removal of the avocado tree outside 5 Thirteenth Avenue.

In Favour:       Crs Jako Abrie and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

lost 2/9

Resolution  CO22/20/2

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council allow for the removal of the avocado tree outside 5 Thirteenth Avenue, subject to the project satisfying all relevant regulatory requirements.

Carried

Attachments

1        Brian Askin - Statement of Evidence

2        Aaron Collier - Statement of Evidence

3        Graeme Fraser - tabled document

4        Barbara Fraser - tabled document

5        Phil Green - tabled document

6        Garry and Luanne Bettelheim - tabled document

 

 

10.2       Māori Representation

Staff           Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement

 

External     Matire Duncan, Chairperson, Te Rangapu

Buddy Mikaere, Member of the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee

Warwick Lampp, Electoral Officer

 

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

 

Key points

Matire Duncan

·                Acknowledged all those in the public gallery.

·                Spoke on behalf of Te Rangapu, a collective of 17 hapu and iwi representatives in the Tauranga City Council (TCC) area.

·                Te Rangapu had established a long-standing relationship with TCC.

·                Māori representation on council would provide a decision-making component which, in turn, would strengthen the Māori voice and demonstrate true partnership.

·                If a Māori ward was established, Tauranga City would be recognised as the national leaders in local government.

·                There was a statutory obligation to provide opportunity for Māori to participate in the council decision making process.

·                Non-voting rights for tangata whenua representation on council committees was not in the spirit of partnership.

Buddy Mikaere

·                Different standards applied for Māori wards.  Following a Council decision to create a Māori ward, 5% of voters could petition for a poll to be held to confirm or not the council decision.  That poll provision had, in the past, been a death knell for Māori wards.

·                There were only two councils in New Zealand with Maori wards – Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council.

·                The Māori population of the Tauranga electorate was a little over 17%.  The national average was 14%.  Based on nearly one fifth of the electorate’s population being Māori, it was reasonable that Māori should have their own representation on council.

·                Councillors could not be expected to have a complete understanding of the Māori perspective.

Carlo Ellis

·                Tangata whenua had been working hard to put themselves in front of council to discuss issues.  There was a genuine desire to assist with the development of Tauranga Moana, of Tauranga City.

·                Council had first-hand experience of the value that could be brought around the table by having Māori representation at council committee meetings.

 

In response to questions

·                A sub-committee had been recently formed to consider how one Māori representative could reflect the aspirations and desires of the three iwi and conversations with iwi and hapu would be ongoing.

·                Agreements with tangata whenua representatives on council committees included that they agreed to abide by the Elected Members Code of Conduct.

·                Māori electors would be able to vote in the Māori ward and in the at large ward, but not in the general wards.

·                To stand for election in the Māori ward, you would need to be on the Māori roll.

·                The opportunity to move from the general roll to the Māori roll happened every five years.

·                The cost of a poll if held in conjunction with the next local body election would be approximately $20,000 to $25,000, as opposed to $216,000 for a stand-alone poll.

 

Resolution  CO22/20/3

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)       Receives the report “Māori Representation”.

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

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

carried 10/0

(b)     Approves the recommendation from the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee and agrees that voting rights be provided for the Tangata Whenua Representatives on the following Standing Committees:

·        Finance, Audit and Risk Committee

·        Policy Committee

·        Projects, Services and Operations Committee

·        Urban Form and Transport Development Committee

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

Against:           Crs Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis and John Robson

carried 8/3

(c)     Approves the recommendation from the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee and agrees to establish a Māori Ward for Tauranga City Council for the 2022 local government elections.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Bill Grainger and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Crs Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, Steve Morris and John Robson

Abstained:       Cr Dawn Kiddie

carried 6/4

Carried

Attachment

1        Presentation - Cr Jako Abrie

 

 

At 12.20pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

 

At 1pm, the meeting resumed

 

 

Item 10.4 Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services was taken next.

 

10.4       Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services

Staff           Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Cathryn Taylor, Waste Planning Manager

Sam Fellows, Manager: Environmental Regulation

 

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.

 

Key points

·                The project started in 2016 with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and its objective was to minimise waste to landfill.

·                The plan for Council to run a kerbside waste collection service to achieve that objective was shaped up, consulted on and adopted in the 2018 Long Term Plan (LTP).

·                Registration of Interest (ROI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) processes were endorsed by the Project Services and Operations Committee in 2019.

·                Following sector, stakeholder and community engagements, recommendations could now be presented to Council.  It was acknowledged that the recommendations would not suit everyone.

·                TCC had worked collaboratively with Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) on the project.  WBOPDC had voted unanimously two weeks previously to proceed with a ‘pay as you throw (PAYT)’ council run kerbside rubbish and recycling.

·                Almost 70% of the waste from kerbsides that was currently being sent to landfill could be recycled or composted.

·                TCC could offer a higher level of kerbside collection service at a lower cost to the average household than what was currently offered.

 

In response to questions

·                Although TCC had worked collaboratively with WBOPDC the final contracts would be stand alone. 

·                The PAYT service had a base rate and required the purchase of tags that would be put out with bins on collection day.

·                There would be full engagement with the community about how the chosen system would work.

·                WBOPDC’s base rate for PAYT was $140-150.  The tags were an additional cost at $3.95 per household.

·                Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology was only in use for small commercial operations of 1,000 to 5,000.  It could not yet be applied for the larger number operations such as Tauranga’s 58,000 households.

·                The living wage was a standard requirement of the contract.

·                There were service specifications to meet waste reduction targets and specific penalties built in to the contract.  The contract also contained standard clauses regarding price increases.

·                A job analysis had been done.  There would be more job creation with a circular approach, rather than with the current linear approach.

·                Councils normally had long-term contracts because the required investment and infrastructure costs of the contracts were high and contractors were able to provide a competitive price because of the length of the contract.

·                There were options for variations in the contract for things that were out of TCC’s control such as the possible Central Government nationwide container deposit scheme.

·                Many in the community were currently still using refuse stations.  The suite of services offered should increase the uptake for all options.

·                It was hard to determine what the current CO2 footprint was, but a definitive answer of what a carbon footprint would be on the new service could be provided.

 

 

Recommendations (a), (b), and (i) were then taken in parts.

Resolution  CO22/20/4

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)       Considers options in relation to kerbside waste collection services and future use of Te Maunga Resource Recovery Park and Maleme St Transfer Station as set out in this report

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

 

(i)      Resolves that the decisions made in confidential under recommendations (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are made publicly available when commercial negotiations with the preferred proposer have concluded.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

Carried

Resolution  CO22/20/5

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That recommendation (b) for this item be left to lie on the table until after the remainder of this item had been discussed in the Public Excluded session.

Carried

Attachment

1        Presentation - Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services

 

 

The meeting then moved into the Public Excluded session to continue the discussion on this item.


 

 

12          Public Excluded Session (Part 1)

Resolution  CO22/20/6

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

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

12.1 - Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services (confidential)

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

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

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

Against:           Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson

carried 9/2

Carried

 

 

At 3.50pm, the meeting resumed in the open session to conclude the discussion on item 10.4.

 

10          Business (Continued)

10.4       Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services (Continued)

Recommendation (b) for this item that had been left to lie on the table earlier in the meeting, was then put.

Resolution  CO22/20/7

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(b)       Recognises that consultation since the introduction of the Waste Management Minimisation Plan (2016) has been sufficient to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and does not undertake additional community engagement or consultation before deciding on the kerbside waste collection options outlined in the confidential report.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Crs Tina Salisbury, Andrew Hollis, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

carried 6/5

Carried

 

 

10.3       STV Electoral System

Staff           Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

External     Warwick Lampp, Electoral Officer

 

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/8

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “STV Electoral System”.

(b)     Notes the interpretation of section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the Council to give public notice by 19 September 2020 of the right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used for the election of the Tauranga City Council.

Carried

 

 

10.5       Proposal to declare Wharf Street east as a Pedestrian Mall

Staff          Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Places

 

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/9

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the submissions on the Statement of Proposal to declare part of Wharf Street East as a Pedestrian Mall; and

(b)     Declare that part of Wharf Street between Willow Street and The Strand as a Pedestrian Mall pursuant to Section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 as set out in Attachment A.

Carried

 

 

10.6       Wharf Street - Licences to Occupy

Staff           Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Places

 

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/10

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Bill Grainger

That the Council resolves, pursuant to Clause 7.3 of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018, to create a Licence to Occupy area on Wharf Street East in the area identified in Attachment B to the Bylaw (illustrated in Attachment 2).

Carried

 

 

10.7       Three Waters Sector Reform Programme and Stimulus Funding

Staff           Nic Johansson, General Manager, Infrastructure

 

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/11

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

(a)     Notes that

(i)      In July 2020, the Government announced an initial funding package of $761 million to provide a post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain and improve water networks infrastructure and to support a three-year programme of reform of local government water services delivery arrangements; and

(ii)     Initial funding will be made available to those councils that agree to participate in the initial stage of the reform programme, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Funding Agreement, and approved Delivery Plan.

(iii)     This initial funding will be provided in two parts: a direct allocation to individual territorial authorities, and a regional allocation.  The participating individual authorities in each region will need to agree an approach to distributing the regional allocation

(iv)    The Steering Committee has recommended a preferred approach to the allocation of regional funding, being the same formula as was used to determine the direct allocations to territorial authorities.

(b)     Agrees to sign the MoU at Attachment A.

(c)     Agrees to nominate Marty Grenfell, the Chief Executive of the Council as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the MoU and reform programme – as referred to on page 6 of the MoU.

(d)     Agrees to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to Marty Grenfell, the Chief Executive of the Council, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Bay of Plenty region is required to access the regional allocation.

(e)     Notes that the MoU and Funding Agreement cannot be amended or modified by either party, and in doing so would void these documents

(f)      Notes that participation in this initial stage is to be undertaken in good faith, but this is a non-binding approach, and the Council can opt out of the reform process at the end of the term of agreement (as provided for on page 5 of the MoU).

(g)     Notes that the Council has been allocated $7.46 million amount of funding, which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed MoU and Funding Agreement are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the MoU).

(h)     Notes that the Delivery Plan must show that the funding is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

(i)      supports economic recovery through job creation; and

(ii)     maintains, increases and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance

(i)      Agrees to authorising the Chief Executive to finalise the funding agreement and delivery plan to address feedback from community and obtain the approval needed to release funding.

Carried

 

 

10.8       Proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw

Staff           Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

 

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/12

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receive Amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 report.

(b)     Adopt the proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 Attachment as per Appendix B, effective from 1 September 2020.

Carried

 

 

10.9       CCO Final Statements of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23

Staff           Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

 

The report was taken as read.

 

The Mayor allowed Keegan Miller from the public gallery, to speak to this item.  Mr Keegan spoke in regards to the Bay Venues Limited (BVL) Statement of Intent, in particular about the Bay Catering and Bay Audio Visual venue-based businesses.

 

 

Key points

·                Believed that BVL should not provide catering and sound and lighting services for events that were not held in their venues, and that the provision for these should go to other local operators.

·                Believed that BVL providing these services for events outside of their venues went against Tauranga City Council Policy - Commercial Activities in Council Facilities June 2011, clause 12.5.3.

·                Requested that the words “and some off-site events and venues” be removed from the Statement of Intent for both businesses.

 

Resolution  CO22/20/13

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the CCO Final Statements of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 report.

(b)     Receives and agrees Bay Venues Limited’s final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 (Attachment 1).

(c)     Receives and agrees Tauranga Art Gallery Trust’s final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 (Attachment 2).

(d)     Receives and agrees Tourism Bay of Plenty’s final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 (Attachment 3).

(e)     Notes that Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC), as joint shareholder, approved the final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 for Tourism Bay of Plenty at their Council meeting on 13 August 2020.

Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil

 

 

At 4.30pm, the meeting returned in to the Public Excluded session.

 

12          Public Excluded Session (pART 2)

Resolution  CO22/20/14

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

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

12.2 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 30 July 2020

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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

12.3 - Recommendation from other committees - Finance, Audit & Risk Committee - 11 August 2020

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

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

12.4 - Direct Procurement of Consultancy services for Awaiti Place Flood Mitigation Project

s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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

12.5 - Direct Procurement of Holiday Cabins – Mount Beachside Holiday Park

s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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

12.6 - 2020 Tourism Bay of Plenty trustee appointment

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

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

12.7 - Chief Executive's Annual Performance Review 2019-20

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

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

Carried

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 4.42pm.

 

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 6 October 2020.

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

6.8         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 September 2020

File Number:           A11866076

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

          That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 September 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 September 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

2 September 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Wednesday, 2 September 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5          Change to the Order of Business. 3

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 4

6.1            Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 21 August 2020. 4

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

10       Business. 4

10.1          Governance Issues : Council Appointed Review and Observer Team.. 4

11       Discussion of Late Items. 7

12       Public Excluded Session. 7

1.2            Governance issues - Council appointed Review and Observer Team - Attachment 4 (Confidential) 8

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Wednesday, 2 September 2020 AT 9.30am

 

 

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

 

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor).

                                 Linda O’Reilly, Partner, Brookfields (by Skype)

                           

1            Apologies

Nil

2            Public Forum

Nil

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Resolution  CO23/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the following items be included in the agenda for consideration and decision:

10.1       Governance Issues : Council Appointed Review and Observer Team

1.2         Governance issues - Council appointed Review and Observer Team - Attachment 4 (Confidential)

Carried

 

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 August 2020

Resolution  CO23/20/2

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 August 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

10          Business

10.1       Governance Issues : Council Appointed Review and Observer Team

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

 

External    Linda O’Reilly, Partner: Brookfields

 

Key points

·         Following the resolution passed at the Council meeting of 21 August 2020, Terms of Reference had been drafted for the Council-appointed Review and Observer Team, for consideration and approval.

·         A breakdown of the budget required for the review process was included in the report and approval was sought for the unbudgeted expenditure.

·         Details of possible appointees to the Review and Observer Team were provided in the public excluded attachment to the report.

 

In response to questions

·         The Chief Executive did not consider he could provide advice regarding the Review and Observer Team being disbanded earlier than planned if issues were appropriately addressed.

·         Issues contained in an email circulated amongst councillors the previous evening could be introduced during the debate on a motion.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the estimated budget for the process and the cost to the ratepayer.  It was clarified that, even if the Department of Internal Affairs appointed their own observer team, the cost would still lie with TCC.

 

 

Resolution  CO23/20/3

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

A motion was moved that Council suspends Standing Order 21.5 to facilitate free discussion.

Carried

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Council:

(a)     Receives report “Governance Issues:  Council Appointed Review and Observer Team”.

(b)     Approves the Terms of Reference as per attachment 1. 

(c)     Approves the ‘Summary of Key Decisions’ as per attachment 2.

(d)     Transfers Resolution __________ being resolution to appoint members of the Review and Observer Team into the open section of the meeting once the appointees have been informed.

(e)     Approves unbudgeted expenditure of $350,000 for costs associated with the Council Appointed Review and Observer Team, with actual costs reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

(f)      Retain Attachment 4 of this report in the confidential section to protect the privacy of natural persons.

 

The following amendment to add a new resolution (f) was put:

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That Council:

          (f)      Will review the continuation of the Review and Observer Team following the                             submission of their first report due in four to six weeks’ time; with the first report to                   include initial findings regarding:

·         Problem definition

·         Diagnosis of cause/s of the problem

·         What does ‘success’ look like going forward?

·         Proposed action plan.

 

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

Against:           Cr Larry Baldock

carried 10/1

 

Discussion points raised

·         Discussion was held around the ability to have an “off-ramp” for the review process, to assess whether the Review and Observer Team was still required if progress was made quickly and issues resolved.  Emphasised that the operation of the Review and Observer Team was a voluntary process that Council was entering into, so Council could resolve to opt out and discontinue the process at any stage, and that this would be taken into account in appointment and contractual arrangements.

·         The funding for the Review and Observer Team was unbudgeted; the $350,000 would be a good investment if the efficiency and decision making of councillors was improved.  There had already been a significant cost to Council due to extra meetings, responding to requests under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and legal opinions.

·         Replacement of councillors could be an option; the Review and Observer Team should consider whether current councillors had the right to continue to serve the community.

