Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

UNCONFIRMED Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes

31 May 2021

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Monday, 31 May 2021

Order of Business

1 Opening Karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public Forum.. 3

4 Acceptance of late items. 3

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 3

6 Change to the order of business. 3

7 Confirmation of Minutes. 4

7.1 Minutes, Open and Publix Excluded, of the Council meeting held on 10 May 2021. 4

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

10 Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

10.1 Recommendation from Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao. 4

11 Business. 4

11.1 Executive Report 4

11.2 Revocation of Independent Hearings Commissioners Policy. 6

11.3 Bay Venues Limited Board Remuneration Review 2021. 7

11.4 Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2012 - Amendment No.29. 8

11.5 Amendment to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 to prohibit heavy vehicles in Mt Maunganui 8

11.6 Harington Street Transport Hub - advice from Office of the Auditor-General 9

11.7 Hearing of submissions on the draft Acquisitions and Disposals Policy. 10

12 Discussion of Late Items. 14

13 Closing Karakia. 14

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

Tauranga

ON Monday, 31 May 2021 AT 9am

PRESENT: Commission Chair Anne Tolley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen Selwood and Commissioner Bill Wasley

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Daniel Smith (Manager: Environmental Planning), Janine Speedy (Team Leader: City Planning), Nick Swallow (Manager, Legal & Commercial), Ariell King (Team Leader: Policy), Brigid McDonald (Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor) and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

1 Opening Karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the meeting with a Karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public Forum

Nil

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to the order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of Minutes

7.1 Minutes, Open and Publix Excluded, of the Council meeting held on 10 May 2021

Resolution CO9/21/1

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Confirms the open minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 May 2021 as a true and correct record.

(b) Confirms the public excluded minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 May 2021 as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from Other Committees

10.1 Recommendation from Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao

Resolution CO9/21/2

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council accepts the recommendation to Council from Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao that Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston be appointed to the position of Deputy Chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao.

Carried

11 Business

11.1 Executive Report

Staff Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Paul Davidson, General Manager Corporate Services

Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Key points

· Strategy and Growth

- An update on the Papamoa East Interchange project was provided.

· Infrastructure Services

- Kerbside Collection – the roll out of bins was on track. Communication to the community via a range of media was now focussed on education around how to use the bins.

- Totara Street – as had been previously reported to the Commission at the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting on 17 May, funding from Waka Kotahi (New Zealand Transport Agency - NZTA) was not available in this financial year and the project was now on hold.

· People and Engagement

- TCC were back in negotiations with PSA in terms of finalising the collective employment agreement.

- A successful health and safety site visit had been undertaken of the Waiāri site.

· Regulatory and Compliance

- The work load for the Building and Environmental Planning teams continued to increase and recruiting, training and retaining staff in these areas continued to be challenging.

- $330,000 in grants had been received to support TCC with the management of freedom camping and for three emergency management projects currently underway.

· Community Services

- Just under 50 applications had been received for directors for Bay Venues Limited (BVL). Applications were now with the appointments panel.

- Elizabeth Street streetscape project was progressing well.

- The final design for Kulim Park was now on TCC’s website with work starting in August.

· Corporate Services

- The three external business activities - Airport, Marine Precinct and Beachside Holiday Park – continued to perform strongly.

- Finance staff were currently extremely busy with the LTP submission process.

- Cyber security – additional work to ramp up the organisation’s cyber security (started prior to the Waikato District Health Board incident) was continuing and would be ongoing.

In response to questions

· Strategy and Growth

- Engagement with tangata whenua for the Tauriko for Tomorrow project had been strong and was not identified as a risk so had not been highlighted in the report.

- Once technical work had been completed for the long term transport options for the Tauriko for Tomorrow project, this would be brought back to Council to seek endorsement for a formal Tauranga City Council (TCC) position.

- The Commissioners looked forward to receiving a comprehensive briefing on options for the strategic route through Tauriko to ensure a solution that worked strategically as well as locally.

· Infrastructure Services

- Kerbside collection – Staff had worked with multi-unit dwellings to provide the best solution for them. There were bespoke truck options.

- The Waiāri water supply scheme – the scheme was expected to be switched on by the end of 2022. Only 30% of the consented volume would be used initially so there was capacity for future growth.

- Totara Street – it was frustrating and concerning that this project was now on hold. Commissioners were scheduled to meet with the regional manager of Waka Kotahi tomorrow and possible alternative options for funding for the Totara Street project would be raised at that meeting.

· Community Services

- Some funding indicated from partners for the Kāinga Tupu work was for a one year commitment, some for slightly longer. The coordination function would remain with TCC in the short term, the next six to twelve months. The TCC share of funding was contained within the Long Term Plan (LTP).

- Staff were working hard to influence TCC projects regarding accessibility for disabled persons. $400,000 per annum over the next ten years for Spaces and Places accessibility initiatives was in the LTP, not just for TCC projects but also for projects happening in the community.

- There were strong community views for and against the Kulim Park and Omanawa Falls projects. Engagement with those communities would continue so what was happening and why was clearly understood, and to enable those communities to continue to put forward their views and ideas.

· Corporate Services

- Thousands of attempts to hack in to TCC systems were happening on a weekly basis and capacity and focus was being increased in this area. An external cyber review had been undertaken around six months ago. The review report and TCC’s action plan would be brought back to a future Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting.

- Modelling of potential Development Contribution (DC) funding for future community infrastructure would be for both growth and existing areas.

- The Airport had a $2million per year return; the majority coming through commercial property rather than the airport operation. The Marine Precinct was comparable in the rates it offered; however, the services it offered were not as complete as other facilities and therefore was slightly behind in breaking even.

Overall comment from Commissioners

The Chief Executive report was a good commentary that provided Commissioners with a clear oversight across each department of where things were at; however, the following suggestions were made for other key data to be included, preferably graphed:

- Regulatory and Compliance - data on meeting consent timeline requirements, consents received that were rejected as not fit for purpose, and trends up and down for these.

- Infrastructure services - On time, on budget data.

- For each department - staff turnover rates, level of staff engagement, sentiment of staff and trends up and down for these.

Resolution CO9/21/3

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council receives the Executive Report.

Carried

11.2 Revocation of Independent Hearings Commissioners Policy

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Daniel Smith, Manager: Environmental Planning

Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

In response to questions

· Commissioner performance expectations and how those would be measured would be stipulated as part of the contract agreement. Timeframes had been pushed out in the past mostly due to the availability of commissioners.

Resolution CO9/21/4

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Revocation of Independent Hearings Commissioners Policy report.

(b) Revokes the current Independent Hearings Commissioners Policy effective from 31 May 2021, with the exception of clause 5.6 (Costs Associated with Independent Hearings Commissioners) which will continue until the date the Council adopts the Schedule of User Fees and Charges for 2021/22;

(d) Makes the delegations specified in Attachment 1 (titled Delegations to Independent Hearings Commissioners) to all persons who are accredited to conduct hearings in terms of sections 39A and 39B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (other than local body elected members), as named on the Ministry for the Environment’s list of ‘Making Good Decisions’ Certificate holders - non-local body elected members or any equivalent list, as amended from time to time (“Independent Hearings Commissioner”);

(e) Delegates to the Chief Executive, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance and Manager: Environmental Planning (“Delegate/s”)^*for resource consents:

(i) the authority to select and appoint one or more Independent Hearings Commissioner(s) to act in respect of any particular matter; and

(ii) where there is more than one Independent Hearings Commissioner selected and appointed for the particular matter, the authority to appoint the chair and any deputy chair.

^*For the purposes of this delegation, the Delegate includes any staff member who performs or exercises the same or substantially similar role or function to the Delegate’s position named above, whatever the actual name of their position.

(f) For Schedule One processes Council continues to determine on a case-by-case basis the selection and appointment of persons for hearings on City Plan changes and variations under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991;

(g) Requests that an administrative procedure to guide the selection and appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioners be developed and adopted by the Executive Leadership Team.

(h) Notes that resolutions (b) to (e) are effective as of 1 June 2021.

Carried

11.3 Bay Venues Limited Board Remuneration Review 2021

Staff Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

In response to questions

· The assessment methodology used was TCC developed, but was based on a model that Auckland Council used when they carried out the same exercise for their council controlled organisations.

Resolution CO9/21/5

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Bay Venues Limited Board Remuneration Review 2021 report.

(b) Agrees that the remuneration for the directors of Bay Venues Limited Board should remain the same, being:

(i) Base director fee set at $33,000 per annum; and

(ii) Chair fee at $66,000 per annum.

(c) Agrees a remuneration review for the Bay Venues Limited Board be included in the remuneration review for all council-controlled organisations, next scheduled for 2023.

Carried

11.4 Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2012 - Amendment No.29

Staff Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Resolution CO9/21/6

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 Amendments Report.

(b) Adopts the proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 Attachment as per Appendix B, effective from 1 June 2021.

Carried

11.5 Amendment to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 to prohibit heavy vehicles in Mt Maunganui

Staff Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

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

In response to questions

· Application of the new bylaw and what it meant for the network would be monitored. Results from the monitoring exercise, along with any associated recommendations, would be reported back to council within six months after the bylaw had come into effect.

Resolution CO9/21/7

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Amendment to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 to prohibit heavy vehicles in Mt Maunganui report.