·         Elected members needed to take responsibility and show leadership; their role was to serve the city and its citizens.

·         Suggested that elected members fund the cost of the Review and Observer Team themselves rather than the unbudgeted expenditure being covered by Council funds.

 

A second amendment was put:

Amendment

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That Clause 12 (e) of the Draft Terms of Reference for the Review and Observer Team be amended by the deletion of the words “other than offering guidance or advice”.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

A further amendment was put:

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That Tauranga City Council requests that the Remuneration Authority issue a new determination deducting $350,000 from the councillors’ current remuneration determination.

 

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie and Steve Morris

Against:           Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger and Heidi Hughes

Abstained:       Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson

lost 2/7

 

Discussion points raised (continued)

·         Council must pay the councillors what the Remuneration Authority determined; Council could not by resolution force a deduction or payment from an individual councillor’s salary.

·         Individuals could still donate where they saw fit; the differing levels of affordability amongst councillors was noted.

·         Concern was expressed that this could set a precedent for elected members to be held financially accountable for any lapses in governance; would be a disincentive for anyone to stand for office.

The substantive motion (as amended) was put:

Resolution  CO23/20/4

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Council:

(a)     Receives report “Governance Issues:  Council Appointed Review and Observer Team”.

(b)     Approves the Terms of Reference as per attachment 1; with the deletion of the words “other than offering guidance and advice” from Clause 12(e). 

(c)     Approves the ‘Summary of Key Decisions’ as per attachment 2.

(d)     Transfers Resolution CO__________ being the resolution to appoint members of the Review and Observer Team into the open section of the meeting once the appointees have been informed.

(e)     Approves unbudgeted expenditure of $350,000 for costs associated with the Council Appointed Review and Observer Team, with actual costs reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

(f)      Will review the continuation of the Review and Observer Team following the submission of their first report due in four to six weeks’ time; with the first report to include initial findings regarding:

·         Problem definition

·         Diagnosis of cause/s of the problem

·         What does ‘success’ look like going forward?

·         Proposed action plan.

(g)     Retain Attachment 4 of this report in the confidential section to protect the privacy of natural persons.

Carried

Resolution  CO23/20/5

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

A motion was moved that Council reinstate Standing Orders.

Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil 

12          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO23/20/6

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

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

1.2 - Governance issues - Council appointed Review and Observer Team - Attachment 4 (Confidential)

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

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

 

(b)     Permit Linda O’Reilly, Partner, Brookfields to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of her knowledge of local government law; which will assist with the discussion of Agenda Item 1.2.                                                                                  Carried

 

At 10.49am the meeting adjourned and was reconvened in public excluded session.

 

The meeting closed at 11.05am.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 6 October 2020.

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

8.1         Robin Rimmer - Petition - Welcome Bay Estuary

File Number:           A11834781

Author:                    Jenny Teeuwen, Committee Advisor

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the petition from Robin Rimmer regarding the Welcome Bay Estuary.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

8.2         Alan Crofskey - Petition - Lavender Place Tree

File Number:           A11834788

Author:                    Jenny Teeuwen, Committee Advisor

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the petition from Alan Crofskey regarding the Lavender Place tree.

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

9.1         Recommendation from other Committees - Projects, Services and Operations Committee - 23 June 2020

File Number:           A11861948

Author:                    Karen Hay, Team Leader: Cycle Plan Implementation

Authoriser:             Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to bring a recommendation from the Projects, Services & Operations Committee to Council for consideration.  At its meeting on 23 June 2020, the Committee passed the following resolution which includes a recommendation to Council.

 

8.1     Totara Street Safety Improvements

Committee Resolution  PR2/20/1

Moved:       Cr Heidi Hughes

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Projects, Services and Operations Committee:

(c)     Recommends that the Council resolves to amend the following resolutions as set out in the following attachments that are made under the bylaw: Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012.

(i)      Attachment 3:1 Shared Pedestrian / Cycle Paths & Cycle Paths (in Road Reserve), as outlined in Appendix A.

(ii)     Attachment 4.3 Special Vehicle Lanes – Cycle Lanes, as outlined in Appendix A.

 

Recommendations

That the Council adopts the resolutions as set out in Attachment 3.1 and Attachment 4.3, that are made under the bylaw: Traffic and parking Bylaw 2012.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Appendix A - Proposed Amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw - Totara Street - A11567211   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

10          Business

10.1       Temporary Alcohol Free Areas

File Number:           A11674485

Author:                    Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Kelly Schischka, Senior Event Facilitator

Jenna Quay, Events Facilitation Manager

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.   For Council to agree to, and implement the temporary alcohol-free areas set out in Attachment A.

Recommendations

That Council:

(a)     In accordance with section 147B of the Local Government Act, agrees that the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas are appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

(b)     Resolve under clause 8 of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 to implement the temporary alcohol-free areas set out in Attachment A.

(c)     Clarifies that during the period from 26 December 2019 to 6am on 6 January 2020 a temporary alcohol-free area is in place, 24 hours a day seven days a week, for:

(i)      All beaches, reserves and public places on the seaward side of Marine Parade (eastwards from its intersection of Grove Avenue to its intersection of Tweed Street);

(ii)     Omanu Surf Club and car park area; and

(iii)     Waiariki Street

 

BACKGROUND

2.   The purpose of the Alcohol Control Bylaw (the ‘Bylaw’) is to control the consumption of alcohol in public places to reduce alcohol related harm. The Bylaw sets out permanent alcohol-free areas.

3.   Clause 8 of the Bylaw states Council may, by resolution, prohibit the consumption, bringing and possession of alcohol on or in a public place for a time period and/or event specified in that resolution (‘temporary alcohol-free area’).

4.   Each year temporary alcohol-free areas are put in place around a number of community events across the city. This supports the Police and helps minimise alcohol related harm at and around these events.

DISCUSSION

5.   Six temporary alcohol-free areas are proposed (Attachment A). These are supported by the NZ Police (see Attachment C).


 

Summer period

6.       A temporary alcohol-free area is proposed between 9pm and 7am, seven days a week, effective from 25 October 2020 until 5 April 2021, for:

·    All beaches, reserves and public places on the seaward side of Marine Parade (eastwards from its intersection of Grove Avenue), Oceanbeach Road and Maranui Street.

·    Surf Road.

7.       This area has been an alcohol-free area over the past two summer periods. It was first put in place in 2018 in response to evidence from the Police. There were 14 calls of service in this area between October 2018 and November 2018. Community feedback from some residents also reported alcohol related disorder.

8.       During the period of the ban, there were two calls of service to the Police. Police reported that the temporary ban had the desired effect and assisted when calls for service were received.

9.       Last summer when the ban was in place, there were 40 alcohol related calls for services to the Police. Over 40 percent of these occurred between 9pm and 6am. This indicates that there is still a need for this area to be alcohol-free again this summer.

10.     Police support the proposed temporary alcohol ban as it provides them with an early intervention tool to help reduce alcohol related crime and disorder in this area.

11.     There is some overlap in the alcohol-free areas within Schedule 2 of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 and the alcohol-free areas specified above.

12.     To avoid any confusion and clarify the conditions of the alcohol-free areas for the community, it is recommended that Council resolve that:

During the New Year period a temporary alcohol-free area is in place 24 hours a day seven days for;

·    All beaches, reserves and public places on the seaward side of Marine Parade (eastwards from its intersection of Grove Avenue to its intersection of Tweed Street);

·    Omanu Surf Club and car park area; and

·    Waiariki Street.

13.    This clarifies that the New Year’s 24-hour ban supersedes the summertime and permanent night-time bans over the New Year period.

New Year period

14.    Three temporary alcohol-free areas are proposed over the New Year period:

·    Fergusson Park

·    Gordon Spratt Reserve, Alice Way and Parton Road

·    Tauranga Racecourse Reserve

15.    To support the Police at Council’s New Year’s Eve (NYE) community celebrations, a temporary alcohol-free area is sought at Fergusson Park including Tilby Drive from the intersection of Tainui Street and Waratah Street (all inclusive) from 10am, 31 December 2020 to 6am, 1 January 2021.

16.    A temporary alcohol-free area is sought for Gordon Spratt Reserve and Alice Way (all inclusive) and Parton Road (between Tara Road and Papamoa Beach Road) from 10am, 31 December 2020 to 6am, 4 January 2021. This will support Police operations at Council’s NYE community celebration that will be held within the reserve.

17.    Gordon Spratt Reserve and Parton Road will also be a drop and ride location for the Bay Dreams Music Festival held at Trustpower Arena and Baypark stadium on 3 January 2021. To support the Police operations at this event the proposed temporary alcohol-free area extends until 6am, 4 January 2021.

18.    A temporary alcohol-free area is proposed at Tauranga Racecourse Reserve from 10am, 31 December 2020 to 6am, 1 January 2021 during the Council’s NYE community celebrations to support the NZ Police and minimise any potential alcohol related crime and disorder.

19.    Council’s NYE community celebration for Tauranga CBD will be held within a permanent alcohol-free area, so a temporary alcohol-free area is not required.

20.    Council’s NYE community celebration at Blake Park will be held within an existing New Year period alcohol-free area, as outlined in Schedule 2 of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018.

Identified events

21.    Police have had challenges managing public disorder related to attendees arriving and leaving the annual Bay Dreams Music Festival held at Trustpower Arena and Baypark Stadium in early January.

22.    Numerous issues have occurred with attendees consuming alcohol in nearby streets prior to entering the event. In 2017, there was a serious accident on State Highway 2 where an intoxicated person ran out on front of a vehicle and sustained serious injuries.

23.    A temporary alcohol-free area, covering the streets identified in Table One below, is proposed for 10am, 1 January 2021 to 6am, 4 January 2021, to help support the NZ Police during the Bay Dreams event. The proposed area also covers the drop and ride location at Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology.

Table One: Proposed alcohol-free area for the Bay Dreams Music Festival

Girven Road

From Gloucester Road to Maunganui Road

Maunganui Road

From Girven Road to State Highway 2

State Highway 2/Te Maunga Lane

From Maunganui Road to Sandhurst Drive

Truman Lane

All inclusive

Mangatawa Link Road

All inclusive

State Highway 29A

From Truman Lane to Maunganui Road/Te Maunga Lane (including the roundabouts)

Gloucester Road

From Lotus Avenue to Girven Road

Oceandowns Way

All inclusive

Oceandowns Reserve

All inclusive

Eversham Road

All inclusive

Tudor Place

All inclusive

Palliser Place

All inclusive

Harrow Place

All inclusive

Exeter Street

All inclusive

Lambeth Terrace

All inclusive

Dover Place

All inclusive

Weymouth Place

All inclusive

Eversham Road Reserve

All inclusive

Kingsley Place

All inclusive

Penrhyn Place

All inclusive

Ernie Way

All inclusive

Hadleigh Reserve

All inclusive

Denny Hulme Drive

All inclusive

Chamberlain Place

All inclusive

Francevic Avenue

All inclusive

Radisch Place

All inclusive

Lasiandra Place

All inclusive

Villa Way

All inclusive

Windermere Drive

All inclusive

 

24.    Soper Reserve will host a number of concerts over the summer period. To support NZ Police operations during these events, a temporary alcohol-free area is proposed to cover Soper Reserve and Newton Street between Hull Road and Hewletts Road from:

·    10am, 7 December 2020 to 6am, 13 January 2021;

·    10am, 27 February 2021 to 6am, 28 February 2021; and

·    10am, 6 March 2021 to 6am, 7 March 2021.

25.    In the past, the NZ Police have experienced a number of occurrences of event attendees pre-loading in close proximity to events. This has resulted in antisocial and inappropriate behaviour. The serious accident that occurred in 2017 nearby the Bay Dreams Music Festival is one example.

26.    The NZ Police also report that previously implemented alcohol-free areas at and nearby events have contributed to reduced incidents of alcohol related harm (see Attachment C). This also provides further evidence for the proposed alcohol-free areas.

27.    In accordance with the legislation, the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas are proportionate responses and place reasonable limitations of people’s rights and freedoms. The time periods for the proposed alcohol-free areas reflect the time period of concern for alcohol related crime and disorder.

Strategic / Statutory Context

28.    Restricting alcohol consumption in areas where alcohol has caused or is likely to cause alcohol-related crime or disorder supports Council’s Community Outcome of a Safe and Resilient Community.

Options Analysis

Option 1: Approve the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas

29.    Council approves the implementation of the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas to support the NZ Police to minimise alcohol harm in the community.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    NZ Police better enabled to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder in public places over the summer period, NYE and the other identified events.

·    NZ Police provided with an additional tool to assist in the provision of a safer environment for the community.

·    The community can enjoy a safer environment in these areas and when attending community events.

·    Some residents and visitors may view the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas as being too restrictive.

 

Recommended: Yes

Option 2: Maintain the status quo

30.    The proposed temporary alcohol-free areas are not approved by Council.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Nil

·   The authority of the NZ Police to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder in public places on the night of NYE, over the summer period and identified events is restricted.

·   There may be a serious incident(s) in the high-risk areas highlighted by the NZ Police as a result of intoxication.

 

Recommended: No

Financial Considerations

Option 1: Approve the proposed temporary alcohol free areas

          Capex:       Not applicable.

Opex:         Approximately $2,000 to cover the costs associated with additional notification signage has been included within existing budgets. 

Option 2: Maintain the status quo

Capex:        Not applicable.

Opex:         Not applicable.

Legal Implications / Risks

Option 1: Approve the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas

31.    Negative media coverage (reputational risk) if some members of the community believe Council is being too restrictive.

Option 2: Maintain the status quo

32.    Negative media coverage (reputational risk).

33.    Increased alcohol harm and public disorder in areas that could have been subject to a temporary alcohol ban.

34.    Risk of serious incident(s) as a result of intoxication in areas that could have been subject to a temporary alcohol ban.

Consultation / Engagement

35.    All residents in the proposed alcohol-free areas will be informed by letter or email if Council decides to implement the proposed alcohol-free areas.

Significance

36.    Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter of alcohol-free areas is of medium significance.

37.    As clause 8 of the Bylaw provides Council with the power to put in place temporary alcohol-free areas public consultation is not required. Public consultation was carried out when the Bylaw was developed.

Next Steps

38.    In accordance with the Bylaw, public notice will be given prior to the temporary alcohol-free areas taking effect. Maps and information on all temporary alcohol-free areas will also be available on Council’s website.

39.    Residents along the streets of the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas will be informed of the restriction by letter or email.

40.    In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), Council will erect signs to inform people of the temporary alcohol-free area. This will ensure NZ Police can exercise the power of search under the LGA.

Attachments

1.       Attachment A - Proposed Alcohol Free Area For Summer 2020-21 - A11829466

2.       Attachment B - Map of Proposed Temporary Alcohol Free Area For Coastal Strip - A11834577

3.       Attachment C - NZ Police Request For Temporary Alcohol-Free Areas For Identified Events 2020-21 - A11690684   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

10.2       Totara Street Safety Improvements - Update

File Number:           A11875177

Author:                    Karen Hay, Team Leader: Cycle Plan Implementation

Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Authoriser:             Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide Council an update on the consultation feedback on the proposed design for Totara Street.

2.       To seek endorsement of the Totara Street Safety Improvements preliminary design.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Totara Street Safety Improvements – Update report

(b)     Endorses the preliminary design as attached in Appendix B

(c)     Supports the project proceeding to detail design and that final cost estimates and the business case be referred to the Projects, Services and Operations Committee 27th October meeting for approval.

 

Executive Summary

3.       Totara Street is complex with a variety of needs.  This project is aiming to achieve a balance between the need for improved safety and the needs of many road users and businesses on Totara Street.

4.       The Transport System Plan is tasked with prioritising road users for various corridors.  Totara Street is identified as a high priority for freight and people biking.  Long term options for implementation will considered within the next four to 10 years.

5.       In the meantime, cycle and heavy vehicle conflict is of primary concern.  The proposal seeks to provide improved safety that reduces that risk.

6.       The project has a high level of interest by the local community, business, users of Totara Street and key stakeholders.

7.       As a result of feedback, some changes have been able to be accommodated including:

(a)     Removal of the signals north of Hewletts and incorporating a signalised crossing at the Hewletts Road intersection.