(b) Specifies that pursuant to clause 8.2 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 heavy motor vehicles are prohibited at all times from the following streets:

· Aintree Place

· Ascot Place

· Ascot Road

· Berescourt Place

· Berwick Place

· Carter Street

· Carysfort Street

· Compton Place

· Concord Avenue

· Crane Street

· Epsom Road

· Kinross Place

· Harris Street

· Huia Avenue

· Lachlan Avenue

· Leander Street

· Links Avenue

· Paterson Street

· Pukaki Street

· Salt Avenue

· Solway Place

· Spur Avenue

· Stawell Avenue

· Surf Road

· Part of Farm Street between Farm Street and Concord Ave

· Part of Taupo Avenue between Marlin Street and Paterson Street

· Part of Oceanbeach Road between Golf and Girven Roads

Carried

Attachment

1 Map - Heavy vehicles ban in Mount Maunganui

11.6 Harington Street Transport Hub - advice from Office of the Auditor-General

Staff Nick Swallow, Manager: Legal & Commercial

In response to questions

· It was suggested that the recommendation in the McHale Group report regarding a regular independent probity auditor review, be included in the recommendations of this report.

· Implementation of the review recommendations, particularly in the project governance management space, would be difficult and would take some time. The report due back to council in September would be an audit of progress made against the recommendations.

· Supplier panels were set up to provide expertise in specific areas and had a good place in the procurement ecosystem; however, it was not ideal to appoint for expertise A, but actually engage for expertise B. The Auditor General had advised that this needed to be reviewed.

· If approved through the LTP process, the recruitment for two additional procurement roles would begin in August.

Resolution CO9/21/8

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) receives the Harington Street Transport Hub - advice from Office of the Auditor‑General report.

(b) Implements a regular (e.g. annual) independent probity auditor review of a sample of Council project governance and a review of procurement processes to provide assurance that the Council’s policies and procedures and probity expectations are being complied with and probity-procurement risk exposure is being satisfactorily managed.

Carried

11.7 Hearing of submissions on the draft Acquisitions and Disposals Policy

Staff Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Resolution CO9/21/9

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Hearing of submissions on the draft Acquisitions and Disposals Policy report.

Carried

The following submitters to the draft Acquisitions and Disposals Policy were then heard.

Barry Scott - Submission 102

A copy of the additional submission information tabled by Mr Scott can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Key points

· Believed proper and fair consultation had not taken place.

· Suggested that council set up a Round Table type of mechanism to go over the ground again and come back to the commissioners with more rounded recommendations. The Round Table could consist of council staff members, selected community representatives and members of tangata whenua.

· Believed that the granting of a right of first refusal (RFR) to Tangata Whenua was a badly thought out idea and could be open to a court challenge.

· Urged council to consider the establishment of community boards in Tauranga, to provide consultation and involvement at a grass roots level.

In response to questions

· Rather than making RFR mandatory in the policy it was suggested that council reserve the right, and let circumstances at the time decide whether it was appropriate to offer first right of refusal to iwi.

· The Commission were keen to find ways to bring more community feedback into council and would consider the Round Table idea.

Puhirake Ihake – Ngati Tapu Hapu - Submission 054

Key points

· The policy was important for tangata whenua and was a long time coming.

· The whenua that this policy related to went back historically to the way it originally came into council’s hands; the large majority having been retained by the Crown who, via legislation, passed the land over to territorial authorities. Very little had been given back to Tangata Whenua and Council still had properties that had come through that original process.

· The Tangata Whenua collective was formed formally with council in 2002, had evolved since then and had grown stronger over the years.

· It had always been the main aspiration of Tangata Whenua to not only get compensation for the land that was lost through the Crown but also to try to get back the whenua.

· RFR gave Tangata Whenua the opportunity of fairly getting the land back, albeit having to purchase it back.

· The policy gave Council the opportunity to clearly spell out that it was honouring the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as acknowledging the relationship with Tangata Whenua over the past 20 years.

· Ngati Tapu were in absolute support of the policy.

Whitiora Mcleod - Submission 008

Key points

· Ngati Kahu believed the policy was nothing but positive and supported the policy as it read today.

· Ngati Kahu fully understood the process and objectives of the policy.

· If no wahi tapu was identified through the property search process, then the market value would be paid.

· Acknowledged Danna Leslie for her contribution to developing and writing the policy alongside tangata whenua.

· Also acknowledged Carlo Ellis for providing key strategy advice which should be used going forward.

· Commended Tenby Powell, Heidi Hughes, Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie and Bill Grainger for their openness and vision to put the policy forward.

· Thanked past and present Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana hapu representatives and the commissioners for their part in the journey.

· Believed the policy was good not only for Tangata Whenua, but also for the city as a whole.

In response to questions

· Hapu boundaries were clear within the protocols developed by Te Pou Takawaenga for council processes, however within those boundaries there were historical overlapping interests. When dealing with these pieces of land, generally mana whenua would take the lead, but in discussion with other hapu leads. The main decisions would be made during these discussions and generally before they came to council.

· The way the land that was currently held by council had come to council, either originally through the Crown or other processes, supported the RFR being in the policy.

Buddy Mikaere – Ngai Tamarawaho - Submission 080 and 104

Key points

· Spoke in support of the policy.

· The policy provided the means for tangata whenua to acquire the land that council found surplus to its needs.

· Pleased that after many years and with the support of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana and other iwi and hapu in Tauranga, this point had finally been reached.

Maureen Anderson - Submission 031

Key points

· Ms Anderson did not support the policy and believed it was only the squeaking minority who were being heard.

· Land had been acquired by council in many different ways. No matter how the land had been acquired, it had previously been owned by someone who had paid rates on it and maintained it at their cost. When the land came in to council ownership, it was the collective ratepayer who paid the cost of maintaining and/or upgrading it. In Ms Anderson’s opinion, it was untenable to give any one section of the community a prior right to the purchase of that land. It should be offered back to the prior owner at market value and if the offer was not taken up, the land should go to the open market at market value.

· The Commissioners were the best advocates to promote to government that it was an unfair burden on ratepayers to pay for land that was ultimately given to Māori, or any other section of the community, because it had been maintained and sometimes paid for by the ratepayers of the city generally.

In response to questions

· The sale of any land that was not under claim by Tangata Whenua and had been purchased by the public, should go to referenda for the public to decide if the land should be sold.

· Any council land coming up for sale should first be offered back to the previous landowner or the title holder at the time.

Jim Sherlock - Submission 026

Key points

· If ratepayers assets were to be disposed of, this should be done at market value.

· The method of disposal should be by auction. It was a transparent method that allowed for public participation and the sale price reflected what market was prepared to pay. Most importantly, it allowed ratepayers to know that the price paid on the day reflected what the assets were really worth.

· Suggested that once an asset had gone through the auction process, then a RFR could be given to Tangata Whenua at the auction price, with a 30 days option to buy the land post auction, otherwise the asset would be disposed of to the successful bidder.

In response to questions

· The need to give due compensation to tangata whenua for land that was confiscated, often without compensation, should be a matter for the government, not a council matter. Ratepayers should not have to keep paying for mistakes that were made 150 years ago.

Hayden Henry – Hungahungatoroa 1B2B2 Trust - Submissions 074 and 61

Key points

· Spoke in support of the policy.

· The connection to whenua was vital to Tangata Whenua.

· It was about how to bring balance; and balance was about people, not about economic gain.

· Land that had been taken by council had, in cases, been abused e.g. Whareroa and the management of air quality.

· Traditional boundaries were governed by maunga and awa, not boundaries imposed by council.

At 11.33am, the meeting adjourned.

At 1.12pm, the meeting resumed.

John Robson - Submission 055

Key points

· Spoke in support of the twin outcomes of policy.

· Expressed concern that the report failed to provide the content necessary for people to understand why the report recommendations were being made.

· None of the aspirations of Tangata Whenua spoken about today had been outlined in the report.

· Expressed concern that the policy did not help the community understand why they needed to support the seeking of some process that delivered the desired outcomes of the policy.

· Recommended that the process was paused and more thought be given to how to get informed consent from the community.

In response to questions

· There was an opportunity to inform the community of the history/background of the issue and the commissioners were urged to take this.

Rob Paterson – Citizens Advocacy Tauranga Incorporated (CAT) - Submission 088

A copy of the additional submission information tabled by Mr Paterson can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Key points

· CAT did not support the merging of the three existing policies – Strategic Acquisitions Fund Policy, Council Land Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy (MAP) and Property Acquisitions and Divestment Road Stopping Policy.

· Considered that the current draft MAP policy financially disadvantaged Tauranga ratepayers and residents, and believed the current 2014 MAP policy adequately addressed the matter.

· The timeframes set were excessive and unworkable, effectively allowing for an option to purchase for up to a year.

· Requested that the status quo be retained and the three policies remain separate, and that TCC retained the 2014 MAP Policy which was working reasonably well.

In response to questions

· The current three policies had all gone through a submissions process.

Richard Prince - Submission 033

A copy of the additional submission information tabled by Mr Prince can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Key points

· It appeared that the main reason why Tangata Whenua supported the RFR was to make money.

· Provided examples that clearly demonstrated problems with valuations under RFR, including what had occurred at 60 Chapel Street.

· Valuations were an art, not a science, which enabled valuers to tailor a valuation to meet their client’s requirements, and for that reason market valuations might have little validation and were likely to short change ratepayers.

· Council land was in essence privately owned and Council was entrusted with the care of these assets on behalf of the community. It was not for Council to gift or sell community assets at a discount, to the disadvantage of ratepayers.

· Recommended that land assets be put to auction or tender so that all could participate and a true market value could be achieved.

· Requested that the RFR be removed from the draft policy.

Rob Paterson - Submission 101

A copy of the additional submission information tabled by Mr Paterson can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Key points

· Did not support the merging of the three policies as previously stated when speaking to submission number 88.