(b)     Retaining the left turn lane at Rata Street to support Port and future reinstatement of cruise ship operations.

(c)     Improving safety with signalised crossings at Hull, Triton and further enhancements at Waimarie intersection.

(d)     Pedestrian facilities for a safer crossing to access retail precinct between Triton and Hull.

8.       Should the Council resolve the project to proceed, staff will finalise cost estimates and the business case for consideration by the Projects, Services and Operations Committee (PSOC) at its meeting on 27 October 2020.

 

Background

9.       At the PSOC meeting on 23 June, the Committee resolved:

(a)     A shared path on the eastern alignment of Totara Street between Hewlett’s Road to north of Dominion Salt.

(b)     Options for a crossing facility at the intersection of Hewletts Road and Totara Street required further investigation and agreement with Waka Kotahi.

(c)     Endorsed a two-way cycleway on the port side south of Kawaka to Rata Street, and a shared path along Rata Street connecting to Nikau Crescent.  A signalised crossing would be provided south of Kawaka Street.

(d)     Endorses in principle and supports staff working through options with Waka Kotahi:

(i)      Option D – Totara Street between Hewlett’s Road to north of Dominion Salt, noting that changes may occur following consultation and finalising intersection arrangements to provide the best solution for the community.

(ii)     Option E – Between north of Dominion Salt and Coronation Park for delivery in FY 2022 annual plan, subject to consultation and engagement on the proposal.

(e)     Endorses $4m be brought forward from the FY2022 Annual Plan to expedite delivery of Phase 1 Hewletts Road and north of Dominion Salt.

(f)      Endorses $2.96m be brought forward from the FY2023 financial year to complete the project by delivery Phase 2 north from Dominion Salt to Coronation Park.

10.     The final endorsement of the preferred option would be subject to:

(a)     Business case endorsement by Council and Waka Kotahi.

(b)     Consultation with stakeholders and affected businesses, the outcomes of which would be considered by Councillors, prior to implementation.

(c)     Deciding on the preferred crossing facility at the Hewletts Road intersection.

11.     The cycle model identified a large catchment of people biking that utilise Totara Street, identified as being north of Tweed Street.  People biking access Totara Street via Blake Park, Matai Street, Puriri Street and Rata Street. 

12.     An indication of the catchment and associated travel times is outlined below:

 

Map

Description automatically generated

13.     The Tauranga cycle model outlines the potential uptake and use of Totara Street.  It is noted that the on-road cycle counters regularly record around 100 more daily northbound cyclists that southbound cyclists.  A one-off manual survey at Hewletts Road intersection suggested that many southbound cyclists are choosing to cycle on the existing footpaths instead.

14.     Should this be the case, cycle volumes on Totara Street may be in the order of 100 daily cyclists higher than those shown in Table 1 below:

 

Table

Description automatically generated

Strategic / Statutory Context

15.     This project aligns with:

(a)     New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy, Road to Zero, which has a vision for New Zealand where no-one is killed or seriously injured in road crashes.  The Road to Zero strategy builds on, and is guided by, the Safe System approach.

(b)     The Safe System is the international standard in road safety.  It recognises that people make mistakes and are vulnerable in a crash.  It reduces the price paid for a mistake, so crashes don’t result in loss of life or limb.  Mistakes are inevitable – deaths and serious injuries from crashes are not.

(c)     Tauranga City’s Accessible Streets programme which focuses on developing a safe, accessible, and connected cycling network to improve road safety, increase safe cycling access, and provide greater transport choice.  This is underpinned by the principal of building a network for all ages and abilities.

Options Analysis

Hewletts Road and Totara Intersection Options

16.     Three options were considered for the intersection of Hewletts Road and Totara Street intersection.  These include:

(a)     Option 1 – provision of an additional pedestrian/cycle crossing 100m north of Hewletts Road

(b)     Option 2 – Signalise the Hewletts Road left turn slip lane with a staged crossing across Totara Street.

(c)     Option 3 – Connect across Hewletts Road behind the fertilizer works on to the Harbour bridge.

17.     The proposed crossing north of Hewletts (Option 1) is the least preferred option.

18.     The impacts of options for the peak hour travel time along Hewletts Road eastbound (Chapel Street to Totara Street) and Totara Street southbound (from Hull Street to Hewletts Road) is shown below for the PM peak.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

19.     Option 1 and Option 2 both have an impact on the SH network.  Signalising the left turn slip lane has a greater impact on the travel time, with an increase of  ̴ 1.7 minutes over the existing layout, compared with  ̴ 1.1 minutes for the midblock crossing for the overall approach.  An increase in the left turn travel time from Chapel Street of  ̴ 1.3 minutes and  ̴ 2.3 minutes for Option 1 and Option 2 respectively is predicted by the model.

20.     The figure below shows and indicative ‘back of queue’ length of 1650m for the 2018 base scenario, 1900m (+250m) for Option 1 and 2150m (+500m) for Option 2.  It should be noted this is likely to be a worst-case scenario.

 

Map

Description automatically generated

21.     The benefits of signalising the left turn slip lane at the Hewletts Road intersection is that it provides benefit for both pedestrians and cyclists that use Hewletts Road or Totara Street to access the harbour bridge.

22.     Signalising the left turn slip lane doesn’t have any impact on the Totara Street southbound travel time.  The midblock crossing causes and increase in the Totara Street southbound travel time of ̴ 0.4 minutes.

23.     Option C which means all people biking are encouraged to cross Totara Street does not have significant negative impact on the performance of the network but does not provide direct access for people to access the Harbour Bridge for both Hewletts Road and Totara Street users.

24.     Waka Kotahi supports the preferred option of signalising the Hewletts Road left turn slip lane to enable safe crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, acknowledging that trade-offs with other modes of transport in order to support multi-modal choices.

25.     Waka Kotahi noted that this is not an endorsement/approval of NLTF funding, for which the business case needs to be completed and assessed before NLTF funding can be confirmed.

 

Shared path on the western alignment (Port Side of Totara Street)

26.     People requested that the alignment of the shared path on the Port side be reconsidered.  People felt that this alignment provides direct access to the Harbour Bridge with the need to cross Totara street kept to a minimum.

27.     This option, regrettably, cannot be accommodated as Kiwirail do not permit a crossing where the tracks cross due to the mechanical nature of the turnout of the facility.  This is a matter that cannot be avoided, unless grade separation is provided at significant cost.  This means that a crossing facility will need to be provided ahead of the railway tracks to the eastern alignment.

28.     The government’s Cycle Safety Action plan recommends that in high density freight routes populate with cyclists that left turn movements for heavy vehicles needs clear intervention strategies to mitigate cyclists being lost in the blind zone of a large vehicle  Truck drivers have very limited visibility to their left, and immediately in front of their vehicle.  There is a need for people biking and truck drivers to be more aware of these challenges and work together to mitigate these risks.  The graphic below gives an indication of this:

Diagram

Description automatically generated

29.     Staff have reviewed current access arrangements for heavy vehicles on Totara street.  The information has been solicited from business operators.

Table

Description automatically generated

 

30.     Heavy vehicle truck movements on the port alignment is 292 compared with 147 on the eastern alignment.  An estimated 212 daily left turn movements occur on the port alignment compared with 50 on the eastern alignment.

31.     80% of all business do not support a shared path on the port alignment due to higher number of heavy vehicles accessing premises resulting in conflict between heavy vehicles and people biking.  This option was not supported by Port of Tauranga, given the main Port entrance at the Hull Road intersection.

Financial Considerations

32.     The initial cost estimate for the project is $6.98m with an estimated BCR of between 2.5 and 3.1.  The impact of providing a crossing at the Hewletts Road slip lane was evaluated, resulting in a reduction from 2.57 to 2.44.

33.     Contingent on Council resolving to progress with the preliminary design, the business case, costs and associated BCR will be tabled at 27 October PSOC meeting for endorsement.

Legal Implications / Risks

34.     The following key risks are identified.

(a)     The project and associated funding is yet to be approved by Waka Kotahi for implementation.  Until Waka Kotahi funding is secured, the cost of progressing detailed design to expedite the project is at Council’s risk.

Consultation / Engagement

35.     We met with directly affected businesses, 1000 letters were sent to residents and feedback invited from key stakeholders.

36.     Online information focused around a dedicated webpage, which included:

(a)     Background to the project

(b)     Concept plans

(c)     An online feedback form

37.     237 submissions were received.  194 (82%) supported safety improvements.  85 (36%) supported the cycleway with suggestions on how the design could be improved.  66 (28%) suggested alternative solutions and 42 (18%) disagreed.

38.     In response to the survey, road users identified how they use Totara Street.  The graph below provides an indication from different users’ perspectives on their views of the proposal. 

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

39.     Key themes of those agreed or agreed with suggestions included:

(a)     The project should be delivered now

(b)     Would like to bike, but don’t currently feel safe

(c)     A separate facility would improve safety

40.     While the majority of people were supportive of improving safety on Totara Street, the key concerns relating to the preferred option are:

(a)     Utilise the Port side

(b)     Crossing twice

(c)     Increase lane widths and/or provide additional lanes for traffic to help ease congestion

(d)     Maintain on road cycle lanes

(e)     Additional traffic lights cause congestion

41.     Of those that disagreed, the key concerns are:

(a)     Do not believe that Council should invest in Totara Street for a minority of users or;

(b)     An alternative route for cyclists should be provided or;

(c)     Totara Street requires additional lanes to enhance freight operations before provision of cycling facilities.

42.     No suggestions were received from the wider public around the design north of Dominion Salt to Coronation Park.

 

Key stakeholders

43.     The following stakeholders were contacted by email in July 2020.

(a)     Bay of Plenty Regional Council

(b)     Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

(c)     Ngāi Tukairangi and Ngāti Kuku

(d)     Bay of Plenty District Health Board

(e)     Bike Tauranga

(f)      Sustainable Business Network

(g)     Port of Tauranga

(h)     Road Freight Association

(i)      NZ Police

44.     The mana whenua for this area are Ngāi Tukairangi and Ngāti Kuku.  The project team has worked collaboratively with them to uphold the Tauranga Moana design principles in the development of the previous Totara proposed design.  The project will continue to work with them around this proposal for opportunities to incorporate, where possible, the cultural elements in the design.

45.     The Bay of Plenty Regional Council is supportive of the change.  They have requested that staff work closely with them should the project proceed.  This includes the review of construction timeframes and traffic management plans, to enable timetable scheduling changes, if needed.

46.     The Bay of Plenty District Health Board is supportive of the changes with suggestions outlined below.

(a)     Provide a signalised crossing for Totara Street at the Hewletts Road end (option B)

(b)     That the slip lane in to Waimarie Street be removed

(c)     Supports priority for cyclists and pedestrians at intersections, but suggests the crossings be placed closer to the intersection that provided a more direct and convenient place for people to cross.

(d)     The Bay of Plenty DHB is supportive of Council making it legal for people to ride on the footpath as an interim measure, but this must not result in any delay in implementing a solution as soon as possible.

(e)     The DHB has similar safety concerns for people cycling around much of the remainder of Tauranga City and, therefore, suggests that Council makes it legal to ride a bike on other footpaths, too.

47.     The Port of Tauranga (POT) is “strongly support of any measures to make the pubic roads in Tauranga City safer and easier to use for all road users.  Service levels for road vehicles on Totara Street are currently sub-optimal.  Roading upgrades are required to improve service levels on Totara Street.  This specifically requires an upgrade to the intersection of the corner of Totara Street and Hewletts Road.  In addition to this, upgrades/widening on Totara Street, between Hull and Hewletts Roads, is required.  Before specific upgrades to cycle lanes are undertaken, a comprehensive design solution needs to be developed”.

48.     In relation to the specific design, POT have made the following points:

(a)     The potential impacts of the signalised crossing, particularly at Hull Road

(b)     Removal of the left turn lane into Rata Street and the crossing into Nikau Crescent being too close to the Port entrance.

(c)     Options have been presented to POT for consideration.  Changes have been made to the design that include retaining the left turn at Rata and reconfiguring the crossing arrangements close to Nikau Crescent.

49.     The mechanism by which Totara Street, Hewletts Road and the surrounding network will consider movement of freight is through the Western Bay sub region Transport System Plan project.  The first stage of the project comprises the development of a System Operating Framework (SOF).  The SOF has identified Totara Street as a primary route for both freight and cycling.  It has also identified operating gaps in relation to the level of service provided to both of those modes now and increasing in the future.  The currently developing SSBC-lite is a short-term focussed activity to address immediate safety issues for cyclists.  The TSP identifies a SSBC for the longer-term improvement required to address the identified issues, this is currently programmed for ‘business case and design’ in 2020-23, and the implementation to follow in the 2024-30 period.

50.     NZ Police are supportive of separating people biking from trucks.  Their main concern relates to the crossing north of Hewletts Road.  In alignment with the DHB, their preference is that the crossing at Hewletts Road should be utilised; and, if possible, the crossings should be placed closer to the intersections.  Staff will continue to work with NZ Police through the design process.

51.     Bike Tauranga have been providing excellent feedback on the design.  They prefer the crossings at Hull and Triton be closer to the intersection or have the intersections signalised.  Their preference would be to have increased priority at Rata Street.

Wider community feedback

52.     Of the 237 submissions, 205 were received from the wider community.  While the majority agreed that safety improvements are needed, 29% provided alternative suggestions on the proposed design.

53.     Those that disagreed indicated that investment should not be for the minority of users, that alternative routes should be used and concerns with the negative impacts on traffic the proposal may bring.  A submission believed the current temporary works to be unsafe.

 

Feedback summary from the wider community.

Feedback from the wider community

205

%

Agree

40

20

Agree with suggestions

72

35

Alternative suggestions

59

29

Disagree

34

17

 

Key Themes

Staff Response

Maintain the shared path on the Port Side

·  This would seem the most sensible solution with the advantage being that this option precludes the need for people to cross Totara to access the eastern alignment.

·  This option, regrettably, cannot be accommodated as Kiwirail do not permit a crossing where the tracks cross due to the mechanical nature of the turnout of the facility.

·  80% of businesses do not support facilities on the Port side, due to large potential for conflict with heavy vehicles.

·  An independent safety audit identified the eastern alignment a matter of significant safety risk.

·  Some land purchase will be required, at the intersection of Maui and Astrolobe.

·  Port land commences 19 metres from the intersection of Hull Road entrance, hence a facility at this location is likely to encroach on Port land.

The impact of the traffic signals north of Hewletts Road

·  Please refer to options for Hewletts Road intersection.

Maintain on-road cycle lanes

Cyclists do not wish to cross twice

·  There are different needs for people who bike.  The “strong and fearless” riders are likely to bike regardless of the road and traffic conditions.

·  They have usually learned by long experience how best to interact assertively with traffic.  Research indicates around 6% to 10% of riders fit in this category.

·  While the on-road facilities are discouraged, intersection markings have been maintained.

·  The interested and concerned riders would prefer a safe separated facility that caters more for all ages and abilities.  These include people cycling to work, recreational riders and those less experienced.

·  These riders are likely to accept a higher level of safety above some inconvenience.

·  The project is seeking to support the interested but concerned riders by providing a high level if safety separate from traffic.

·  A research report on factors affecting cycling levels of service was undertaken.  For signalised crossings there was some evidence of variation by experience level, with intermediate riders rating signalised pedestrian and cyclist crossings highly, while expert riders rated them low.  Feedback from riders suggested that those with higher experience levels would prefer to join vehicle traffic for a quick crossing than face a relatively long delay by using the crossing.  In contrast, less experienced riders were happy to trade off time for a safe crossing separated from vehicle traffic.

 

Businesses directly affected by the proposed work

54.     79% of directly affected business are in support of the project, with Z energy not supporting the Port side for safety reasons.  Three businesses were not in support of the proposal and preferred the alignment on the Port side or not at all.

Directly affected businesses

19

%

Agree

3

16

Agree with suggestions

12

63

Alternative suggestions

1

5

Disagree

3

16

 

 

Key Themes

Staff Response

Loss of parking

Some landlords would like the opportunity to upgrade frontages and work with the contractor to implement changes

Request for bike parking to support patrons

Some business operators blocking Ashworth Lane, negatively impacting on access for customers to local retail area

·  We will support businesses with proposed parking layouts to maximise parking.

·  Parking layouts to be delivered as part of the project.

·  We will support landlords to facilitate works being undertaken to upgrade the frontages of some of the properties at the landlord’s cost

·  Some bike racks will be provided

·  Broken yellow lines implemented on Ashworth Lane and, if needed, enforcement undertaken.

Dominion Salt support safety first for both drivers and people biking.

Dominion Salt have offered to utilise the site for a trial of flashing lights that would be evaluated to determine its effectiveness

·  Staff are delighted at the opportunity to trial the effectiveness of the flashing lights and appreciate the support from Dominion Salt.

Technical considerations of access to and from business including offsets of the shared path to maximise driver visibility

·  Each of these will be considered as part of the design process with follow up meetings with businesses to finalise arrangements.

 

80% of local businesses including Z energy that provided feedback on the proposed cycleway in 2018 preferred that it be located on the eastern side of Totara Street only.  This is expressly due to the concern regarding the high number of driveways with large truck movements on the Port side, compared with the eastern side.

·  Staff were fortunate to have the opportunity to be driven around the area in a fuel tanker to see first-hand the challenges that are prevalent for truck drivers.

·  Staff are recommending option B, signalising the slip lane at Hewletts Road that will mitigate the concerns raised.

 

55.     We committed to deliver mitigation strategies to improve safety for truck drivers and people biking.  Mitigation strategies include setting back the crossing point 4m back from the road to maximise visibility for truck drivers and where high truck movements exist, the utilisation of activated warning signs will be installed.

 

A picture containing map

Description automatically generated

56.     Dominion Salt have offered to set up their driveway as a trial site.  This site enables users and council to evaluate the effectiveness of the driveway safety interventions that include activated warning signs.

57.     Feedback from truck drivers, people biking and car drivers accessing the site could evaluate the perception of the level of safety that these interventions bring.  Quantitative evaluation will also be undertaken through utilisation of CCTV recordings.  The results will be reported to Council and Waka Kotahi for consideration for use in similar, challenging environments. 

58.     We wish to formally acknowledge the leadership shown by Dominion Salt for their efforts in safety and support for the wellbeing of truck drivers, people biking and the community.

 

Business operators utilising Totara Street

Feedback from other businesses

10

%

Agree

1

10

Agree with suggestions

1

10

Alternative suggestions

3

30

Disagree

5

50

 

59.     Businesses that did not support the proposal indicated that Council should provide a comprehensive solution prior to progressing safety improvements now, or that money should be spend on the main user being vehicles, rather than the minority user.

60.     The suggestion of those expressing concern with the current design is to utilise the crossing at Hewletts Road, rather than additional signals north of Totara Street.

Significance

61.     Under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014, the proposal is likely to be of high significance with a high level of local resident, business, iwi, public and stakeholder interest.

Next Steps

62.     Should the Council resolve to endorse the revised design, the business case and associated costs will be finalised for endorsement at the PSOC meeting on 27 October 2020.

Attachments

1.       Appendix A Feedback Totara Street Safety Improvements - A11850981

2.       Appendix B Totara Street - Preferred Alignment Preliminary Design Plans - A11866086   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

6 October 2020

 

 

1

Feedback Via Website

Agree

No I think it sounds great.

2

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I suppose a safer bike path along Totara street

3

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Long overdue. Very excited to be able to safely cycle to work!

4

Feedback Via Website

Agree

It all looks great

5

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I think this is an awesome idea

6

Feedback Via Website

Agree

No, I think it is really good and fully support it.

7

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Sounds like a great idea and will make cycling in the area much safer

8

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I really feel sorry for those poor saps on bicycles and scooters down Totara. The average lack of consideration given to them by the average car and truck driver is appalling. If they were separated even i might dust off the push bike.

9

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Some permanent upgrades to cycle ways citywide need to be a priority, rather than temporary patch-ups here and there. If the council is truly committed to reducing traffic congestion and climate change then cycle paths should be planned before roads, not as an afterthought.

10

Feedback Via Website

Agree

This is desperately needed! Near misses all the time biking along Totara Street at rush hour.

11

Feedback Via Website

Agree

A grass area in between the road and cyclists/pedestrians to increase distances from vehicles. This would increase safety and reduce emissions inhaled by those using the foot/cycle path.

12

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Get it done NOW! What are you waiting for? More people to die? Democracy only works if you're in the majority (ie car drivers in this situation). Come on, make the tough call and get this done. For people's health, for the planet (reduce pollution), and to avoid more deaths. Enough faffing about council. I'm just glad Tauranga City Council wasn't handling our COVID response. You'd still be deciding what to do while people died.

13

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I would like to bike, I live 3km from Ballance and should be able to bike safely everyday - the road is filled with cars with single occupancy, the trucks are revolting, the buses aren't much better.  I don't want just painted green on the road, but a safe footpath with curb path for people to bike, walk on.  Thanks

14

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Separate vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists.  The most dangerous section is when heading from the mount to Tauranga, approaching the Hewletts rd lights. Even if you ride on the small footpath you need to cross over three lanes of traffic to join the cycle way to get over the harbour bridge. Any new cycle way needs to be on the port side of totara st.  Continue to progress the specific walking / biking tracks from Tauranga to the mount, bayfair and airport. 

15

Feedback Via Website

Agree

do it! Much needed

16  to 38

Feedback Via Website

Agree

No additional  comments 23 submissions

39

Feedback Via Website

Agree

The design sounds wonderful.   I work at the bike shop on Totara street and see everyday just how beneficial this cycle lane could be.

40

Feedback Via Website

Agree

just get it done, you have been procrastinating since 2015.

41

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I submitted a message the last time I was asked about safety measures being proposed for Totara Street cycle lanes back in 2016-17. In it, I said that someone will die on the road if Council does nothing. Subsequently, the proposed changes to the road were shelved and someone was killed. I rode through the exact spot just an hour earlier that day and had my heart set racing as a truck speed past me to beat the lights. I would like to propose that Council actually goes through with the changes this time, no matter the opinion of the motorists and business owners in the area—when their cars collide with our bikes, they don't die, we do. Look about the grass verges on Totara Street and you'll see cycle tracks carved so deep  that grass will never grow there again. It shouldn't have taken a death to prompt these changes, only eyeballs. So here's what else I would like you to consider (for future projects): when you're not sure what to do – because you're caught between two different opinions and money is at stake – do the right thing.

42

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Put in more planting so that it has greater green feel and visual amenity   Get Regional Council to put in more clean air monitors and ban methyl bromide use on Mount wharves near Totara st  so no risk to Totara st bikers and walkers

43

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

As a rider who joins Totara at Hull Road and rides over the harbour bridge and what I see daily - I think people will always attempt to cross over to the opposite side of the road if traffic is crawling along Totara, to avoid stopping at a signalised crossing. The perceived danger is not enough to deter this movement.    I also think that a separated shared path is awesome from a maintenance point of view - the amount of flats I've had from swarf on Totara St is immense! Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback.

44

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Need to ensure access to/from side roads give way to bikes & pedestrians.

45

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Education for local private vehicle users, soft traffic calming measures, maintain the shared paths right of way at intersections, reducing the corner radii for slower vehicle speeds, reduce vehicle volumes of HGVs on Totara Street by rerouting to Tasman Quay, consider a width of 4m as 3m would be barely enough for two-way cycle let alone pedestrians. Consider pedestrian island or median strip at bus stops on the Port Side (currently unacceptable), improve street lighting. Consider that this design still priorities vehicles. Consider a cycle lane on one side of the street for ease of movement .

46

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Is the signal crossing they will install near the Hewletts road end necessary? Why not have cyclists/pedestrians etc cross the the east side of Totora street at the traffic lights already in place at the intersection of Totora and Hewletts?     Space is tight between the Ford dealer and Totora st but if you utilized the footpath and existing cycle lanes (there’s actually 2 cycle lanes heading south on Totora that could be used) you could have a 2.5m wide path, for about 50m then widen it out to the planned size once past the Ford dealer.     This might ease traffic congestion and improve flow not having to stop twice in such a short distance.   

47

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Bike paths need to have a number of features to make them appealing and useable for bike commuters and cyclists. They need to be: separate and safe from traffic; direct and efficient; have minimal obstacles / turns / stops. If riding the bike path makes it too slow then you won’t get but in from cyclists and cycle commuters who want to get to their destination efficiently

48

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Many cyclists, especially those with experience will not be keen use a cycleway which crosses the road with stop lights. If the proposed cycleway narrows the actual road then this might be even more dangerous. Just something to consider.

49

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Crossing at hull rd, left turning vehicles down side streets to to Tara, can be very busy during peak times.

50

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

safer crossings and more space for bikes

51

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

People on bikes are trying to get from A-B efficiently as possible, the designs constantly have the cyclists turning away from intersections adding distance. The dutch have better models on how to integrate cycle ways and round abouts.    Like how cycle way is back from the road but unless there is enough space for cars to pull off the road and stop before cycle way you will end up with accidents. Remember cyclist and ebikes happily travel at 30+ km/hr    Remove slip lane.

52

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Physical barrier between cyclist and the road, Christchurch has done a fantastic job of this. I used to cycle everywhere in chch but don't quite feel as safe here

53

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The only reason I don't cycle is my fear of dying on totara Street.  Crossing roads and junction entrances is dangerous on bikes, lots of cyclists don't look or pay attention although lots do. I feel the 2 way cycle way all the way to Hewlett Road would be more appropriate and save junction crossings.

54

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Implementing a safer cycle way on Totara is well-overdue and incredibly important for Tauranga City residents' health and wellbeing, as well as reducing motor traffic and carbon emissions from cars.  As a doctor working at Tauranga hospital, we too frequently see cyclists injured or killed due to inadequate cycle ways.   A large barrier to many BOPDHB employees cycling to work from the Mount  is the extremely dangerous route along Totata Street.

55

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Nothing to add to the interim design, but has any thought been given to creating a cycle path from Hewlett's rd to Hull rd using the land alongside the existing rail line which parallels Tasman Quay, as this line is not highly used and rail land seems to be the preferred option in many overseas cities . Cyclists could then exit onto Totara st at Hull rd where the traffic is greatly reduced or create another cycle lane on the Western side to Rata st.

56

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How bikes get from the cycle lane across totara street to access the Hewletts road section.  Cycle appropriate light buttons.

57

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Shade trees and lighting for cyclists, safe crossings. Consistent treatments and format

58

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Safety safety safety

59

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Alter the NZ Rail timetable to avoid peak travel times.  Alter the Waimarie lights so they don’t change immediately for port traffic.  Alter the Waimarie lights so they don’t change for “ghost traffic”.  Stop push bikes Turing off Hewletts Roadd onto Totara (Port Side across the grass) so they’ll cross the road on the East Side with the pedestrian crossing.

60

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Not sure, but anything is better than nothing, the only reason I dont bike into town daily is because that road is too dangerous and terrifying on a bike. A safe cycleway, separate from the road/trucks, is an absolute must

61

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The overwhelming bad attitude most drivers have towards cyclists in this town.

62

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Brilliant idea.  If it could all happen on one side of the road, that would be best, but it's important for a growing city to be able to encourage more people to cycle - which needs off-road cycle lanes.  The more people who cycle, the better the traffic for everyone!

63

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Reducing heavy port traffic to non peak hours.

64

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I support the decision to remove the Totara Street cycle lanes, these were dangerous so would never used them.    I FULLY support the proposal for a 3m wide shared path along Totara St.    Regarding the 3 options on WSP sheet C01 rC (TCC DRAWING/ IP NUMBER: 101862), I DO NOT support option A to install pedestrian push button signals as I feel this would just slow down traffic flow and just annoy drivers.  I recommend proceeding with both options B & C to give cyclist two good options to get across this intersection. For option B perhaps just a zebra crossing with speed table instead of signalising the slip lane, I find traffic is usually moving slow around this corner at peak times but 80% of drivers just don't stop a second to let you cross. I suspect this is why I see most cyclists cut across Totara St between traffic and not that its a great place to cross.    Consider extending the 3m wide shared path along Totara to the Taiaho Place intersection to strengthen option C as this part of the route to the CBD from the Mount is a really nice (quiet / less dusty / less wind wash from trucks) part of the journey that is currently undervalued and underutilised.

65

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How will cyclist safety be managed during construction. How will cyclists exit at Kawaka St. Will the shared path continue to that intersection. How long will cyclist have to wait to cross at the signalised intersections.

66

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Love the idea, definitely doesn't feel safe cycling down Totara street, especially where the cyclist has recently passed. Thank you for working on this!    Driveway entrances from Totara street businesses (Hull rd to Waimare st) is still a concern for this proposal.     I would prefer to cycle on the footpath currently there, but it can be just as hazardous as the road when traffic is backed up heading towards city, as they are let in by sitting traffic but you don't have that visibility as a cyclist - room for error there, potentially serious.     If there were a shared path here, the issue would still be there for people pulling across traffic into these businesses. Not sure how you would get around that, the proposal is definitely an improvement that I would warmly welcome, but that is a particularly hazardous area.    Cheers! Hopefully that makes sense, if not my mobile is xxxxxxx  Ben

67

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I know we are a minority, but there are people who ride to Ballance and therefore do not  cross Totara to go over the bridge but do need a safe way to turn on Hewletts Rd.  Please do not remove the cycle lane!  Also, after over 20 years of commuter cycling (and cycling for fun), I have had more accidents when riding on a cycle path that crosses business entrances than I have had on a designated bike lane on a road. A major issue is cars going above the posted speed limit and generally not caring about bicyclists right of way - I love that this idea is being considered but it does not appear to be an easy option for cyclists with the various crossings and intersections - particularly in poor weather conditions.

68

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

If this goes ahead, an education campaign on how to share the road would be great to see.

69

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I think the current proposal is okay, but the two-way path needs to be on the western side of the rd, for the length of Totara st. This is to avoid the majority of cars entering/exiting Totara on the eastern side of the rd. Cycles can use the roundabout to enter/exit the cycle path onto Hull Rd where the majority of cycles go if they are not going the length of Totara.    Instead there should be a bus lane the length of Totara st on the eastern side. This is to encourage bus use and reduce the number of cars in the morning when traffic backs up the most. This lane can also be used by cycles and motorbikes, and traffic turning into side streets.

70

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I agree with this proposal, have used this exact route for years to avoid port accessways and trucks.  However road cyclists will still want to bike on the road.   Is there a way to stop vehicles crossing onto the dedicated (painted) cycle lanes? (this applies to the whole of Tauranga where cyclways are painted onto the road)  

71

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Totora Street is super slow at peak traffic because of cars feeding in from side streets and i guess i am just worried traffic signals stopping traffic will only further increase this. also, if it is slow then i would want to just keep going on my bike. stopping traffic will make cyclists and drivers angry i think. I suppose it's not possible to have the pathway on the same side as the bridge pathway, otherwise you would have mapped that out as that would make more sense for people using it.

72

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How any cycle / shared path on totara street will interchange with Hewletts Road to Maunganui Road, as this hard to navigate also with buses / bikes sharing one lane and turning bays.

73

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

- ensuring traffic lights for the crossing is far enough from the Hewlett's intersection to not cause issues for road vehicles backing up past the Hewletts turn.    - good / clear visibility of the cycle path users from both people existing the properties, and entering the properties    - needs to be inside the kerb enough for vehicles entering the property to stop for cyclists without obstructing Totara St traffic (except trucks)

74

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Mixed needs of different kinds of cyclists. some cyclists are best placed on a shared path, some cyclists are best served by on-carraigeway routes.  Debris left by log trucks make riding down totara street on a road bike particularly hazardous. Fine on a mountain bike or a cruiser, but the amount of wood/bark/rocks on the current cycle path make it particularly hazardous. The potential disadvantages of leaving the carriageway to road cyclists (Including poor route continuity, pedestrian conflict, and road crossing safety issues) should be seriously considered for this route.

75

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Excellent idea to get bikes off the road on Totara St. It would be great if there were also some upgrades to handle the heavy traffic volumes and jams as well, but this is an excellent beginning for safety

76

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Needs to be a truly separated cycleway in order for people to use it and ensure that it is maintained and swept regularly.  the current cycleways are littered with road metal thrown onto them by cars and trucks and glass smashed on them.  If we want to encourage people to bike we need to provide a better facility than the alternative of driving.