· Did not support the current Maori Land Acquisitions Policy.

· Supported other submissions in opposition, particularly those of Richard Prince, Barry Scott and Maurice O’Reilly.

· Provided the examples of Dive Crescent, 60 Chapel Street and 11 Mission Street as matters that impinged on the current policy proposals.

· The flowchart indicated a timeline of up to 60 weeks. In Mr Paterson’s view, it could be done in 14 days. An option to purchase at an initial offer price that could then be delayed for up to a year looked like a very good deal for the buyer, but not for the vendor; in this case, Tauranga city residents and ratepayers.

· Requested that the Commissioners reject the draft proposal in its entirety and retain the status quo.

In response to questions

· It was suggested that buyers were presented with TCC’s valuation in the first instance and then had 30 days to decide on whether to purchase or not.

· If the land was a straight sale, then it was suggested it go out to the public with a very limited timeline to purchase. TCC could always go back to tangata whenua to see if there was any interest to buy if the offers that had been received were below TCC’s valuation.

Resolution CO9/21/10

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(b) Receives the verbal and written submissions (Attachment A) to the proposed Acquisitions and Disposals Policy.

Carried

Attachments

1 Tabled Item - Barry Scott - Additional information in support of submission #102

2 Tabled item - Rob Paterson - Information in support of submission #88

3 Tabled item - Richard Prince - Information in support of submission #33

4 Tabled item - Rob Paterson - Information in support of submission #101

12 Discussion of Late Items

Nil

13 Closing Karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a Karakia.

The meeting closed at 1.58pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the ordinary Council meeting held on 21 June 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 June 2021

11 Business

11.1 Alcohol Control Areas

File Number: A12564997

Author: Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Authoriser: Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the request for an alcohol ban to be put in place in the Twelfth Avenue area.

Recommendations

That Council:

(a) Does not put in place an alcohol ban in the Twelfth Avenue area as there is insufficient evidence that the area has experienced a high level of crime and disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area.

(b) Continues to work with the Police to investigate a potential action plan for Twelfth Avenue.

Executive Summary

2. Council has received two petitions regarding homelessness and behaviour in the Twelfth Avenue area. One of the petitions specifically requested an alcohol ban on Twelfth Avenue. This report briefs Council on the legal requirements for putting an alcohol ban in place. The legal conditions for introducing a new ban are high.

3. The available evidence is presented for Council to consider. This includes feedback from the petitions, complaints received by Council and New Zealand Police data and comments.

4. Police report that there is no demonstrable link between alcohol and offending in and around Twelfth Avenue. As a result, the Police do not support the imposition of an alcohol ban in that area.

5. In response to the key issue of some residents not feeling safe, Council and the Police are investigating a potential action plan for the area.

Background

6. On the 10^th May 2021, two petitions were presented to Council. One requested that ‘Council stop all homeless people from being on our street’ – Twelfth Avenue. The second petition requested an alcohol ban in the Twelfth Avenue area. This report responds to the request for an alcohol ban in the area.

7. Section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) gives Council the power to make bylaws to control alcohol in public places. The Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 (the ‘Bylaw’) was made under this Act and sets alcohol-free areas across the city.

8. Clause 8 of the Bylaw allows Council, through publicly notified resolution, to put in place alcohol-free areas for a specific time period and/or event (‘temporary alcohol-free area’).

9. The Bylaw is enforced by the New Zealand Police. The Act provides the enforcement powers to the Police. Council’s Bylaw Officer’s do not have power to enforce alcohol-free areas.

Requirements for making an Alcohol Control Bylaw and Temporary Alcohol-free area

10. There are two options to consider for making a new alcohol- free area. One is to review and amend the bylaw to put in place a new area. The second option is to explore implementing a temporary alcohol ban under clause 8 of the Bylaw.

11. Both options require a high threshold for introducing a new ban. The criteria for making alcohol control bylaws changed in 2013 when the Local Government (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Act came into effect.

12. The Act requires that before it makes a new bylaw, continues an existing bylaw, or replaces an existing bylaw, Council must be satisfied that:

· the bylaw can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms (section 147A(1)(a));

· there is evidence that any new alcohol-free areas have experienced a high level of crime and disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in that area (section 147A(1)(b)(i));

· for expiring bylaws, that a high level of crime or disorder made worse by alcohol consumption is likely to arise in the area to which the bylaw is intended to apply if the bylaw was not made (section 147A(3)(b)); and

· the alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate in the light of that crime and disorder (section 147A(1)(b)(ii)).

13. All the conditions above must also be met when putting in place temporary alcohol-free areas (under clause 8 of the Bylaw) unless the area is part of a large-scale event.

Consideration of evidence

14. To put in place a new alcohol-free area in Twelfth Avenue Council must be satisfied that there is evidence that the Twelfth Avenue area has experienced a high level of crime and disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in that area.

Community Feedback

15. Feedback from the Twelfth Avenue community presenting the petitions provided some evidence of crime (break in) but there was no conclusive evidence that this crime was caused by alcohol consumption in the area.

16. There was a strong message that some residents felt threatened and intimated by the presence of people gathering in the area: ‘Some people won’t go past them as they are very intimidating’, ‘Staff felt unsafe and intimidated’. They also reported (and provided photos) of the litter and mess in the area: ‘The mess that is left behind is terrible’.

Police data

17. The New Zealand Police have compared the temporal and spatial distribution of calls for service and incidents in the Twelfth Avenue area with Brookfield. Brookfield has a permanent 24-hour 7 day a week alcohol ban in place under the current bylaw. Brookfield is the same sized area of a similar use. It has a small shopping centre close to residential areas. The Police report that: ‘Whilst there are naturally differences in the jobs attended, the data at the Twelfth Avenue site does not show any major inconsistencies with the compared area’ (Brookfield)).

18. The evidence provided by the call out data does not indicate a higher level of crime and disorder in Twelfth Avenue when compared to a similar area with an existing alcohol ban. 33 calls for service were received by the Police over the past 12 months compared with 30 for Brookfield.

19. It is also important to note that not all the calls for service may be directly attributable to alcohol.

20. Police have reviewed the data and conclude that ‘there is no demonstrable link between alcohol and offending in and around Twelfth Avenue, as a result Police will not be in a position to support the imposition of a liquor ban in that area’.

Council Complaints

21. Council has received four complaints since March 2021 reporting incidents in Twelfth Avenue. These complaints reported drinking in a public place, rubbish and at times obstruction of entrances and aggressive behaviour.

22. Council’s Bylaws Officer responded to three of these reports by visiting the area and asking those drinking to relocate. The other compliant was regarding threatening aggressive behaviour so the person reporting this was asked to contact the Police.

The Issue

23. The residents and business operators in Twelfth Avenue do not feel safe and are frustrated with having to deal with rubbish and mess left by those gathering in the area.

24. However, on balance, the available evidence, does not indicate a high level of crime and disorder caused or made worse by alcohol. Even if Council was satisfied that a high level of crime and disorder caused by alcohol is currently occurring, it is important to acknowledge that an alcohol ban may not be the most effective way of addressing the community’s concerns.

25. The concern is largely around the gathering of people on Twelfth Avenue. If an alcohol ban was in place and alcohol was being consumed in the area, the Police would have the power to seize and remove the alcohol. However, this may not result in people leaving the area. And if they did leave Twelfth Avenue area, they may cause an issue in another part of the community.

26. The issue is chronic and complex. It impacts on the entire Tauranga community. Tauranga has many social service agencies working to support individuals in need. Council has produced a flyer ‘He Awhina Mōu - Need a Hand’ that lists our local support agencies.

27. Council also has a resource that helps people work out who to contact when they are concerned for someone’s wellbeing. This sets out the situations where Council can assist and when Police are required. This resource is available on our website https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/Portals/0/data/community/homelessness/who-to-contact.pdf.

28. Council will continue to raise awareness of these resources so that our community is aware of where to go for help and support.

29. In response to the concerns raised by the Twelfth Avenue community Police and our Safe and Resilient Communities Advisor are investigating a potential action plan for the community.

Options Analysis

30. The key issue to be considered is whether Council is satisfied that Twelfth Avenue has experienced a high level of crime and disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption.

31. If Council decide that there is evidence for an alcohol ban, there are two options for putting it in place; a temporary ban or amending the current bylaw to create a permanent ban for the area.

32. The following options are provided for consideration:

(a) Do not proceed with work on a new alcohol ban at this stage and continue to work with the Police to investigate a potential community action plan

(b) Bylaw review to amend the Bylaw

(c) Put in place a temporary alcohol ban in Twelfth Avenue under clause 8 of the current Bylaw, with a view to investigating if this helps address the issues raised by the community.

Option (a): Do not proceed with work on a new alcohol ban and continue to partner with the Police to investigate a potential community action plan (Recommended).

33. Under this option, Council would continue to partner with the Police and other community support organisations to investigate a potential action plan for the Twelfth Avenue community. Council would also continue to inform the community of where to get further help.

34. The advantages and disadvantages of this option include:

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Allows Council and the Police to focus and direct resources to addressing the fundamental issue · Legal compliance with the requirements for putting in place an alcohol banAllows Council’s Bylaw Officers to continue their work building relationships with the community. If a ban was in place the Police would be required to enforce it.		· The Twelfth Avenue community may not feel their concerns have been addressed sufficiently · The Police would not have enforcement powers in respect of the Bylaw if people are drinking alcohol in Twelfth Avenue.
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	Within existing budget
Key risks	Risk that the community in Twelfth Avenue may not feel Council is responding to their concerns

Option (b): Review the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018

35. Under this option, Council would review the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 with a view to amending it to make Twelfth Avenue an alcohol-free area. Bylaw reviews must follow the specific process set out in the Act. Community consultation would be required.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Police would have enforcement powers under the Bylaw to stop or arrest people who were drinking alcohol in the Twelfth Avenue area · Alcohol related harm and crime may be reduced in the Twelfth Avenue area · The Twelfth Avenue residents and business owners would be satisfied that Council had put in place an alcohol-free area · The review allows other alcohol-free areas to be considered.		· Other policy and bylaw work would need to be delayed to accommodate this bylaw review into the work programme · May not be effective in addressing the fundamental issue · May be seen to not meet the legal requirements of an alcohol ban due to a lack of evidence to demonstrate that a high level of crime and disorder has been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in that area (section 147A(1)(b)(i)) · The bylaw review is a lengthy process so any potential ban would not take effect immediately · Implementation costs.
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	$4 000 indicative estimate of implementations costs – for required signage, public notification and communications
Key risks	Delay of other policy and bylaw work May not be effective in addressing the fundamental issue. May not be seen as meeting the legal requirements of the Act for alcohol bans.

Option (c): Activate a temporary alcohol ban in the Twelfth Avenue area and examine if this helps address the issues raised by the community.

36. Under this option, Council would put in place a temporary alcohol-free area in place in the Twelfth Avenue area. This would be implemented by publicly notified resolution under clause 8 of the Bylaw.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Police would have enforcement powers under the Bylaw to stop or arrest people who were drinking alcohol in the Twelfth Avenue area · This would allow further data to be gathered to determine if the ban was effective in addressing community concerns before considering a permanent ban · Alcohol related harm and crime may be reduced in the Twelfth Avenue area while the ban is in place · The Twelfth Avenue residents and business owners would be satisfied that Council had put in place an alcohol-free area. ·		· May be seen to not meet the legal requirements of an alcohol ban due to a lack of evidence to demonstrate that a high level of crime and disorder has been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in that area (section 147A(1)(b)(i)) May not be effective in addressing the fundamental issue · May require an additional ban in other areas if people move away from Twelfth Avenue to consume alcohol in other areas of the city. · Implementation costs.
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	$4 000 indicative estimate of implementations costs – for required signage, public notification and communications
Key risks	May not be effective in addressing the fundamental issue. May not be seen as meeting the legal requirements of the Act for alcohol bans.

Financial and Legal Considerations

37. The financial and legal considerations are covered in the options analysis above.

Significance

38. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

39. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter

40. In accordance with the considerations above, the recommended decision on how to respond to the request for an alcohol ban in the Twelfth Avenue area, is considered of low significance. However, the fundamental issue facing the city (as outlined above) is significant.

ENGAGEMENT

Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the recommended decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision. However, if Council was to make a decision to proceed with either option two or three there would be engagement and consultation requirements as set out by the existing bylaw and the LGA.

Next Steps

41. If Council support the recommendation not to put an alcohol ban in place Police and Council’s Safe and Resilient Communities Advisor will continue to investigate an action plan for the Twelfth Avenue community.

42. If Council decide to review the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018, Council staff will report back with the implications of this decision on the Policy and Bylaw’s current work programme and a timeline for this work.

43. If Council decided to implement a temporary alcohol-free area, staff will report back on the specific area covered, the duration of the ban and what times of day the ban would apply. Under the Act any alcohol ban must be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms and be appropriate and proportionate in the light of that crime and disorder.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 June 2021

11.2 Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee - Remuneration for appointed members

File Number: A12601222

Author: Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser: Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

Purpose of the Report

1. This report recommends remuneration for external members appointed to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee – Remuneration for appointed members”.

(b) Approves the remuneration of $22,000 per annum for the external members appointed to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee who have voting rights.

(c) Approves the remuneration of $12,000 per annum for Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Chairperson appointed to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee.

(d) Approves the remuneration of $26,400 per annum for the Deputy Chairperson of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The Council resolved on 27 April 2021 to establish the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee and set the interim remuneration for the externally appointed members and requested that this be reviewed and reported back to the Council.

3. Strategic Pay was engaged to undertake the remuneration review and have recommended that the voting representatives be remunerated in the range $20,000 to $22,000 per annum, the non-voting representative be remunerated in the range of $11,000 to $12,000 per annum and the Deputy Chairperson be remunerated in the range of $24,000 to $26,400 per annum.

4. It is recommended that the remuneration be set at the higher end of the ranges.

Background

5. The Council resolved on 27 April 2021:

(g) Requests the Chief Executive review the remuneration for the external representatives and reports back to the Council as soon as practicable.

(h) In the interim until the remuneration has been reviewed, approves the remuneration for the external members of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee as follows:

· Tangata Whenua Representatives $8,000 per annum

· Chairperson Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana $8,000 per annum

· External independent appointee - Chief Executive to negotiate an amount

(i) Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to determine the contractual terms and conditions of appointment for the externally appointed members, excluding remuneration.

6. Advice has been sought from Strategic Pay on the appropriate level of remuneration for the appointees to the Committee and their report is set out in Attachment 1.

7. Position descriptions were provided to Strategic Pay and are attached to the report as follows:

(a) Tangata Whenua representatives – Attachment 2

(b) Rangapū Chair – Attachment 3

8. Strategic Pay’s approach was to:

(a) Review the remuneration Councillors receive and the relativity to Committee remuneration;

(b) Consider the broader marketplace for governance fees including the Cabinet Fees framework and other broader work they have conducted;

(c) Look at Committee fee levels and overall fee levels compared to data collected and analysed in their annual February 2021 New Zealand Directors’ Fees Survey.

9. Strategic Pay recommend that the voting representatives be remunerated in the range of $20,000 to $22,000 per annum based primarily on the relationship between Councillor remuneration and estimated time commitments for the externally appointed members, which are estimated to be double that of the previous appointed committee members. The fees of around 20% of the Councillors remuneration without positions of responsibility of $105,628 per annum would arrive at an annual fee of $21,125.

10. Strategic Pay also considered that all roles, except the Chairperson of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, are full voting members of the Committee and that the Committee provides input into the long term strategic direction of Tauranga City Council. The extent, context and scope of the workload was important in setting the fee levels and they applied the State Services Commission’s Fee Framework scoring methodology which positioned this as median, with a base annual fee of $21,700.

11. Strategic Pay also considered the Director Fee market. The roles were positioned in the lower quartile with a base annual fee of $20,000.

12. Given this consistency Strategic Pay has recommended a range of $20,000 to $22,000 per annum for the voting representatives.

13. The Chairperson of Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana was appointed to the Committee in an advisory position, without voting rights, designed to ensure mana whenua discussions are connected to the committee. Strategic Pay has recommended remuneration in the range of $11,000 to $12,000 per annum which aligns with the State Services Commission Framework. This lower fee recognises the role is advisory in nature and is similar to their previous recommendations in 2019 for remuneration for Tangata Whenua representatives who were appointed without voting rights at that time.

14. Dr Wayne Beilby was elected as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee. Strategic Pay has recommended the remuneration for the Deputy Chairperson be in the range of $24,000 to $26,400 per annum based on a ratio of 1.2 or 20% more than the remuneration for the voting representatives.

15. In 2019 Strategic Pay reviewed and benchmarked remuneration levels for external representatives of standing committees, including the independent chairperson of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee (with voting rights and casting vote) and the Tangata Whenua representatives (without voting rights at that time).

Strategic / Statutory Context

16. Clause 31(1) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act (LGA 2002) provides that Council may appoint or discharge any member of a committee. Clause 31(3) provides for the Council to appoint persons who are not members of the Council to its committees if, in the opinion of the local authority, that person has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee.

17. Section 14 of the LGA 2002 requires a local authority, in performing its role, to act in accordance with the principles specified. These principles include, in subsection 14(1)(d), that a local authority should provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes.

18. Section 81(1)(a) and (b) of the LGA 2002 require that a local authority must (a) establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and (b) consider ways in which it may foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority.

Options Analysis

Option 1 – Set remuneration based on Strategic Pay advice – Recommended option

19. In this option the Council would accept the expert advice provided by Strategic Pay and set the remuneration for voting members, the non-voting member and the Deputy Chairperson based on the ranges supplied.

20. The Council has the option of setting remuneration anywhere in the ranges provided by Strategic Pay.

21. This option would be consistent with the previous decisions regarding remuneration for externally appointed members based on advice from Strategic Pay.

Option 2 – Set remuneration not based on Strategic Pay advice

22. In this option the Council could set remuneration at levels that are not based on Strategic Pay advice.

23. This option is not recommended as the Council would not be guided by expertise in this matter.

Financial Considerations

24. The current budget provides for remuneration for representatives appointed to Council committees of $77,000 per annum. An increase of $27,400 per annum would be required to accommodate the increases proposed in this report. This increase can be absorbed into the current remuneration budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

25. There are no legal implications or risks associated with remunerating externally appointed members to Council Committees.

Significance

26. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

27. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the remuneration of externally appointed representatives.

28. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

29. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no engagement is required prior to Council making a decision. Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

30. Update the Agreements with the representatives.

Attachments

1. Strategic Pay - Review of remuneration for appointed members of Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee - A12601111 ⇩

2. Position Description - Tangata Whenua Representative to SFRC - A12633212 ⇩

3. Position Description - Rangapu Chair to SFRC - A12633214 ⇩

4. Position Description External Independent Appointee to SFRC - A12633213 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 June 2021

11.4 Arataki Bus Facility

File Number: A12550571

Author: Alistair Talbot, Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning

Peter Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide an overview of the Arataki Bus Facility project, a summary of the issues associated with this, and set out the next steps for the project including their estimated timeframes.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Arataki Bus Facility”.