77

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The crossing of hull road given this is a very busy intersection.  I did not see any proposed traffic lights on this section.  Are cyclists and walkers expected to cross the road giving way to all traffic?  You may see people taking risks to cross given how busy the road is.

78

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Safe crossing over Hull Road, Triton etc  Hope this is covered by intersection improvements.

79

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Provide safety measures between Kawaka Street and Hull Road on driveways as trucks and cars often pull out and block the path way. 

80

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

If you could ensure cyclists heading to Blake park for sports have a path for them to turn into and across Kawaka St.  Looks great, thanks for all the work you have put into this!

81

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

So happy this is happening! It would make me much more confident to cycle with my family using this route. I've always felt this section is incredibly dangerous and am so sad about people that have lost their lives on this stretch of road using active transport. Thank you for making this work a priority, I support it to go ahead in it's totality.

82

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

We need to balance how long works will take vs the congestion impact to an already busy road. Is it possible to design without need to effect traffic at all while improvements are underway?   In general though it’s a great idea! I’d love to see a set of traffic lights at the Hull Rd roundabout as well which will prevent rubber Neckers, and make it safe for cyclists to cross

83

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Wouldn't it be simpler to stay on the west side of Totara the whole way?

84

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Getting from Totara street to the right side shared path as always been a challenge.  Also the Totara st roundabout when using the current bike path is a real problem.  There always seems to be traffic blocking the path on the other side (traveling from Mount to town).  Using the roundabout on the road, is much safer.

85

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Yes. If you are on a road bike, you would have to stop, unclip and then walk across the lights (in cleated shoes) to get onto the shared pathway of the harbourbridge.  Am I reading it right? Why is the cycle way not on the same side as the port, this would remove the need to cross.

86

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Well needed - looks workable, although I only ride the Hewletts Road to Hull Road part, so I am not sure about how the further down crossing again part would work in practice.

87

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

This is great, thank you. We biked a lot over lockdown and for a little bit after but now the road is too dangerous to bike down. I think this will allow a lot of people to get back on their bikes!

88

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Make sure the bike lanes are off the road and not having to share with cars/trucks. Think about the lighting that needs to be included and also make sure the gates are working over the railway line as they have been out of action for seems like over a year now so having to go over the road makes it more unsafe.

89

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I love the idea to make it safer for bikers. Trucks and crossing to the bike pathway at the main intersection lights is so dangerous that I avoid biking.    Very short waiting times for bikes at the lights (like the waiting times for the bike cross over at the bayfair roundabout, would be great.

90

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

If a safe bike lane was available (similar to that over the bridge) then I would bike more.  Also it would be great to have this on Hull Road (or some alternative route) as well, which links the Mount to Totara Street and feels quite unsafe on bikes due to the number of trucks and the wide busy road.

91

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I bike this route regularly and, yes, it's a death trap. So glad you're doing something, and wish it was the original plan. But this will certainly be better than nothing.  So thank you very much. A couple of points:   1. I don't quite see why the Option B wasn't chosen, i.e. to signalise the slipway at the Totara / Hewlett's intersection? I'd be interested to know. It seems problematic to have crossing lights so close to the major lights at the intersection of Totara and Hewletts, but I'm not a traffic engineer. Signalising the slipway would also help any cyclists or walkers who are heading further up Hewlett's.   2. Triton Avenue is used by a lot of cars at morning and evening rush hours trying to avoid the queue of cars back to the intersection with Hull Road. Is there a way to discourage this, as it can cause a lot of problems? I was wondering if traffic lights would be a good idea at that intersection, but since you are already adding two sets of those, maybe not.   3. I've kept an eye on the 'new' train gates along the footpath "not working" status for, hmmm, well over a year now. I guess those will stay. But right now, while they don't work, they're more dangerous than nothing, actually.  Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.

92

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Connecting the bike park to the international cricket ground and promoting people to bike to day time events would be awesome? Linking Totara via cricket ground through to Bay Oval new entrance. Adding bike stand in key areas

93

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The children

94

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I understand your reasoning for having the cycle/shared lane on different sides in different places however I do not think that a lot of cyclists will stop to use the signalled crossing points. They will either make a dash for it when there are no cars, or just travel on one side of the road using the cycle path only for the section it is there for.     I think there also needs to be a public campaign to for both cyclists and motorists to be harmonious and kind to one another as there is a lot of hate. For cyclists it is to be courteous road users and other pedestrians, not run red lights etc. For motorists it’s one less car they have to sit behind in traffic, that it is actually quicker to ride a bike to your destination in rush hour than drive. I fear for the older cyclists that are now suddenly on ebikes after not ridden for years with poor bike skills and young people getting to school that they will get hurt due to the hate stirred up by cyclists who have no regard for road rules.

95

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Controlling cyclists who do not follow the road code and crossing signals.  Ensure you consider the turning requirements of trucks (especially the articulated units) for pulling onto and off Totara street from side roads.

96

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Shared widened footpath seems safer (separated from traffic) and cheaper option.    Better maintenance and or better quality of road/path painting as well.    Signage to motorist to take care for cyclist y pedestrian 

97

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Great opportunity to make this a landmark route into the Mt and join the Mt and CBD together for both commuting, recreation and tourism

98

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

It would be great if the signalised crossings could be activated by riding along the cycleway as riders approach, in the way that some of the Christchurch ones do.  Then cyclists wouldn't have to stop, push a button and wait for the signal to change.

99

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

100

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Really good barriers between cars and bikes.   I would use bike much more if better safety barriers rather than paint all around Mount. We saw over lockdown how many people enjoyed cycling with families. Keep up the work around the Area please.

101

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Safe cycling space. In the redesign it would be nice to see native trees and plants used where possible.

102

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

During my commute I see at least 3 others per day not wear helmets when cycling.     Also when turning right off totara to Hewletts rd people usually weave between the stopped cars and cut across the live lane of oncoming traffic.

103

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

You still need to make on road cycle options for cyclists safe. A lot of people (particularly commuters) won’t want to cross the road twice. This wastes time and will disrupt the flow of traffic which is bad enough without proposed traffic lights for cyclists. I’ll still ride on the road so clear cycle paths and space for cyclists are still needed at intersections and roundabouts.

104

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

When travelling from the bridge to head down Hewletts road there is a bicycle lane lane  to go down Hewletts - problem is the traffic including heavy vehicles has to cut across this to turn left onto Totara Street... Very unsafe for a cyclist to have vehicles crossing their bike lane and if you ask me this is another accident waiting to happen! Why don't we capture this in the plan and get rid of the lane entirely as most cyclists use the footpath out of fear for their lives! I sure do as a car nearly took me out while cycling trying to change lanes to left onto Totara - its like playing russian roulette - make it safe for cyclists to travel down hewletts and also totara to get to the mount!

105

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How are the people crossing hull road on this cycleway ? That's a very busy intersection.    Would to keep the cycle lanes on the road for 'weekend cyclists' and repaint them to make them more visible.     Better policing trucks in general on that road. They tend to enter roundabouts without stopping amd using their size to stop cars. Mainly the logging trucks.

106

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Definitely requires improvements, easily the most risky route I ride with a close miss almost every time. Consideration of a ramp and bridge at Hewletts / Totara to improve safety and traffic flow. Some concern with crossing near Kawaka St that cyclists may avoid it if wait times are too long and cars will resent it if they have to wait, can lead to poor uptake. Investigate the overall cost implication of bridges vs crossings.

107

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Its a shame cyclists have to cross the roads at lights 3x but understand the reasoning behind it.  I'd rather the cycleway was on one side of the road consistently.  Cyclists need protection here and the speed limit on Totara Street should be dropped to 40km/hr.

108

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The corner Hewletts /Totora street is a death trap for bicyclists. Coming from the bridge with your bike turning left into Totora by merging at the most dangerous point 10 meters after the intersection. A truckdriver can not see a cyclist beside the truck while turning. Your planners have never been on a bike obviously. The planner who planned this joint should be fired.  Coming from the Mount approaching Hewletts Road. On the green strip going straight ahead to go the boat ramp "gap" to get to the  bridge approach.  What if the truck to the left of me wants also want to straight ahead?  He will not see me from his cabin up there...

109

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Great to see that something will be done! Will definitely make me cycle more often to mount (also in the dark) if I could do so safely! My points/suggestions are the following.   Cycle comfort: you now let bikes cross 2 traffic lights and make 2 or 3 almost 100 meter detours across crossings which a lot of cyclist won't want to do and go back on the road to skip these. The cycle path should follow the main road and prioritise cyclists instead of motorised traffic. No car driver would accept making a detour on the main road.   Secondly,  3 meters is too narrow to ride next to each other in both directions. Especially if adults cycle with kids you want the space to cycle next to each other.  Thirdly, if you do come from the roundabout Rata Street/Mounganui Road, how would you enter the cycle path (especially if there are cyclists waiting in the opening to cross Rata street)?  Fourthly, will the sensors for the traffic lights pick up aluminium and carbon bikes? As a lot of traffic lights in Tauranga don't work for my bike.  Fifthly, will traffic lights be programmed to give cyclists often enough the right of way (maybe even more so outside rush hour).    If you want any clarification please do get in touch. Good luck with the project!  

110

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I am very supportive of this project, and it would certainly encourage me to cycle to the Mount more often. I do have some comments to improve the project.    This cycle route is likely to become one of the busiest in Tauranga. If we'd enable people to cycle abreast, in both directions, whilst sharing the path with some pedestrians, 3m is not going to be wide enough. Please aim for a 4m wide shared path where possible.     Please ensure that the settings of the traffic signals at Waimarie Street do allow a 'green' light for peds and cyclists along Totara Street whilst traffic on Totara Street also has a green light, so that pushing a button would be generally not required.     Please improve the intersection with Triton Avenue, as well as with Hull Road. The current design shows 2 times a 100 metre detour. This large detour is likely to be ignored by many people walking and cycling, and will be reason that some people will continue to cycle on-street or avoid the detour and cross at an unsafe location, which will cause even greater risks. Instead, please investigate a shared zebra crossing on a raised table both at the junction as well as near the roundabout (Where the existing pedestrian crossings and dropped kerbs are located, which are on the desire line).     To encourage more people to use it, and to value those who do, please install a cycle counter. This helps to show that, whilst a path sometimes looks empty, it's actually used a lot. I did not know there were >100,000 cycle trips a year!    Also, ensure there is sufficient lighting and CCTV. Cycling here in the evening might feel unsafe.     Crossing Totara Street twice at traffic signals is apparently unavoidable, but please do ensure that sufficient high quality sensors are in place >100 metres from the signals in order to promote a 'green wave'.  

111

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

1. How will cycling be managed for those cyclists going straight through the Hewletts/Totara intersection?   2. How will cycling be managed on both sides of Hewletts Road on the Eastern Side coming up to Totara St?   3. What will happen to cyclists who find the shared pathway unsuitable for cycling for transport i.e. time specific and continue to use the road (because this is quicker/more direct and continuous)?

112

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The 2-way cycleway and the shared path will help, although I don't necessarily agree with bikes being on a footpath. I think that they are part of traffic but I do like the current shared path that heads over the bridge towards town. I think that the busier part of Totara Street and the more dangerous, is the end closer to Hewletts Road. I think that it would be preferable to have the shared path and 2-way cycleway all on one side. I'm not so sure about signalised crossings as it slows down both bikes and cars but I'm also not sure what a better solution would be (other than keeping it on one side). I'm sure that the improvements will help so it is appreciated by people who bike.

113

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

More signage. 1 road is not enough, Allroads need to have safe cycle ways for children & adults especially round bayfair area very dangerous - more cycle ways need to be put in place now

114

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

I want a safe cycling route - but I am concerned about the proposed 2 extra traffic lights.  Please consider a fly over to prevent any traffic delays.

115

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Stopping traffic to put in these safety features would disrupt the already bad traffic flow there, how will the be managed to impact it as little as possible? Over all great idea and much needed

116

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Is there a way to keep the path along the port side of Totara the whole way to avoid the 2 x crossings?

117

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Check if its possible to eliminate the 2 lights by running it completely down the western side. People will be reluctant to dismount bikes and wait just like the port entrance lights.

118

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

I support making Totara street safer for cyclists. But to me the plan seems slightly flawed as most people are travelling from Tauranga city to the mount or Mount to Tauranga city. Why would you cross the road to then cross back again a few kms down the road?  Why cant the safer cycle lane be on the west side of Totara street?  As a competitive road cyclist, I wont be getting off my bike to cross over the road at a cyclist/pedestrian specific traffic light. I would continue to ride Totara street as I normally do.  

119

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Totara Street is a very busy street, adding these lanes will make it much safer for cyclists, however, I don't agree with adding new stop/go lights on an already busy street, cyclists shuold use existing intersection exchanges. Look at the mess in Greerton where the council put in a specific pedestian stop/go set of lights, its not working.  Good idea for the cycleways, nto a good idea for more stop/go traffic lights.

120

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

is there a way to keep the crossing of Totara street to a minimum? If the cycle lane can be on the opposite side of Hull Road, that would limit the number of commuters crossing a busy road even more.

121

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Move the proposed lights between Waimarie street and Hewletts road to the Hewletts road existing lights, another set of lights you cause major congestion on an already busy totara street 

122

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

The bike path should stick to one side of the busy road the whole way. Cyclest will stop at traffic lights but i can see them still riding on the busy road if they have to cross the main highway at multiple points.

123

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Unfortunately the proposal really looks like an impractical solution. For the large amount of cyclists, this route is the main route between Tauranga and the Mount, and currently incredibly dangerous. Good to see a proposal, but placing 2 sets of traffic lights along Totara street just causes more interruptions to car/truck traffic, and totally impractical for cyclists. Cycle path needs to run the entire west side. Otherwise the term white elephant comes to mind....

124

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

A new cycle way definitely needs to be built. However, there are problems with this design. Having to stop and cross the road twice is not a great idea, both for cyclists (having to keep stopping for 2 extra sets of lights) and for the already ridiculous traffic congestion on Totara street.   Could tunnels be considered? Or Ramps / bridges?

125

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

I believe the usage of pilot bay could be improved by installing more communal-use BBQs.  The flow of traffic is already very heavy and congested in the limited space of central Mount Maunganui and many many users of mauau need the parking availability the cycle-way will take away.    If anything,  increasing the angle parking along the length of pilot bay would allow a greater amount of people to access and enjoy the space - also would give increased availability for mobile food trucks to service the immediate need for food and beverages (and increase income for the council) in the summer months.    The road at present serves the need for traffic flow which is not associated with central mount shoppinh/ cafes/ eating and therefors serves as the thoroughfare are the circumference of Mount Central.  Any changes to limit this further would only serve to exascerbate the issue of congestion.   At it is now - Pilot Bay road is working just fine.   

126

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Installation of additional pedestrian crossing lights at the Hewletts Road/Totara street intersection will cause further traffic congestion.  Require people to use the existing crossing point.  Kiwirail have already done work on the railway crossings, so what more does Council need to do? yes these have not been commissioned but these are NOT council responsibility.  How will you get cyclists to ride responsibly when this new system is in place, if they chose not to use the options and another fatality occurs, what will be done then?  When will physical consultation occur?

127

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Pit the cycle lane for the full length on the port side of the road, built on the grass area in front of the commercial premises. This would then avoid truck and cars pulling into side roads and hitting cyclists. It would also allow for a second lane to be built from Hull to Hewletts to remove the bottleneck. What are you going to do to stop people parking in the cycle lane, and the grass behind it, during sports events?

128

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

I agree there needs to be a cycle way but Crossing totara street twice will be a pain and would probably still bike on the road in between the two crossings I can live crossing the road once.

129

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Crazy to have bikes crossing over Totara St twice and Hull road once. It's a pain for drivers and cyclists. You'd be better off putting the bike/shared lane on the port side of Totara St so it connects with the path to the Harbour bridge. There is plenty of space on that side to make it the full length of Totara street with crossings at the two port entrances and railway lines.   