(b) Notes that Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency co-investment to develop a business case to identify a preferred site for a facility has been confirmed.

(c) Notes the Next Steps, Issues and Estimated Timeframes associated with developing the business case to support funding decisions, and likely statutory consents and approvals for a bus facility at the preferred site.

Executive Summary

2. Quality public transport infrastructure that is integrated with its surrounding urban environment and the transport network supports the objectives of the Urban Form & Transport Initiative (UFTI) and the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (WBTSP).

3. The current temporary bus facility on Farm Street in the Arataki area is the second busiest public transport facility in Tauranga but is not satisfactory for bus users or local residents and creates issues from a bus network operations perspective. It is difficult to make significant further transport network improvements in the broader area until a permanent location for the facility has been determined.

4. Sites for a permanent facility throughout Arataki have been assessed with the area around Farm Street generally performing best as it provides good access to key destinations as well as the residential catchment north of State Highway 2.

5. Previous investigations have shortlisted two sites for further investigation, these are:

(a) Part of Arataki Park currently used by St. John Ambulance on Girven Road; and

(b) A location within the Bayfair shopping centres site accessed from Farm Street.

6. The previous investigations have identified that the Bayfair site performs better than the Arataki Park site. However, both sites have advantages and disadvantages from a bus user, community and network operations perspective.

7. Co-funding from Waka Kotahi to develop a Single-stage business case (business case) to further investigate the two sites to identify a preferred site has now been confirmed.

8. The next steps for the Arataki Bus Facility project (the Project) is to develop the business case to:

(a) Identify a preferred site or sites for a permanent bus facility;

(b) Develop the preliminary design for the preferred bus facility;

(c) Identify and develop the preliminary design for associated nearby network improvements (e.g. intersection improvements, walking & cycling connections) required to support the safe and effective operation of the facility.

9. Community consultation and engagement is required as part of developing the business case and is proposed. A detailed consultation and engagement plan is to be developed. The outcomes of the consultation and engagement are also used to support applications for statutory approvals required to implement the preferred option.

10. This report is intended to update Council on the next steps, issues and timeframes for the project.

Background

11. The temporary bus facility on Farm Street (operational since mid-2018) is not satisfactory for bus users or local residents and creates issues from a network (e.g. bus service operations) and local community perspective.

12. Some Farm Street residents are concerned about volume and speed of buses and traffic as well as social issues occurring at the bus facility. There are wider concerns for the safety of other road users, particularly those on bikes and walking to local schools. Whilst some issues have been addressed, it is difficult to make significant further improvements within the wider Arataki area without determining the long-term location and format of the bus facility.

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

14. The current facility has the second highest boarding numbers for the city. This reflects the key destinations nearby as well as being a location serving a significant residential catchment. Non-transfer boardings at the facility have consistently exceeded 20,000 people per month with total boardings (including transfers) exceeding 30,000 pre-Covid.

Strategic / Statutory Context

15. Quality public transport infrastructure is important and aligned to the strategic direction provided by the UFTI. In addition, the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan identifies a public transport facility in the Arataki area.

Options Analysis

16. The purpose of the business case is to investigate and identify a preferred site for a permanent bus facility in the Arataki area. It is noted that this investigation may find that the preferred facility is provided over two sites (e.g. partly on Girven Road and partly on Farm Street). In addition to this the business case will include:

(a) Development of the preliminary design for the preferred facility;

(b) Investigate and identify associated necessary nearby network improvements (e.g. intersection improvements, walking & cycling connections) required to support the safe and effective operation of the facility.

17. Investigations undertaken to date have assessed a number of sites throughout the Arataki area. This work identified the area around Farm Street as generally performing best as it serves the key destinations in the area as well as the residential catchment.

Sites Investigated

18. The Transport System Plan (TSP) ‘Combined Public Transport Services and Infrastructure business case’ is currently being scoped. That business case is expected to address matters like the future bus service operating model and confirm the general location, scale and timing of infrastructure (like a bus facility) to support this. It is not expected to identify that there is no facility required in the Arataki area. It is noted that both UFTI and the TSP have confirmed the need for a facility in this area. There will however need to be close integration of these two business cases as they develop.

19. It is noted that regardless of the location of the permanent bus facility, Grenada Street, Farm Street and Links Ave continue to form the key route for public transport through the Arataki area. Whilst State Highway 2 is expected to carry some express services, the local street network provides the permeability for Arataki residents from Sandhurst Drive to Golf Road to access public transport within a convenient walk distance.

20. The investigations undertaken to date have also confirmed the need to progress a broader project to manage transport movements through the Arataki area, provide for the safe movement of all road users and improve amenity. Confirming the long-term location for the Arataki bus facility is essential to successfully progressing this.

21. The investigations undertaken to date have shortlisted two sites (refer to Attachment 1 for Site Plans for each short-listed site):

· Part of Arataki Park currently used by St. John ambulance on Girven Road; and

· A location within the Bayfair Shopping Centre site accessed from Farm Street.

22. Of these two shortlisted sites the Bayfair site has been identified as performing better than the Arataki Park site option. From a transport network, bus service operations and customer perspectives the key reasons for this relate to:

(a) the likely bus and pedestrian demand on the planned signals at the Farm Street / Marlin Street intersection;

(b) the manoeuvring and potential bus and pedestrian conflict point issues relating to either possible layout for the St. John site.

(c) The Arataki Park site would require greater provision of facilities for both drivers and passengers, but it would be feasible to include these in the design development.

(d) Personal safety and social issues for the Arataki Park site could be problematic due to the lack of passive surveillance from pedestrians and traffic. Mitigation can be provided but it would not perform as well as the Bayfair site which is busier and overlooked by residents as well as the day/night activity of the Mall.

(e) Both likely layouts for the Arataki Park site would create issues for transferring passengers, in terms of the likely walk distance and number of crossing points within the facility to access different stops.

(f) A survey of bus users undertaken in 2019, identifies a strong preference for the facility to be located at or very close to the existing facility. The survey also identified that Bayfair (or a home within a short walk) are the key destinations for trips ending at the facility (rather than other destinations around Girven Road).

23. However, it should be noted that the Arataki Park site does allow a greater scope for future expansion of the facility if required and would have the benefit of being developed on publicly controlled land.

Business case and Consenting & Approval processes

24. A business case is required by Waka Kotahi for an activity (above $2m cost) to be eligible for National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) investment at the Councils Funding Assistance Rate of 51% of the total project cost. In addition, the business case process provides analysis and information to support other consenting and approval processes (e.g. under the Resource Management Act) that are required to establish a bus facility on either of the two shortlisted sites.

25. Prior to commencing a business case Waka Kotahi require that a ‘Point of Entry’ (PoE) be agreed. This assessment sets out the reason for the need to develop a business case, the process for its development and the associated costs. It is the document on which Waka Kotahi base their decision to invest in a business case.

26. Developing and agreeing the PoE with Waka Kotahi is an iterative process. It includes ongoing discussion and feedback to allow the document to be finalised. Once finalised the PoE is submitted to decision-makers within Waka Kotahi. Developing and agreeing the PoE for this project has taken considerable time, 10 months, and delayed earlier progress of this project.

27. The investigations undertaken to date have identified that:

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

(b) The Arataki Park site would require the reserve status of the site to be revoked, a lengthy public process requiring Ministerial approval (Minister of Conservation).

Arataki Park is zoned “Active Open Space” in the City Plan. Also, the majority of the Park site, excluding the area where the St Johns activity is located, is designated for the purpose of “Sub regional multisport park”. A bus facility may be permitted as a “community facility” in the Active Open Space zone but would still require resource consent for access onto the “strategic road network” (i.e. Girven Road). The business case would further assess and confirm the resource consent requirements for the Arataki Park site.

28. The business case development, including community consultation and engagement, and statutory consenting and approval processes to enable the establishment of a bus facility is estimated to take around 2 years to complete. This timeframe is influenced by the issues (e.g. technical option development, consultation, planning and land ownership issues) associated with each of the short-listed sites and the need for robust community consultation and engagement on the options to identify a preferred site.

29. The estimated business case and statutory approval timeframes are broken down in Table 1, below.

Table 1: Estimated Timeframes

Activity	Estimated Timeframe	Comments
Procurement	2-months	· Open market procurement approach to confirm a supplier. · Appoint supplier(s) to deliver the business case and support public consultation and engagement.
Business case development to identify the preferred option	6-8 months	· Options development and analysis · Community consultation & engagement · Preliminary design development · Benefit cost analysis Note: This timeframe will be influenced by feedback received to the consultation and engagement and the issues that this raises which need to be addressed.
Decision-making on the preferred option	1-2 months	· Council decision-making on recommended preferred option. · Waka Kotahi decision-making on the preferred option and next stage investment (i.e. statutory approvals; detailed design & implementation) Note: Likely that Waka Kotahi will stage or condition its funding approval in that Implementation / Construction funding will be subject to first confirming all necessary statutory approvals and consents. There is also some risk that Waka Kotahi funding for delivery will not be available due to their wider funding pressures.
Statutory consents & approvals	4-12 months	· Resource consent for bus facility · Arataki Park site: Reserve status revocation or reclassification from Recreation reserve to Local Purpose Reserve[1] Notes: There is a risk that a Local Purpose Reserve status is too restrictive and would not allow the range of activities that a bus facility involves meaning only revocation of the Reserve status is a viable option. For a Reserve re-classification, whilst it does require the Minister’s approval, this approval is delegated to TCC as the administering body of the Reserve, so wouldn’t need to be sent to the Minister of Conservation. However, that doesn’t mean that TCC as the administering body can make a decision that is inconsistent with the Reserves Act function and purpose.

Fast-track Option

30. Given the timeframes identified above an option of developing a ‘fast-track’ business case has been considered. A fast-track option would focus primarily on the ability to condense the estimated 6-8 month business case development phase identified in Table 1.

31. However, on balance it is considered that condensing the analysis and engagement phase will expose Council to risk in that that we won’t be able to demonstrate through any potential legal challenge process that we have robustly assessed and engaged on the options. Also, condensing this phase of work will introduce risk that could prevent Council from securing funding from Waka Kotahi which would result in that cost being transferred to the ratepayer.

32. As the business case develops and feedback (e.g. level of support or otherwise) on the options is received the estimated timeframe for the statutory consents and approvals process will be able to be further considered.

Financial Considerations

33. Funding to undertake the Business case has now been agreed (April 2021) with Waka Kotahi. The scope of the business case is now being developed further to support procurement of a supplier to undertake the investigation.

34. Waka Kotahi have informally identified that they are unlikely to fund lease costs for Bayfair site or any relocation costs for St. John’s ambulance from the Arataki Park site. Bayfair are working to progress with a next stage of their development, and they wish to have an indication from Council as to next steps in relation to the proposed lease of a portion of their site, should that become the preferred location.

35. The current Long Term Plan includes the Arataki Bus Facility project and this is also included in the draft LTP as two projects:

(a) Arataki Bus Facility investigation – planning, business case, engagement, consenting & preliminary design is scheduled for Years 1 to 3 of the LTP with an estimated budget of approximately $1.2m.

(b) Arataki Bus Facility construction – scheduled for Years 3 to 4 of the draft LTP with an estimated budget of approximately $14m. It is noted that this is an early cost estimate that will require further development as the options are assessed and developed through the business case.

Consultation / Engagement

36. Council has been keeping the Arataki community informed via e-newsletter and drop-in sessions with staff. In addition, a pilot engagement approach has been developed for the Arataki area by the Engagement team in partnership with Transport and other teams within Council. This approach has sought to create an overarching stakeholder reference group where projects like the Arataki Bus Facility can be presented for feedback. Broader general community consultation and engagement on the Project will also be required to support the business case development and any subsequent statutory consenting or approval process.

Significance

37. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

38. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter

39. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of medium to high significance due to a potentially high level of public interest.

ENGAGEMENT

40. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the matter is of medium-high significance, officers are of the opinion that further consultation and engagement is appropriate. As outlined earlier in the report this will occur as part of the business case process.

Next Steps

41. The Projects next steps are identified in Table 1 of this report and are focussed on procuring a supplier(s) to develop the business case and support community consultation and engagement on the Project.

42. In addition, staff will continue to work together with Bay of Plenty Regional Council on the development of the TSP Public Transport Combined Services and Infrastructure business case to further inform and refine the requirements for the Arataki Bus Facility.

Attachments

1. Indicative drawings for the Arataki Park site - A11630516 ⇩

2. Indicative drawings for the Bayfair site - A11630511 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 June 2021

Summary pulled from the 158-page document that can be found at: https://www.transport.govt.nz//assets/Uploads/Discussion/Transport-EmissionsHikinateKohuparaDiscussionDoc.pdf

Hīkina te Kohupara identifies opportunities to reduce emissions across three themes, based on the ‘Avoid, Shift, Improve’ framework.

Theme 1 – Changing the way we travel:

We need to shape our towns and cities to make it easier, safer, and more attractive for people to access work, schools, shops, and other opportunities by public transport, walking, and cycling. This will reduce dependence on private motorised vehicles, and avoid/reduce emissions. Transport needs to be integrated with land-use planning to encourage quality compact mixed-use urban development, while providing better transport options. Transport pricing, and other demand management tools, could also play an important role.

Theme 2 – Improving our passenger vehicles:

67 percent of Aotearoa’s transport emissions currently come from light vehicles (including cars, small vans, and SUVs). Decarbonising the light vehicle fleet is crucial. We need to increase the supply of clean vehicles, increase demand for them, and provide supporting infrastructure. Biofuels could also play an important role in reducing emissions from the current fleet (and other modes). Public transport fleets, particularly buses, also need to shift to being cleaner vehicles. Cleaner aviation technologies are in the early stages of development, but there are opportunities to reduce emissions by using sustainable aviation fuel.

Theme 3 – Supporting a more efficient freight system:

23 percent of Aotearoa’s transport emissions currently come from heavy vehicles (mostly trucks). While light vehicles currently produce the most emissions, trucks will produce the most emissions by 2055 without further interventions. Emissions could be reduced by improving the efficiency of supply chains, shifting freight to low emission modes, and improving the fuel efficiency, and carbon intensity of freight modes and fuel. Trucks will need to be decarbonised through the uptake of alternative fuels such as biofuels, electrification, and/or green hydrogen.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Purpose of Hīkina te Kohupara

• This discussion paper identifies what Aotearoa could do to shift our transport system on to a zero emissions pathway and seeks feedback on options to achieve this.

• While Government will play a leading role in making the shift, it needs to work closely with iwi, communities, businesses, and councils to reduce transport emissions

• Hīkina te Kohupara has dual purposes – to inform the Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan and support a 10-15 year transport emissions action plan

• The Government must prepare an Emissions Reduction Plan under the CCRA

• The Climate Change Commission has issued draft advice on its first three emissions budgets

• Our transport system needs to shift to a low carbon pathway very rapidly to meet our targets

• The transition towards zero emissions will deliver many social, economic, and environmental benefits

• We need to make a Just Transition

• Te Tiriti o Waitangi will underpin policy development to reduce emissions

Principles used in Hīkina te Kohupara that shaped our advice

• Principle 1. The transport sector will play a lead role in meeting our 2050 net zero carbon target

• Principle 2. We need to focus on moving to a zero carbon transport system, rather than offsetting emissions

• Principle 3. We need to take a strategic approach to reducing transport emissions

• Principle 4. Co-ordinated action is required across the transport system to avoid and reduce emissions

• Principle 5. To ensure a Just Transition we need to manage the impacts and maximise the opportunities brought about by changes to the transport system

• Principle 6. We need to forge a path to zero transport emissions by 2050, while recognising that there is not one way to get there

• Principle 7. Innovation and technologies will play an important role in reducing emissions, but people are the key to our future

Consultation question 1

Do you support the principles in Hīkina te Kohupara? Are there any other considerations that should be reflected in the principles?

Chapter 2 – Transport emissions – our current state and pathway

Background – no specific question

Chapter 3: The Government’s role and levers for reducing transport emissions

Key points

• Achieving emissions reduction targets will require a combined effort from all New Zealanders including central and local government, iwi, communities and businesses.

• Central government has a particularly important role to play, given its influence in the transport system. Leadership will be required for the significant changes necessary to shift our transport system onto a zero emissions pathway.

• Government must build and strengthen its relationships with key stakeholders and partners to ensure success. This will include collaboration between central and local government, Iwi and hapū, the private sector, industry associations and advocacy groups.

• Sectors connected with the transport sector have a significant impact on transport emissions. Collaboration with these sectors will be important. The interdependencies between key sectors and transport include the planning system, housing and urban development, the energy sector, and the tax system.

• Many sectors and individual players, public and private, will need to align their settings and priorities to reduce emissions from the transport system.

• Government has a range of levers it can use to influence emissions reductions in the transport system including investment, regulation, and economic and education tools.

Levers within the transport sector that the Government can use to reduce transport emissions

• Investment

• Regulation

• Economic and educational tools to influence behaviours

• Analytics and modelling

• Monitoring, evaluation and oversight

• International standards

Consultation question 2

Is the government’s role in reducing transport emissions clear? Are there other levers the government could use to reduce transport emissions?

Chapter 4: The role of innovation in the transport system

Key points

• Innovation has always been an inherent driver of change in the transport system. Innovative ideas, policies, business models and new technologies can improve the way people and goods move around. The best innovations add value to the transport system by improving environmental, social and economic outcomes, which can include reducing emissions.

• Electrification, shared mobility and automation are likely to have a significant impact on how people and goods travel. Electrification and shared mobility will have a significant impact on emissions but the impact of automation is less certain.

• Exploring different approaches for reducing emissions in the transport system should include the role of urban design and placemaking.

• Government has a key role to implement policies that support transport innovation, including decarbonisation. Regulatory policies that encourage transport innovation with positive outcomes, building strong connections between government and nongovernment players in the innovation sector, leveraging the skills and expertise of the private sector and targeted investment can help direct innovation towards new products or services that can contribute to reducing emissions.

Consultation question 3

What more should Government do to encourage and support transport innovation that supports emissions reductions?

Chapter 5: The Avoid, Shift, Improve Framework

Key points

• Hīkina te Kohupara uses the Avoid-Shift-Improve (ASI) framework to identify opportunities to reduce emissions across the transport system.

• Transport emissions are driven by transport activity (number of trips and kilometres travelled), mode share (percentage share of different modes), energy intensity (quantity of fuel used per kilometre) and carbon intensity (emissions from quantity of fuel per kilometre).