130

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Why are you taking it down the right hand side of the road? And then making cycles cross both totota and hull road? No confident cyclist will use it as they will have to cross roads with out having the right of way. It should be all down the left for a safer trip between the mount and cbd

131

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Crossings where cyclist are required to stop and wait for a signal is a major deterrent to using a dedicated cycle lane. At the Hewletts road end, instead of having the 3m path on the east side of the road just invest money in a proper project that will actually be useful and move the road 3m to the east and then a dedicated path can be on the west side for the entirety of totara st and link directly with the path over the bridge. No stupid crossings will maximise cyclists using the lane and limit potential crashes.

132

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Crossing Hull Rd is one of the most difficult areas on my commute. The railway crossing are also problematic and I have witnessed several other cyclist coming to grief trying to get around them as they currently are. I would also say that the port side is a safer option for a shared pathway. Despite the extra number of driveways all of the traffic is going in and out very slow or stopped. On the other side the footpath is often blocked by businesses and trucks parking on the edge plus you have 2 major roads joining Totara with a huge amount of traffic...a cycle way on the port side running the entire length of Totara makes much more sense.

133

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Putting the cycle way on the side of the road opposite the port is a disincentive for cyclists to use it. This is because having to stop and wait to cross multiple roads leads to frustration. Are these roads all going to have light controlled crossings or are cyclists/pedestrians still going to have to wait for drivers to let them across? Stopping and starting on a bike also takes far more energy than maintaining a constant speed. Many cyclists will continue to use the lane that will still exist, they will just lose the minimal protection given by it being designated a cycle lane.

134

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

The proposed design is exceptionally bad from a cycling perspective. Having to cross 4 x busy roads - 2 x Totara, 1 x Triton, 1 x Hull - is not only dangerous, but defies any common sense, when the whole cycle lane/footpath should be on the port side of the road, exactly as the harbour bridge pathway is. Also crossing in front of the busy bait shop, carters tyres and the bakery is a recipe for disaster, as drivers will have to look both directions before reentering Totara St. From a drivers perspective, the 4 x road crossings are going to cause huge congestion on a road that is already choked up at peak times. I would bike on the road, rather than the proposed pathway, which would be slow and dangerous.

135

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Why is the 3 metre pathway not on the harbour side of Totara st?  Impeding traffic flow with 2 extra sets of traffic lights is pure folly.  The pedestrian rail barriers are in place already seems like it’s a fait accompli.

136

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

More traffic lights on Totara St... Really! And that close to the Hewletts rd intersection, What moron proposed this, they obviously dont travel along Totara St in the mornings or at night. Why the need to cross the road? Why not just keep the path on the port side of Totara St the whole way down? Your roading designer/planner needs to be fired, go ask the Greerton residents what they think of there balls up.

137

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

This will be a stupid idea but here goes. Why not have the cycle way on the west side of Totara St only. It won’t interfere with any of the side streets that feed on Totara St. Hull Rd wharf entrance already has traffic control via the roundabout, Astrolabe has very minimal traffic and Maui St is controlled by lights and looking at the proposal the cyclists will end up crossing back to the West side of Totara Hewletts Rd intersection anyway Why add additional traffic control when it’s not needed. PS. My fee for using common sense is minimal 🤣🤣🤣

138

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

No signal crossings as this will cause delays and disruptions on an already busy road.  Which has 1x set of lights 1x roundabout and 2x train crossings. Look to build overpass or under pass for safety of pedestrians and cyclists and allow traffic to flow as normal.

139

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Keep it to one side of the road. Crossing Totara Rd twice puts people In danger at two points. Keep it to one side. An impact barrier between the road and cycle way would be a bonus. It's safer.

140

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Why not use the railway line that runs alongside Totara street, but away from the road. There is room to move the line and make it a safe cycle lane away from the heavy traffic and numerous business entrances along Totara Street.

141

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Consider widening to take the entire space and verges (double-lane cycle way, double lane car lanes)

142

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

You need to build above.  Bikes are light. It's easy to build above a road on a raised bike lane or above rail lines.  Cover them and put solar panels on the covers and use the electricity to pay for the upgrade. The cars and trucks on the road and the bikes above. 

143

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Crazy to have bikes crossing the road twice each way. Same people who stuffed up the underpass at Bayfair?  Sort out a protected two way cycle way all on the same side of the road. Do it right do it once.

144

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

As a frequent traveller by bike along totara st, it is not the eastern side that is the safest. Traffic risk is not only size of vehicle, but frequency of those. The western side if totara st is actually safer due to the lower volume of vehicles turning into and out of driveways. The vehicles are larger, but they are going much slower and are given more acknowledgement by cyclists. Cars darting in and out of the businesses on the eastern side often do not look for cyclists, and neither do the cars turning over the traffic lanes to get onto the roads/ businesses on the eastern side. I experience more near misses on the eastern side due to vehicle speed and merging issues during peak times, especially around the hull rd - Triton ave intersections.  I would urge a consideration of vehicle movements within each driveway on the western side before saying that the cycle path should be on the Eastern side.  Due to the design criss crossing totara st, cyclists will not use it. There is no legal obligation for a cyclist to use a cycle lane, and with the requirement for changing sides in this design, cyclists just wont do it - it will be easier to stay on one side.  Totara st already has bad traffic issues - is adding two sets of lights going to help this?   The cycle path from the bridge is great and stays on the left. It would be smoother and less confusing to keep the new one on the left too, considering the mount end of totara st also turns left. 

145

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

We are concerned that the light controlled crossings will cause further delays to the traffic on Totara Street which is already one of the roads in Tauranga that has congestion issues.

146

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

As a competitive road cyclist and triathlete I currently ride along Totara St in both directions as part of my training roads - as do many others. Sport cyclists often ride 30-150km+ on training rides throughout the region on a variety of different road types - city streets, open highways, rural roads etc. After riding many kms, I and many others like me would not stop in the middle of training ride to cross the road at lights onto a shared path and then do the same thing a couple of kms down the road - we will still take the fastest and most direct route which in most cases is the road corridor. While I appreciate that the proposed solution encourages and protects commuter and recreational cyclists it is not a solution for confident and competitive cyclists who ride in traffic in all types of traffic conditions. I think these cyclists still need to be catered for on Totara St as they will use the road regardless of the segregated cycleway. I'm  concerned that Totara St itself will be de-legitimised for road cyclists which will create more conflict with other road users as they think we should be using the segregated cycleway even though it doesn't meet our needs. A case in point is a section of Te Okurua Drive in Papamoa that has a segregated cycleway that meanders down the side of the corridor and around roundabouts. It isn't used by sport cyclists because its not the most direct route i.e. the road corridor. Unfortunately the road corridor has been designed with absolutely no shoulder for a road cyclist to ride down and feel like a legitimate user i.e. the expectation is that all cyclists will use the off-road solution. This coupled with the narrow lanes means cars cannot overtake, increasing agitation and conflict between road cyclists and drivers. I hope this situation is not repeated on Totara St and the whole of corridor solution caters for all types of cyclists.

147

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Why not take the cycleway all the way up Totara Rd on the left (port side)? Why cross over? I know there's available land on that side, but from a safety popint of view you've got multiple crossings and intersections to manage, rather than a flat continious run up Totara on the port side. Is this an option?

148

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Shared pathways will never be used by sports cyclists such as my self because the risk of head on cycle to cycle collision is too great. Sport cyclists will not use the proposed lighted crossings as there are two lighted train crossings and lights at the intersection with Hewletts Rd already. There is nothing wrong with the present layout if vehicles keep out of the cycle lanes and cyclists take care and obey the road rules.

149

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Cyclists dislike mounting and dismounting foot paths. (15ave). Pretty simple. Make the road 1000mm wider. That gives an extra 300mm wider cycle lane. Add 200mm to the traffic lane width. Then put up those plastic kerb/posts like you have near the mobile station causeway on ramp. You should have done the same up 15th Ave hill. No cyclist uses the foot path

150

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Sending cyclist down side roads to cross may be the safest position but it is unlikely to be used but road cyclists (people riding for training/fitness for racing) as it appears to be too much of a detour and they generally feel comfortable mixing with traffic.  Is there a way to minimise this and keep the cycle lane running closer to the main route?

151

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Upgrade the road for Vehicles as well, One of the main issues is that the road is so busy to begin with. Add more capacity for Vehicles and at the same time add a seperate cycle lane

152

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

As an avid cyclist, I would not personally use this because it is inconvenient to use, Sharing a path with walkers/runners means I have to go slowly, as a commuter I would not use this because I have to stop to cross the road making it slow and inconvenient. making a cycle lane shouldn't be as hard as you propose, it should be done simply by shiting the live lanes across into one of the cycle lanes, pushing the opposite kerb out a tad and having a waist-high kerb separating trucks from bikes. and make the lane a two bike-only lane. Much like most of Europe (a much bigger city with a much larger cycle population) use something that works not some fairy tale made up crap

153

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

I object to the layout, why cross the road twice with lights. the crossing at triton ave wont get used, they will go straight across the road in a straight line.

154

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Trucks take a long time to pull out into the traffic and rely on stopping on the berm to pull out from. Especially when traffic is congested, these trucks are going to be blocking the path for a considerable amount of time, as no-one will let them into the traffic if they arent already waiting at the kerb. This will be very disruptive to cyclists and will cause frustration for all motorists, truckies and cyclists.  Having extra traffic lights along this already heavily congested road will also cause major frustration amongst motorists, especially if there are 273 cyclist movements per day.   A lot of cyclists will refuse to use this path, with all the stop/starts along the way.

155

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Have dedicated cycleway along west side of Totara Street, then cyclists do not need to navigate the roads entering from the east as shown in the map provided in your proposal.  Need to stop cyclists from cycling down the middle of Totara Street in the middle of four lanes of traffic.

156

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

You are building it on the wrong side of the road, should be western side, much safer.  I bike every day but not often to the Mount from Tauranga now, too dangerous. Bike to The Lakes now

157

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Taking away the existing cycle lane while new separate cycle way is built is both foolish and dangerous. The footpath is not a great interim measure and many will continue to use the road, which you have acknowledged, so removing what is existing will only exasperate the danger.    Lights to cross at the Mount Maunganui end across Hewletts road hinders traffic flow and will likely see many cycle way users make other less desirable crossing decisions- just like any form of traffic, stopping to wait to cross is inefficient.  If the cycle way must be on different stretches of the same road they should be linked by an overbridge.

158

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Safe lanes on roads, not shared use. Not bi-directional on one lane. Drivers forced to keep away from cyclist and pedestrians rather than putting bikes into footpaths.

159

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

We have just received notification of safety works proposed on Totara Street.
I am a highway design engineer who has designed many works around Tauranga in the past and welcome this initiative that is long overdue, as is the 4-laning of Totara Street. However, I have serious reservations about the introduction of new signals so close to the Hewletts Road intersection.
As you most likely know traffic currently queues up for a significant distance on Totara Street and on Hewletts Road (Totara Street bound) approaching this intersection. Introducing additional signals will exacerbate this issue and may be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists manoeuvring amongst traffic where drivers are concentrating on queueing traffic and the intersection some distance away.
The road reserve on Totara Street is 30m. There already is a signalised crossing of Totara Street at Hewletts Road and there is an opportunity to provide an additional crossing without introducing more signals. This would involve the realignment of Totara Street at the intersection of Waimarie Street to provide for a shared path on both sides of Totara Street from Waimarie Street to Hewletts Road. A crossing could then be provided at the existing signalised intersection at Waimarie Street thus eliminating the additional crossing on Totara Street.
It may also be useful to take the opportunity to widen Totara Street to 4 lanes at least from Hewletts Road to Waimarie Street while these works are constructed.
I hope that you take these suggestions seriously as this proposed additional crossing may prove to be something that is viewed extremely negatively by travelling ratepayers.

160

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

My husband and I are residents who live downtown the Mount. We each have a motor vehicle and a proper bicycle, not ebikes. We are retired and consequently whenever practical we choose to use our bikes rather than our cars.
We are very concerned about the craziness of both the cycle plans being made for the Mount area.
Firstly TOTARA STREET.......  we bravely cycle along this road frequently, so we are well aware of the amount of traffic it carries.
Having cycle lanes alternating between one side of the road and the other is going to interrupt the traffic flow and cause even more jams than at present.
The logical place to put a cycle lane is entirely along the Western side of Totara Street, running all the way from Rata Street to Hewlett Rd, where cyclists can then simply turn right and continue past Bridge Marina and onto the bridge.
There is plenty of room all along the Western side of Totara Street , and less side streets to cross.
The pedestrian railway crossings on the Eastern side are a total white elephant, they haven’t ever worked since they were installed, and we won’t bike along that footpath, because we tried it, but the gates are so much in the way that one has to slalom around them and risk falling off ones bike.
The idea of adding new signalised crossings that will impede traffic flow on such a busy road, just to utilise the pedestrian railway gates has to be impractical.
No solution is perfect, but we are against having a cycle lane that crosses the road, when there is such a wide strip of land that could be utilised along the entire Western side of Totara Street, and would connect so easily with bridge access.
Secondly THE MALL ONE WAY plan....
My husband and I, being local, are frequent walkers and cyclists along this road, and as such are aware of the pleasure that this area gives to so many people, and my estimation would be that about 99 percent of them are not cyclists...
People who don’t have the luxury of living in this area drive here, and park here to enjoy simple pleasures..... the safeness of a wave free beach for young children, the sand free grassy areas where families can picnic, the Mount tradition of assembling and waving at departing cruise ships.
Elderly people drive here and sit in their cars, vans of old folks are driven here from the resthomes. They all derive such pleasure from the place.
Working people arrive to sit in their cars during their breaks and have their lunches, great for the soul, therapy to de stress from their jobs.
We need to retain every single car park that still exists in this area, and retain a two way road.
The boat ramp and parking for vehicles with trailers  needs to remain as it is, that is another Mount icon that is what the Mount is all about.
Retain the two way road, without it Victoria St, Maunganui Rd, Marine Parade, May St, and Rita St will all carry more traffic and become more jammed.
The debacle of turning the Phoenix carpark into a concrete pad is bad enough, please don’t pursue the Mall plan.
The logical solution on the Mall is to simply widen the existing boardwalk by a metre and turn it into a shared pathway.
Or as we already do, cyclists can simply cycle along the grass, or the present 2 way road.
In this area priority needs to be given to cars and pedestrians, cyclists are simply passing through, and instead can use the other roads in the area.
Please can commonsense prevail for the benefit of the majority of users, don’t just formulate a plan because you can get state funds for it.

161

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

-Vehicular access to the Port of Tauranga should be strictly limited to Tasman Quay.  This would significantly reduce the volume of traffic, especially trucks, on Totara Street, thereby returning Totara Street to its primary use of being a transport corridor for the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui.  -There should be dedicated, physically separate transport corridors for people in vehicles, people on bikes and people who are walking.  People on bikes should not be forced to share the same space with people who are walking or with people in vehicles.  -There should not be any shared paths.  Pedestrians and people on bikes must each have separate dedicated transport corridors.  -Paint on the side a road which is designed for vehicles does not constitute a dedicated, physically separate transport corridor for people on bikes, any more than it does pedestrians.  A bike path must be separated from a road for vehicles either by space (at least 1.5 metres of horizontal separation), by height (vertical separation of at least 100mm), and/or by a physical barrier.  -Any undirectional bike path must be at least 1.5 metres wide.  If a bike path is bidirectional it must be at least 3 metres wide.  -Totara Street is major transport corridor.  In other words it should be dedicated to the movement of people and goods.  It is valuable and scarce real estate and should not be used for the temporary storage of cars, especially the free storage of cars.  With that background there should be no on street parking anywhere along the length of Totara Street.  -If the final design continues to require pedestrians and people on bikes to cross Totara Street priority must be given to their safety.  First choice is to construct grade separation (either a tunnel or bridge) for vehicular traffic so pedestrians and people on bikes stay at ground level.  In the event that Council decides not to give this level of priority to people then any signalised crossing should give priority to the pedestrians and people on bikes.  -Whatever the final design of the separate transport corridors is for Totara Street each of them must connect with a continuous network of separate infrastructure at each end.  We always achieve this for vehicles, and usually do for pedestrians, but for some reason in Tauranga City the few examples we have of quality infrastructure for people on bikes always come to an abrupt end with no connection other than expecting the person cycling to either battle with the moving vehicles or with the stored vehicles (and their opening doors) on the side of the road.

162

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Requiring cyclists to cross the road twice at intersections to continue their journey along Totara Street may reduce the route's usage as it's counter-intuitive. I can imagine that many cyclists may continue riding on the western side of the road when riding to the Mount and on the eastern side when riding toward Tauranga. A cycle path that doesn't cross the road twice in each direction may be more advisable.

163

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

i support the idea of separating cyclists from heavy vehicles and other traffic, but the options for cyclists need to be practical, otherwise people won't use it and will continue to cycle on the road.  I am concerned about the intersection at Hewletts Road as it is very difficult once you get off the bridge to integrate safely with the traffic.  I am also concerned about cars crossing into commercial premises if the cycleway is not going to be on the Port side, particularly during peak hours.  I don't like the design of the crossing past the Hull Road roundabout.  Traffic backs up there significantly during peak hours anyway, and I am concerned about how safe it would be to cross there.  If you make it too hard i.e. cyclists have to wait for crossings at too many points, then people will just cycle on the road because its quicker. 

164

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Why cross the road twice? Keep it on the Port side and widen road/fix Hewletts Road intersection lanes to help Totara Street flow better while at it.

165

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Reduce the impact on restricting traffic flow, adding 2 crossings will slow traffic even more, totara st is bad enough, could the paths be up the same side all the way. Do away with the crossing just up from hewletts rd and use the pedestrian crossing at the lights. Crossing the Hull rd (eastern side of roundabout) can be dangerous as alot of traffic, western side has less. It could be time consuming for a cyclist waiting on the path to cross hull road then would end up just using the road. An underpass or overpass would be great, an over pass got put in at the crossing and on the toll road which would have alot less people using it than on totara st. Appreciate you trying to make it safer and asking the public for opinions.

166

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Living in Otumoetai, I know many people that ride by bicycle to the Mount, however it's a very dangerous stretch! Great to see this being resolved, hopefully soon.     Have there been traffic flow surveys? I suspect many (most?) cyclists will be riding the entire stretch, and therefore must ask the big (elephant in the room type question) - why does the plan show 2 signalised crossings, to switch sides?    It just seems counterintuitive - and I suspect a number of cyclists will, when riding either direction, naturally stick to one side of the road - and bypassing half of the proposed works. Which is not that safe for the cyclists, and not great for the cars or trucks. I really think that the cycleway should be run the entire length of Totara street, on the west side. This will naturally encourage cyclists to stick on the cycleway, and not be mixing it with the road and other users.

167

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Yes, reconsider the point at which the shared pathway crossed Totora St and becomes the dedicated cycleway. The design for the section between Triton Ave and Hull Rd is in my view an increase in the risk to both cyclists and motorists of a collision. The concentration of driveways in this area does not complement the shared cycleway at all and if continues as designed I believe will create even further accidents. Crossing the road at or just after the Triton Rd intersection to the western side of Totora St would be a much safer design. If you have any further questions I am happy to answer / explain my views. 

168

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Please do not add extra lights at Hewletts road as plan looks to have lights set further down from existing. There is already crossing lights it is just bikers do not use them. Road is for commercial traffic as well as local so let’s keep it moving

169

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

Why would commuter cyclists go out their way 30m down a side street (Tritron ave) when they can just stay on the road. Recreational cyclists will use the bike path but thats not who is using it mostly and those who are being killed!  Something needs to be done fast but to make sure it is also useable.

170

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

The south side of totara street is already able to take bikes, pedestrians and mobility scooters.   Your proposal requires bikes to cross totara street twice and travel thruseveral intersections.  A gravel bike lane on the southern side requires no road crossing and only goes thru one intersection.

171

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

A shared pathway is NOT the answer. Cyclists and people walking do not mix well, especially when cyclists can do up to 35 / 40 km per hour without even breaking a sweat. Ebikes are also now in the mix.

172

Feedback Via Website

Alternative suggestions

I'd like to propose that the footpath becomes a shared pathway for both pedestrians and cyclists.
You will hardly ever see pedestrians walking along Totara Street therefore without impacting traffic with further traffic delays due to road works why can't the footpath be used for both?

173

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

With reference to your letter 22nd july regarding Totara St Safety improvements , as an affected land owner and business owner I am not in favour of the proposals as I see the bigger issue has been overlooked .
That is that vehicle use needs to be addressed.  Any money spent should be on  improving the roads for vehicles and not bikes .
The information provided on the web site is misleading and mischievous in favour of bike usage .
For instance , it is stated the bike traffic is 100,000 per year but vehicle traffic is 19,0000 per day .
This should be stated as 273 bikes per day cf 19,000 vehicles per day , or 6,935,000 vpa cf 100,000 bpa .ie bike traffic is 1.4% of the overall traffic .
My suggestion is the TCC should represent facts correctly without an agenda in mind .
I am also very sceptical of this "consultation process " as we all know it is merely a lip service to a set agenda .
Please  spend my rates on improving the roads for the main user , that being vehicles .

174

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Stop spending millions of our dollars on a minority of road users. You are wasting our money. The roads in general aren’t road worthy for vehicles let alone cycles.

175

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

against

176

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

We shouldn’t modify something for the minority, they chose to ride in a place with trucks

177

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Dangerous road , logging trucks , buses A d now bikes ? Really ?

178

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Tauranga needs to stop building walking/biking tracks that dont link up to any other track it's like put a band aid on an open wound!   For example the Omokoroa bike trail and the trail from Bell Rd to Paengaroa both have to be driven to or ridden to on the open rd!     Having the proposed path cross Totara St many times is going to stop people from using it, most of us would just risk cycling on the road, also upkeep comes into question, the current path across the harbour bridge that stops at Totara street is in total disrepair and has been for years.  I suggest Tauranga council get out of their offices and get out on the road on a bike to appreciate what its like. 

179

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

The plan should consider utilising the disused railway corridor along Tasman Quay. This would take cyclists further up Totara Street away from traffic.    Most commuting cyclists will not stop at your proposed crossing point, they will continue to ride up the western side of the road.      "On the Port side of the road there are 26 heavy commercial driveways, whereas there are six on the eastern side. This means we have fewer truck entranceways that we need to manage." This is flawed logic, consideration should be provided for the total number of movements in and out of the entrances as well as roadways where there are no lights, Hull Road in particular.    The route through to the south end of Totara Street should be maintained with a suitable bay at the lights for cyclists.     Overall it appears the plan slows down both vehicles and cyclists and reduces very little risk by not taking into account human behaviour.

180

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

I have serious reservations about the cycleway / pathway crossing from one side of the road to the other - and question the rationale behind this.  I believe it will be more successful if it extends the full length of Totara Street along one side.  In my opinion the proposed changes are going to introduce additional risk for cycleway users - particularly the section of the shared path from Hull Road to Triton Avenue.  The crossing places on Hull Road and Triton Avenue appear to be slightly offset from the main flow of traffic - so traffic entering or exiting these streets will not be expecting to encounter cyclists or pedestrians.  This issue can be compounded when traffic is heavy and people 'wave' other vehicles through - if a driver is waived through they often don't check for cyclists as I have personally seen on a number of occasions.  There are also a number of commercial businesses between Hull Road and Triton Avenue which have frequent inbound and outbound vehicle movements.  Lastly, the placement of the signalised crossing near Hewletts Road seems too close to the main intersection - vehicles entering Totara Street won't be expecting to stop. 

181

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

It appears as though this plan is actively trying to discourage people from commuting by bike. It requires people commuting to work to cross a number of busy road multiple times. This both increases the time taken for the commute (reducing people's likelihood of doing it) and increases the risk by increasing the number of flash points. In order to successfully encourage people to commute by bike, hence reducing traffic and the major traffic problem Tauranga is currently experiencing, cycle plans need to benefit bike commuters - not see them as an after thought to the cars. This current proposal is a large waste of money and will do little, if anything, to encourage people to cycle to work.

182

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Tauranga city council needs to wake up  If the dimwits refuse to ad an extra lane to ease all day congestion  Then put the cycle lane on the berm the whole way  Away from traffic  From Hewletts to mount cbd    And educate the lives clad morons on bikes that they will come off second best

183

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

The idea that cyclists have to cross Totara St twice, Hull Rd and Triton Ave  to be SAFE is ridiculous. The only safe side to travel is the western side.

184

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

When someone, regardless of the mode of transportation they are using, crosses a lane of traffic, it is that persons responsibility to give way to traffic in the lane they are crossing.     A lane of traffic can be a sidewalk (pedestrian traffic), a roadway, a cycle lane, etc.      * A pedestrian must give way when crossing a road when not in zebra crossings.  * A Vehicle/Cycle must give way when crossing a footpath either entering or exiting a drive  * A Vehicle/cycle must give way of bicycles when they are in a cycle way  * A Cycle must adhere to the rules of the road, including the above three points    Instead of creating conflict between cyclists and pedestrians by merging them onto the same shared path, start educating those that use the roads, including cyclists.    As a cyclist that uses Totara St on a regular basis (4-5 days a week) by bicycle and 2-4 times a week by vehicle, I have never had an issues with traffic other than during peak rush hour when tired drivers are in a hurry to get home and just do not look and make sudden changes.    It is not the road that is dangerous, it is the inattentive/ignorant drivers/cyclists that are the problem, no different than Marine Parade where vehicles are pulling in front of and backing into the cycling lane right in front of cyclists going well under the speed limit.    With the proposed design changes, road cyclists will not use the shared pathway and will instead use the road to travel along, which will compound the issue.

185

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

I cycle on Totara Street often. A simple solution could be to reduce the speed limit; increased signage reminding motorists of cyclists; cyclists having priority at the roundabout at the Hull St intersection; widen the cycle path on both sides and reduce the medium strip.   Its a very wide road and all can be accommodated without a complicated set of two paths on separate sides of the road and two more sets of lights. The proposed two sets of lights will have an adverse impact on motor vehicles increasing congestion - this will result in increased anti cyclist sentiment. A two way cycle lane cannot be physically separated from the road as vehicles will turn across it. With a 60kph speed limit the two way cycle path is simply inviting more accidents, injury or death. There needs to be more thought and less complicated 'solutions'.

186

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

A better idea than its, adding more traffic lights to an already busy road is going to make it a joke.   This road is too dangerous for cyclists to use. With all the heavy goods trucks,using it and turning off side roads and out of industrial property.

187

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

I drive this street multiple times every day, car and truck and I would never consider cycling it! Totara St, Hull Rd and Triton Ave  must be some of the busiest streets in the country for heavy vehicles and it is madness to mix them with bicycles. Bicycles crossing Triton Ave will get more people killed, it is already a tight junction for trucks, you sometimes have to run over the kerb to get round. I have nearly hit cyclists there coming from my left in the dark. You just can't see them!!! Especially when they have no lights or bright clothing. More people will die if you have cyclists crossing a street like that, Hull Rd will be the same.

188

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

The growth in traffic including heavy trucks mean that Triton Ave should be enlarged to accommodate future traffic volumes.  To add a cycle way would restrict the ability to widen and add traffic lanes and result in this current major thoroughfare being restricted which does not assist the future traffic volumes .  We should be planning cycle ways and traffic routes for the next fifty (50) years applying practicality and cyclist safety objectives  and not making short term decisions seeking nothing but popular opinion acknowledegemnt.   

189

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

High powered LED strobe lights on the front of bicycle's are dangerous when they are coming directly towards you in your lane at night time! Please regulate bicycles as you do vehicles when on the road. I work on Totara street and constantly see many people riding without a bike helmet. A better path would be to follow the train tracks along the port removing bicycle's from Totara street all together. With the traffic volume as it is on Totara street it makes it very difficult to turn onto Totara street from Astrolab, when you have a car or truck slow down to allow you to pull onto Totara street waving you in often a bicycle will not give the same gap as the vehicles causing traffic to stop leading to dangerous situations. I have found cyclists to be rude & often offensive when trying to leave work after my shift, they often don't follow the road rules cutting in and out of traffic, up & down foot paths. Cyclists don't have to pass a road test, follow any road rules, pass a safety WOF or pay road users or rego but they want to use the same road & the same benefits. High powered LED strobes lights should be illegal on the road, much the same if I were to install a set on my vehicle.     NO to cyclists on Totara ST

190

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Not too sure whether a cycle lane in that area is the best idea. These roads are highly operated and congested with heavy vehicles due to port/container park entrances and industrial areas.    The best thing would be to try and involve a cycle lane away from the heavy traffic of the operating of motor vehicles. These changes will slow the already congested and busy traffic flow causing extra delays for all motor vehicles.

191

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

the design is rubbish.  Most people on bikes will not use this proposal purely on the baisi of safety.    It is spurious to state '26 heavy commercial driveways', when half of these are actually driveways to provide parking for smaller cars.  Have a look.  Half the driveways go to parking spaces to front of buildings ....   Please advise if any work has been done in investigating redirecting access of those port related industries to Tasman Quay Road, Maui Street or Hull Road?    Surely by working with the Port and those properties, these heavy commercial vehicles could be diverted by way of changing rediverting heavy commercial vehicles to Tasman Quay Road.    Tasman Quay Road is legal road, not Port.  Use it!!!!  Are you suggesting that to ride on the footpath in front of commercial properties on the eastern side is somehow 'safer'?  You are mad.   Do you actually have any bike people involved in this proposal?    This is a dumb idea.  The only part you have right is Kawaka Street to Rata Street.

192

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Totara Street is already heavily congested, it can take up to 30 minutes to travel the 2.5km length, adding another 2 sets of traffic lights will further add to the congestion.  The first rule of safety is 'Eliminate' the risk rather than mitigate. Prohibit all bicycles from this dangerous industrial road and create a safer alternative along Mt Maunganui & Hewletts Roads, these roads are already wider and have a far greater ability to cope with a cycle lane.

193

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Strongly object to this project. Cyclist should not be anywhere near this road at all.   Cyclists should be encouraged to use Maunganui road instead.    Totara Street is the main arterial route for port traffic (heavy trucks) with the port being the regions biggest economic contributor for the region. The port imports are forecast to increase 50% over the next 20 years and this means potentially 50% more heavy trucks on Totara street.   Putting a cycleway anywhere near Totara street will have a significant detrimental impact on port productivity.   Keep cyclists away from this road.

194

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

I do not think there should be a bike path created down Totora street. It is far too busy already with Trucks and heavy vehicle traffic and we are only going to see more deaths.     As a cyclist myself, I am really worried about the safety aspects of this plan and believe you should be re-routing the bike path a completely different way, however even adjusting the plan to detour down Hull Road, cross into Mark Road and then come back onto Totara from the Triton Avenue access. This would be safer and cause less traffic issues for everyone.     You are going to cause major traffic issues with this plan and I urge you to seriously re-consider. It isn't even a nice road to cycle on with all of the heavy traffic to and from the Port alone.

195

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

shared paths are just as dangerous to people walking as poor cycling lanes are to people on bikes. This is just a waste of money, a quick fix cop out that fixes nothing. You're just trying to get bikes out of the way of cars.  What you're proposing restricts route choices for people on bikes which will discourage them from using your daft shared paths or worse force them to take risks to get where they need to be.

196

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

I thought this was a survey, where are the questions? I drive this road every day at peak hour and other times, and it is petrifying how unsafe it is for cyclists due to all the vehicles but also due to cyclists actions. They go both ways on the footpath, the cycle lanes, the median strip. They don’t use the correct lanes for crossing, and don’t signal their intentions. They may wear hi vis but it is only visible with light on it, so at night on an angle they are dark. Bike lights are hard to read for distance.  The area is commercial, it should not be a safe zone for cyclists. The company I work for can have 50+ heavy truck movements throughout the day, and at times that can be trebled.  I also use the airport end of Totara St, and absolutely cannot see cyclists there, and fear that one may be hit at the lights due to incorrect use of cycle paths.    Consider having an alternative route, maybe round the back of all the businesses (Blake Park, Tyne St etc), take them away from Totara St

197

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Please email me proof that 100,000 cyclist used Totara Street in 2019.   100,000 cyclists / 365 days = 273.97 cyclists per day / 24 hours = 11.41 cyclists using Totara street every hour of the day for the year of 2019. We use Totara street most days of the week and the most cyclist we would see would average out at around 4 and that is usually around 5pm. This appears to us to be Council staff cooking the books to justify an end result that has been already decided. Look forward to the email with the absolute cycling facts in Totara Street.