• The ASI framework addresses each of these four elements:

o Avoid – improve the overall efficiency of the transport system through interventions to reduce the need to travel and trip lengths.

o Shift – improve the efficiency of trips by promoting mode shift to low carbon modes, such as walking, cycling, public transport, coastal shipping and rail freight.

o Improve – lower the emissions of transport vehicles and fuels.

• The Ministry has developed three themes to group together opportunities within this framework and highlight interdependencies within different parts of the system. Theme 1 and 2 focus on people and Theme 3 on freight.

Background – no specific question

Chapter 6: Theme 1 – Changing the way we travel

Key points

• Shaping our cities and towns is key to improving the overall efficiency of the transport system. We need to integrate land-use, urban development and transport planning to reduce emissions, especially over the medium to long term.

• To encourage mode shift to low emissions transport modes such as walking, cycling, and public transport, we need appropriate urban form. Quality compact, mixed-use urban development can reduce trip distances, reduce car dependence and encourage the uptake of walking, cycling and public transport.

• From an emissions reduction perspective, the need to orient urban development towards compact urban form is most pressing in our largest and fastest-growing cities where emissions are highest. This includes Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch. However, we also need to encourage compact urban form, and multi-modal transport options in smaller cities and towns to avoid car use, especially as these places grow over time.

• Transport infrastructure investments have a major impact on urban form, and how people travel. For example, investments to expand urban state highways and roads encourage urban dispersal/sprawl and car use. In contrast, investments in frequent public transport services and rapid transit could support more compact urban form. To reduce and avoid transport emissions, central and local government have to reconsider planned investments in major urban highway and road expansion projects if they would induce more vehicle travel.

• We can influence how people travel by providing better travel options that are energy efficient and generate low or no emissions. This includes providing quality public transport services, safe and accessible walking and cycling networks, and shared mobility options such as car sharing and shared micromobility.

• We can design and manage our streets to be more inclusive of different people and to encourage travel by active modes and public transport. This includes applying multi-modal street layouts, lower speed limits, tactical street changes, and universal design principles. We can also discourage single-occupant vehicle trips through measures such as traffic calming and parking management.

• Street changes to support public transport and active travel could potentially be made swiftly, as it is possible to reallocate space on existing streets to deliver mode shift without building major new infrastructure. Regulatory and funding settings need to support rapid street changes.

• Placemaking is critical for supporting higher density urban developments, to create places that people want to live and work in, and that are good for people’s wellbeing.

• Transport demand management, including transport pricing, is critical for supporting more liveable cities and encouraging people to make sustainable transport choices.

Shaping our towns and cities: possible key actions

The responsibility for reducing transport emissions does not rest with transport decisionmakers alone, as many of the following possible actions require a coordinated approach by different agencies involved in land use, urban development and transport policy.

Quality compact, mixed use urban development:

• Through the proposed Strategic Planning Act (part of the RMA reforms), require spatial plans to be developed and implemented to better integrate land use, urban development and transport planning to achieve quality compact, mixed use urban development. Both central government and local government need to work together to improve capabilities for spatial planning. (Underway through RMA reforms)

• Integrate land use and transport planning and investment as part of the RMA reforms.

• Make transport investments conditional on having clear links to land use and urban development plans that support quality compact, mixed use urban development. This will affect the types of projects that are included in Regional Land Transport Plans.

• Require transport GHG emission impact assessments for proposed urban developments (including the transport GHG emissions of residents and business owners that would be located in the development). Developments that would result in high emission generation could potentially be required to undergo redesign and/or an acceptable form of durable mitigation.

• Develop clear guidance and expectations to link urban density and mixed land use with accessibility (particularly by way of public transport, walking, and cycling).

• Enable Waka Kotahi, Local Government, KiwiRail and Kāinga Ora to take more active roles in developing sites around frequent public transport stations.

Placemaking and inclusive street design:

• Remove barriers and improve funding for tactical urbanism and innovative approaches to street design (e.g. expand on Waka Kotahi’s Innovating Streets for People Programme).

• Develop design guidance and expectations for quality high-density environments (including streets, public spaces, buildings, and green space).

• Invest in placemaking and urban design capability and capacity of transport agencies and transport functions within local government.

• Clarify the principles of living infrastructure, and set expectations that living infrastructure is incorporated into transport plans and projects.

• Review standards and guidance for street design, and develop nationally applicable consistent sets of standards for Aotearoa.

• Prioritise the need to reallocate street space and to create connected networks for delivering transport mode shifts in the next GPS on land transport, and/or for any additional funding for active modes and public transport.

• Set higher Funding Assistance Rates for walking and cycling investments and dedicated/priority bus lanes to strongly incentivise Road Controlling Authorities to prioritise and accelerate street changes.

• Investigate if regulatory changes are needed to empower Road Controlling Authorities to more easily consult on and make street changes to support active travel, public transport, and placemaking.

• Set targets for councils to deliver public transport and active travel networks that require street changes (e.g. dedicated/priority bus lanes on some routes; connected cycling networks) by a specific date. There could be funding consequences if Road Controlling Authorities do not deliver these changes within these timeframes.

• Make changes to policy and funding settings to ensure Waka Kotahi and Road Controlling Authorities maximise opportunities to ‘build back better’ when doing street renewals (to improve streets for people walk, cycling, and using public transport).

(Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi have some projects underway that support placemaking and street design e.g. Aotearoa Urban Street Guide, the One Network Framework, and Reshaping Streets scoping project)

Consultation question 4

Do you think we have listed the most important actions the government could take to better integrate transport, land use and urban development to reduce transport emissions? Which of these possible actions do you think should be prioritised?

Providing better travel options: possible key actions

For all of these possible actions, we need to consider where they are appropriate. Some of them should be targeted at our major urban growth areas where they are most viable, and where they can make the biggest impact on reducing emissions. Public transport could be improved in all of our cities, and is most needed in our largest and fastest growing cities where most people live. Walking and cycling improvements could be made in towns and cities throughout Aotearoa. Shared mobility schemes could be provided in a range of settings, depending on population levels and urban density.

Note: this section should be read in combination with the possible key actions from Shaping our towns and cities (above), which includes options to accelerate street changes to support public transport and active travel.

Public transport:

• Further invest in public transport infrastructure to increase the capacity, frequency, quality, and reliability of services. (Some investment currently occurring through GPS on land transport, NZ Upgrade programme, and local Government)

• Increase incentives to use existing public transport (such as reduced fares or service improvements). (Councils already provide some incentives to specific users e.g. students, children. The Government’s SuperGold card provides free travel to over 65s off-peak)

• Invest in improving public transport operations (e.g. bus priority measures, and more efficient payment options etc.).

• Invest in additional public transport services (e.g. increasing service frequencies, extending existing services, adding new routes).

• Invest in better passenger amenities (e.g. better shelters/terminals, improved access and facilities at stops, and better connections with walking and cycling).

• Clarify the roles of agencies to deliver large frequent public transport systems in Aotearoa, and ensure that there are legislative settings in place to enable them (e.g. land acquisition and consenting).

• Review the Public Transport Operating Model to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and contributes to the Government’s transport priorities. (Underway)

Walking and cycling:

• Invest in high quality cycling infrastructure (connected urban cycling networks, as well as secure bike parking and storage at key journey points). (Some investment currently occurring through GPS on land transport, NZ Upgrade Programme, and by local Government)

• Invest in better walking infrastructure, include including improvements to footpaths and intersections, and reducing severance between places that are difficult to access by walking. (As above)

• Invest in and support walking and cycling for utility journeys, including to/from school and work (develop clear travel planning guidance including expectations around secure bike parking facilities).

• Invest in and support public education campaigns to promote walking and cycling (including supporting cycle skills training).

• Develop clear and nationally consistent guidance for wayfinding for walking and cycling.

• Require greater network planning for walking and cycling to support network connectivity.

• Investigate whether there are regulatory barriers, or historic design practices that pose barriers, in relation to walking and cycling (following on from the Accessible Streets work currently underway).

• Investigate legislation that defines and regulates the use of E-bikes to remove potential barriers.

• Support road controlling authorities to develop integrated plans for schools and education sites that enable students to walk and cycle to school (including for example, speed reduction, travel planning, infrastructure delivery, training for pupils and parents, etc.).

Shared mobility:

• Provide dedicated on/off street parking for shared mobility in convenient, highly visible locations and encourage shared mobility parks to be incorporated in new and existing facilities (e.g. through national car parking guidance). (Some Councils already provide dedicated parking for car sharing)

• Provide car share companies with grants, loans or other incentives or subsidies (e.g. providing on street parking at low or no cost to help reduce car sharing operator costs and rates for users). (Some car share companies have received funding through the Low Emission Vehicle Contestable Fund)

• Increase incentives to use shared mobility (e.g. reduced rates).

• Develop procurement guidelines and expectations for the All of Government vehicle fleet (e.g. to encourage greater use of car share by Government in place of having a fleet or permit the fleet to be used by car share businesses at night and on weekends to reduce costs).

• Enable and support shared micromobility hire schemes, including investing in appropriate infrastructure, parking, and local government capability to support the safe and effective operation of shared micromobility).

• Partner with employers and carpooling providers to support local carpooling efforts (e.g. providing tools to make it easier for employees to match with others for carpooling).

• Define a national vision/strategy for MaaS in Aotearoa and invest in pilots.

• Regulate for data access/data sharing between public and private transport providers.

Consultation question 5

Are there other travel options that should be considered to encourage people to use alternative modes of transport? If so, what?