198

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Opposed to signals at crossing along Totara between Hewletts and Waimarie, and shared path

199

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Steve, I have CC'd you in as your our Local Representative (I did not vote for you).
Andrew, I have CC'd you in as I did vote you for Mayor after hearing you Peter Williams interviews and your stance on Climate Change from a Geological perspective.
I note there are cycle lanes on both sides of the road and signaled crossings at both Waimarie & Hewletts interactions with Totara.
I further note that for months the foot paths have been through either side of the rail crossings on Totara Street.
It's fair to acknowledge that cyclists can behave like they're bulletproof, especially when they're middle aged accountants in spandex riding in groups.
Generally, we object to all the safety improvements proposed, my objections all break down to these three reasons:
1/ we cannot make an informed decision without know the cost
2/  we cannot make an informed decision without knowing the construction time-frame
3/ all proposals will further slow and block Totara Street, both more frequently and for longer
Hewletts/Kawaka
A) 3 meter shared path - see 1 & 2 above
B) signalised crossing - 1-3 above
C) intersection upgrades - 1-3 above
Totara/Kawaka onto Coronation Park (East)
D) signalised crossing - 1-3 above
E) protected cycle-way - 1-3 above
F) dedicated left turn - I would rather have that left there for heavy trucks diverted off Maunganui Road (enforcement of Engine Braking Restrictions would be good) to use Hewletts Road & Totara Street.
G) refuge island - I'm neutral on this.
H) parking - well we need parking to be affected, we need more parks - ability to find parking is more random since the closure of Phoenix Car Park and its conversion into a skate/bike park.
Traffic along Totara daily slows about 7:15am until about 8:30am stretching as far back as the Salt Hill. Then again at about 2:30pm until about 6pm regularly back to the Salt Hill. It is common for the same to happen on the weekends especially in good weather. I also object to slowing the traffic further by reducing the speed-limit (when that's even possible) from 60km/h to 50km/h.
I also have serious concerns about the quality of the workmanship that may be carried out e.g. will Totara Street or any of the connecting roads end up like Maunganui Road outside Blake Park? Mount Maunganui is one of the most beautiful suburbs in the Country, yet driving that section of road is like travelling over dozens of consecutive railway lines - I'm embarrassed. 
If a law was broken, then this is a matter for the Police: like the man camping on Mt Drury or the Street Sweepers/Cleaners that still come before 6:30am on a regular basis - or indeed the contractors cutting bike stands into the footpath outside the Mellick at 2am on a Thursday morning.
Supplemental questions:
1. How long are Form Construction consented to close off (about) half of Phoenix Lane? They've disabled bidirectional traffic flow since last summer (2019/2020) - working for 8 hours a day 5 days a week (less that 25% of the time) - 100% of the time bidirectional traffic flow is not possible - point is this: 75% of the time, no one is on site.
2. Form Construction have two sites in this neighborhood; i.) Cnr Totara and Puriri ii). Cnr Maunganui & Rata. Here's a list of the "Road Works" and "Road Works End" Signs:
For i).
Totara Street (North)
Totara Street (South)
Puriri Street (East)
Phoenix Lane (North)
Phoenix Lane (South)
For ii).
Totara Street (North)
Rata Street (West)
Maunganui Road (North)
Maunganui Road (South)
Grove Ave (East)
Phoenix Lane (North)
Would some or all of this be removed at least for the 75% of the time that no one is working on those site?
Karen, a record keeping matter: I am not a "Business Owner" the letter refers to - I live at the address and that is my home so I am glad your team have contacted me/us on this matter - thank you.
I get a sense of where most of this is going but given we are able to choose our representatives and have them (hopefully) represent our opinions in some sort of psuedo-democracy, I live in hope that this is contributing to the difference.
It bewilders me that there's a Team at our Local Government called "Cycle Plan Implementation Transportation, Infrastructure": How many people does it employ? What are their KPI's? How are they remunerated? What difference do they make? I'd rather there a team called "Improving Road Effectiveness" with the objective of getting traffic moving rather than e.g. stopped at an red light before an empty Welcome Bay round-about.
I assert that we're being desensitised because of the inability to step back and look at the scope of the matter.

200

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Point 1, Totara St is an industrial street, with 19,00 vehicle movements a day, in just over 5 days that equates to the yearly total of cyclist movements on the road. This in itself tells you it is not a safe road for cyclists. Point 2. Why is there two points where cyclist have to cross over Totara St and then back again? The western side of Totara St has plenty of room to create a dedicated cycle path (not on the roadway) the entire length of the road. Point 3. I appreciate that cyclists want a direct route to Mauao, however a little longer (distance wise) at no cost to the general rate payers or anyone else, seems a far more sensible approach in this current environment. Point 4. I also appreciate that council want to get people out of vehicles and onto bikes or buses, however there is a large proportion of the population in this area who due to age or physical abilities cannot achieve this. I personally have attended numerous crashes across the Western Bay of Plenty in the past 30 years and if there is any a road that cyclists shouldn't be on, this is one of the top roads, it is too narrow given the vehicle movements and cyclists will never win against a large motor vehicle.

201

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

The proposed crossing next to the Z Terminal introduces several risks.  1.Tankers that are turning in to the terminal won't be able to see cyclists on their left hand side as they will in the drivers blind spot, it is typical to see the tankers quickly turn in to the entrance so that they clear Totara St as soon as possible.  2. Vehicles turning left into Totara St from the Harbour Bridge end of Hewletts Rd will be at risk of rear ending vehicles that have stopped for the cyclists crossing that is just around the corner  3. The crossing should be at the intersection of Totara St and Hewletts Rd, it should be synchronised to only go when the traffic going straight on Hewletts Rd is on green. I believe that there is a theory within the council that this option would hold up vehicles wanting to turn left into Totara off Hewletts from the Bridge, this traffic would have to wait at either crossing, whether it was one outside Z entrance or at the Hewletts Rd traffic lights. Any notion that one would hold up traffic turning in to Totara and more than the other makes no sense.  Having the crossing at the Hewletts Rd traffic lights allows traffic to see the red light for the cyclists crossing signals from a much greater distance than if the crossing was around the corner near the Z entrance.  Given the volume of traffic that uses this road and the terrible cost of any driver or cyclist mistake there has to be justification to install a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over this intersection to minimise any further traffic delays. Ramping up from between Fulton Hogan and Z, cross over then right turn for the exit down on to the Totara St cycleway. There looks to be plenty of land available for that without any requirement to purchase land for the overbridge

202

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

I think you're deliberately lying about the number of bicycles that use this road to try and push your own agenda. I strongly doubt that 273 bicycles use this road every day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. How about you guys stop the bs and start being real when trying to spend our money???

203

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

There is enough room to upgrade Totara street to two lanes in each direction between Hewletts road and Hull road to keep traffic moving.  A separated cycle track/lane could then be in the proposed location to keep cyclist safe from traffic - what about an option of a bridge OVER Totara street like the one over the highway near the Crossing shopping centre in Tauriko

204

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

Please do not make congestion worse - public transport does not suit dropping children to work and then getting to work so cars remain essential . I contribute to the economy too so don’t impact my drive time

205

Feedback Via Website

Disagree


Please receive some independent  feedback ‘Totara Street safety upgrade’ project required before make a final decision on a way forward
 but rather the 80 odd %  of cyclist views on which side the solution should be deployed to and with some suggestion on how.
The design decision option for East side was actually made back in 2017/2018  as an outcome of receive public feedback and the other option being rejected on 2-3 main issues after a safety audit. These being as follows, which I strongly query the reporting analysis used to qualify the safer option being the East side :
1. Heavy vehicle driveways on the western side and the issues of safety around trucks and cyclists
2. Kiwirail saying a definite NO because  mitigating the splitting scenario at the major crossing (i.e Move across to the other side)
3. And an external safety audit saying that the Western side was not a desirable option.
My feedback also includes alternative solutions to the following advised by TCC, ‘not possible’
“Could people on bikes be directed away from Totara Street?
The only other route connecting the Mount to the city centre is via Maunganui Road and Hewletts/SH2. It is twice the distance for someone to ride compared to the Totara Street route. Hewletts Road also has safety challenges for people on bikes, notably two roundabouts (Golf Road and Newton Street), high traffic volumes on the state highway and many busy driveways”
My feedback also includes documents serious with today current state safety of TCC directing cyclists onto the foot path, logged with TCC in June,  .  I have CCd info@TCC to re-log the risk through the formal logging process
Link provided here for viewing:  https://totarastreet971673575.wordpress.com/2020/08/12/totara-st-option-one-bike-lane-feedback-submission-to-tcc/

206

Feedback Via Website

Disagree

We shouldn’t modify something for the minority, they chose to ride in a place with trucks

207

Key Stakeholders

Disagrees with current design or aspects of design

The Bay of Plenty District Health Board (Bay of Plenty DHB) is required by the Public Health
and Disability Act 2000 to improve, promote, and protect the health of people and
communities, to promote the inclusion and participation in society and independence of
people with disabilities and to reduce health disparities by improving health outcomes for
Māori and other population groups.   
Whilst health care services are important health interventions, their primary purpose is to
manage disease, ill-health and trauma at an individual level. The health and wellbeing of a
community is more strongly influenced by a wide range of influences beyond the health
sector, including the transport system.
A transport system supports the health of the population by enabling safe and convenient
mobility for all residents who need access to jobs, schools, commercial activity, and leisure,
regardless of whether they own a private vehicle. Such mobility should minimise health
risks from pollution and injuries and enhance opportunities for healthy physical activity and
communal interactions across all sectorsi.
A healthy transport system ensures equitable access to well-designed, safe and attractive
active transport options for a broad range of users and results in everyday convenience, as
well as health and environmental benefits for individuals and the populationii.  As per the
2019 Keeping Cities Moving plan from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA)iii we need to
increase the wellbeing of our cities by improving travel choice and reducing car
dependency. Inevitably this will mean growing the share of everyday travel by public
transport, walking and cycling.  Of note the NZTA report identifies Tauranga as one of the
six high-growth urban areas with the highest potential to achieve mode shift.
Feedback on the Totara Street Safety Upgrade proposal
There is no doubt that Totara Street is in urgent need of an upgrade, from the perspective of
safety, as well as the extent to which it currently supports active transport modes.  As stated
in the Council proposal, Totara Street is the most direct route for people to travel in either
direction between Tauranga and Mount Maunganui town centres. However, the existing
infrastructure is unsafe and unappealing for people who choose to ride a bike or walk.  Even
with this strong deterrent to cycling, it is noted that more than 100,000 people biked along
Totara Street in 2019, indicating strong demand for, and the convenience of, cycling.   It is a
tragic consequence of this current situation, that a cyclist recently died at this location in
their attempt to rightfully use this transport corridor.   
The Bay of Plenty DHB is broadly supportive of the proposed changes to Totara Street.  The
DHB agrees that different modes of transport should be separated as much as possible,
particularly motorised from non-motorised. The DHB recommends that Totara Street be
viewed as a transport corridor, rather than as a road, and that priority be given to the
movement and safety of people along this corridor.  Given such an approach, efforts should
Be taken to reduce the volume of heavy trucks using Totara Street – for instance by
restricting access to the Port of Tauranga to the entrance via Tasman Quay off Hewlett’s
Road. Designing Totara Street as a transport corridor for people will also result in the
removal of all on-street car storage currently in place towards the Rata Street end.
Prioritising safety for all users will also mean reducing the speed limit.
With regards to the specifics of the proposal, the DHB supports all six key features of the
proposal highlighted on the Council website. The DHB makes the following additional
recommendations: 
· Provide a signalised crossing for Totara Street at the Hewletts Road end (option B).
· That the slip lane into Waimarie Street be removed. Slip lanes, even with a priority
crossing, create risks for cyclists and pedestrians, especially when associated with a bi-
directional shared path.  Slip lanes also reduce cyclist and pedestrian convenience.
· That the crossing on Triton Ave be closer to the intersection so it is direct and
convenient for cyclists and pedestrians, and that the crossing be the same design as on
Hull Road, with priority given to cyclists and pedestrians.
· It is excellent to see priority for cyclists and pedestrians on Hull Road but moving the
crossing closer to the intersection would improve convenience. 
The Bay of Plenty DHB is supportive of Council making it legal for people to ride on the
footpath as an interim measure, but this must not result in any delay in implementing a
permanent solution as soon as possible.  The DHB has similar safety concerns for people
cycling around much of the remainder of Tauranga City and therefore suggests that Council
make it legal to ride a bike on other footpaths, too.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback on the Totara Street Safety Upgrade.

208

Key Stakeholders

Disagree

Comprehensive Design Solution
Service levels for road vehicles on Totara Street are currently sub-optimal.  Roading upgrades
are required to improve service levels on Totara Street.  This specifically requires an upgrade
to the intersection on the corner of Totara Street and Hewletts Road. In addition to this,
upgrades/widening on Totara Street, between Hull and Hewletts Roads, is required.  Before
specific upgrades to cycle lanes are undertaken, a comprehensive design solution needs to
be developed.  
Totara Street Cycleway
The following specific comments are listed below in respect of the Totara Street Cycleway.
1 Signalised Crossing Across Totara Street (between Waimarie Street and Hewletts
Road)
A signalised crossing is proposed on Totara Street 100m north of Hewletts Road.  This
will create significant congestion and additional impact on already congested traffic flow.
2 Submission to TCC - Proposed Totara Street Safety Improvements - August 2020 (ID 12890) 
2 Crossing Across Totara Street (south of Kawaka Street)
It is unclear from the plans the location of the proposed “new signalised crossing”
illustrated on the summary plan on the webpage https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-
future/projects/transportation-projects/totara-street-safety-upgrade. As with 1 above,
this will create significant congestion and additional impact on already congested traffic
flow.
3 Proposed Cycleway Private Access Crossings
A significant number of private crossing are planned to provide access to the many
businesses along Totara Street. This in itself creates significant safety issues. A
number of cyclists will elect to continue riding on the road to avoid conflicts with vehicles
accessing and exiting these businesses.
4 Rata Street Port Entrance
The proposed detail of the cycleway outside the Port’s Rata Street vehicle entrance will
create conflicts.
5 Hull Road Roundabout
The proposed design solution for a crossing on Hull Road is likely to cause congestion
with consequential impacts on Totara Street traffic. 

209

Directly affected

Agree

Supportive.  Needs access during construction especially Oct to Feb, quieter after Easter (during Winter)

210

Directly affected

Agree

Supportive Agrees

211

Directly affected

Agree

Supportive

212

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Supportive.  Will need thermal imaging signals same as Dominion Salt. Would like to have the path marked out with chalk paint as soon as possible to get idea.

213

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Supportive. Would apprecriate a few bike racks.

214

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Supportive, as long as his customers can always get to him and park conveniently - no interruptions to business.

215

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Supportive, team must ensure access to his premises is not restricted . Consider removal of tree as boats rods often get stuck in the branches.

216

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Supportive,  He would like the front of his  to demarcated parking . No loss of parking

217

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Supportive. Team to review tracking curves to ensure access is not restricted on Hull Road for turning vehicles with the location of the proposed island.

218

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Are supportive. Team need to ensure access can be maintained

219

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Dominion  Salt are interested in safety of the community , truck drivers and people biking and supports a trial to mitigate impactsr. Peak times 75 trucks per hour. Normally about 50 trucks a day. No trucks on weekend so prefer weekend work on shared-path.

220

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Landlord would appreciate the opportuntiy to upgrade the area for tenantas as part of the contractor works

221

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Owner's primary concern is the parking, he needs a minimum of 3 additional allocated parking's for his staff.

222

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Owner's primary concern is the parking, he needs a minimum of 3 additional allocated parking's for his customers. He also needs a way that trucks can enter the property, park , collect their food and go again. 

223

Directly affected

Agree with suggestions

Owner's primary concern is the parking, he needs allocated parking for his customers and cars that he is servicing.

224