Transport pricing and management: possible key actions

Transport pricing:

• Consider congestion pricing. (Already being investigated for Auckland through Congestion Question project)

• Investigate distance pricing as a means to encourage mode-shift, dis-incentivise discretionary travel, and address the rebound effects caused by public transport investment.

• Consider incentives (subsidies or rewards) that could encourage alternative modes of travel. Low emission zones:

• Enable and implement low emission zones to reduce CO2 (based on GHG emissions).

Parking management:

• Require councils to continue to develop and implement parking pricing strategies.

• Introduce maximum parking standards/requirements in some areas, e.g. for new high-rise buildings and shopping centres.

• Enable and implement workplace/private property/commuter parking levies.

• Implement car parking regulations in the land use planning system as per the NPS-UD. (Underway)

Carbon charges:

• Increase rates of fuel excise duty after 2023.

• Implement an increased transport fuels only carbon tax. (Already small charge through the Emissions Trading Scheme)

Consultation question 6

Pricing is sometimes viewed as being controversial. However, international literature and experiences demonstrate it can play a role in changing behaviour. Do you have any views on the role demand management, and more specifically pricing, could play to help Aotearoa reach net zero by 2050?

Chapter 7: Theme 2 – Improving our passenger vehicles

Key points:

• Passenger vehicles include light vehicles (e.g. cars, vans, SUVs), public transport, planes, and associated infrastructure

• Decarbonising the light vehicle fleet is critical for meeting our emission reduction targets. We need to increase our supply of clean cars and increase demand for them, as well as provide supporting infrastructure.

• Given the slow turnover of vehicle fleets, we need to consider options to decarbonise the existing fleet. This includes removing fossil-fuelled vehicles from the fleet and transitioning to biofuels.

• As we encourage mode-shift to public transport, we also want to ensure our public transport modes are low emission, including transitioning our bus fleet to cleaner fuels and electrifying more of the passenger rail network.

• Cleaner aviation technologies are in the early stage of development but there are still opportunities to reduce emissions, including with sustainable aviation fuel.

Decarbonising the light vehicle fleet: possible key actions

Increasing the supply of clean cars:

• Introduce and implement the fuel efficiency standard agreed by Government. (Agreed by Cabinet and underway)

• Consider the potential for a rolling age limit for used vehicles.

• Investigate how a maximum CO2 limit would improve the fleet.

• Consider a schedule for phasing out the importation of fossil fuelled vehicles.

• Investigate how Aotearoa could mandate a market share of zero emission vehicles.

Encouraging the demand for clean and safe cars:

• Investigate and implement a vehicle feebate/subsidy. (Government is considering options for an incentive scheme)

• Investigate introducing a Government subsidy to support the uptake of cleaner cars. (As above)

• Further investigate potential tax incentives (including Fringe Benefit Tax, Depreciation and Tax Grants and RUC).

• Further investigate infrastructure funding. (Some infrastructure has already been funded through the Low Emission Vehicle Contestable Fund, and the Ministry of Transport is doing a strategy to consider future infrastructure needs)

• Pursue the standardisation of charging infrastructure.

• Consider how parking and priority use on roads for low emission vehicles can encourage uptake, or reduce the use of ICEs.

• Encourage acceleration of Government procurement of low emission light vehicles, including encouraging the procurement of safe low/zero emitting vehicles. (Underway through Carbon Neutral Government Programme)

Decarbonise the existing fleet:

• Investigate the use of a vehicle scrappage scheme to encourage the removal of inefficient, unsafe vehicles.

• Consider basing vehicle licensing on emissions.

Consultation question 7

Improving our fleet and moving towards electric vehicles and the use of sustainable alternative fuels will be important for our transition. Are there other possible actions that could help Aotearoa transition its light and heavy fleets more quickly, and which actions should be prioritised?

Decarbonising the public transport fleet: possible key actions

• Implement the mandate for local government to procure only electric buses by 2025. (Underway)

• Provide support for the decarbonisation of the bus fleet and its required infrastructure.

• Extend the RUC exemption for electric buses (which is due to expire in 2025). (Under consideration)

• Consider how to fund foregone revenue for the National Land Transport Fund if road user charges exemptions are extended for heavy electric vehicles or expanded to include hydrogen or other low carbon fuels.

• Examine if the Public Transport Operating Model can be adjusted to enable accelerated decarbonisation of the public transport bus fleet. (Underway)

• Consider the further electrification of existing parts of the passenger rail network.

• Consider future investment needs to ensure existing rail networks are fit for purpose.

Consultation question 8

Do you support these possible actions to decarbonise the public transport fleet? Do you think we should consider any other actions?

Decarbonising the aviation fleet: possible key actions

• Invest in, produce and mandate sustainable alternative fuels that can also be used by the aviation sector. (This has commenced with work on a biofuels mandate)

• As technology advances, consider its implementation for Aotearoa, e.g. wider use of electric planes.

• Support research, development and production of sustainable aviation fuel.

• Examine if the current air navigation system is effective or could be more efficient. (Partially underway through New Southern Skies and Performance Based Navigation)

• Implement operational improvements such as better air traffic flow management and improved navigation to reduce fuel burn. (As above)

Consultation question 9

Do you support the possible actions to reduce domestic aviation emissions? Do you think there are other actions we should consider?

Chapter 8: Theme 3 – Supporting a more efficient freight system

Key points:

• The Ministry is starting work on a National Supply Chain Strategy that will provide strategic direction and set out priorities amongst the various objectives for the supply chain, one of which being the reduction of emissions.

• Given the market-led nature of the supply chain system, initiatives to reduce emissions would have to be carried out in close consultation with the freight industry and/or be private sector-led, with government providing a vision and direction for change and/or supporting infrastructure. Concerted effort by industry has the potential to drive rapid emissions efficiency gains, with the right incentives.

• Shifting some of the freight task to less carbon intensive modes will help reduce emissions, including to rail and coastal shipping. The Government already has work underway to support improvements in rail and coastal shipping.

• Decarbonising freight vehicles will be critical for reducing transport emissions. This could include increasing the uptake of alternative green fuels, such as biofuels, electrification and/or green hydrogen. There is a high degree of uncertainty around the timeframe in which zero emission freight vehicles will be commercially available, more rapid than expected technological progress could accelerate decarbonisation of this sub-sector.

• Our international obligations will help to drive emission reductions in shipping, including through encouraging cleaner, more efficient ships and ports. The Government is also investing to improve our rail network, including through renewing locomotives and the inter-island ferries which will support reductions in the emissions from rail.

• Aviation plays a role in our freight system through its movement of people and freight domestically and internationally and efforts to decarbonise it must be considered given our trade and social connection needs and Pacific responsibilities.

• Improving the efficiency of our supply chain considering the role that all modes play could also help to avoid and reduce emissions. There are a range of possible initiatives trialled overseas and the feasibility of applying them in Aotearoa could be studied in more depth. These include optimising freight routes, equipment and vehicles, and through making better use of data and supporting information sharing and collaboration.

Improving the efficiency of our overall freight supply chain: possible key actions

Optimising freight routes, logistic nodes, equipment and vehicles:

• Undertake an examination of the efficiency of the spatial organisation of supply chain nodes (e.g. location of ports and freight hubs).

• Examine the potential to improve the efficiency of first and last-mile delivery centres (e.g. urban consolidation centres, drop-off/pick-up consolidation points, use of micro-freight, pilot of concessions).

• Consider if there is potential to optimise payloads, e.g. load maximisation and back loading.

• Support the further use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS).

• Analyse if there is opportunity or restrictions to the further expansion of the weight and length limits of high-productivity motor vehicles (HPMVs).

• Further promote eco-driving and driver training programmes. (Promoting work already being implemented by industry)

Information sharing and collaboration:

• Examine opportunities for the collection and better use of data to improve efficiencies in the freight system.

• Consider encouraging/supporting voluntary business collaborations to reduce emissions in logistics. (Many of these actions will be considered through the National Freight Strategy)

Consultation question 10

The freight supply chain is important to our domestic and international trade. Do you have any views on the feasibility of the possible actions in Aotearoa and which should be prioritised.

Decarbonising freight modes: possible key actions

Cleaner trucks:

• Introduce vehicle CO2 standards.

• Implement EURO 6 to improve air pollutants from trucks.

• Consider if the current RUC exemption for heavy electric trucks should be expanded to other low emission fuels used by heavy trucks. (Under consideration)

• Consider expanding the scope of the existing low emissions vehicles technology funding to accelerate the uptake of proven low emissions vehicle technology.

• Investigate the viability of introducing a penalty or financial disincentives system for high GHG emitting heavy trucks.

• Investigate the viability of providing upfront grants or other incentives (such as changing depreciation rates) for low and zero emissions trucks.

• Investigate and introduce Green freight procurement through third party contractor rules for government activities.

• Phase out the registration of diesel heavy vehicles beyond a certain date, e.g. from 2035 or banning diesel trucks in certain cities or zones

• Invest in domestic industry to refurbish diesel trucks with zero emissions options

• Implement a biofuels mandate

Cleaner rail:

• Investigate the use of biofuels for rail. (Included in biofuels mandate, which is under development)

• Explore the feasibility of future electrification of rail (i.e. non-metro rail) or other low emission alternatives.

Cleaner ships and ports and associated activities:

• Introduce targets, rewards, incentives for energy efficient ships using Aotearoa ports.

• Apply MARPOL Annex VI energy efficiency requirements to the Aotearoa domestic fleet. (Aotearoa is acceding to MARPOL Annex VI)

• Introduce a target /mandate for renewable fuel (biofuels, hydrogen, ammonia) for ships that applies to the domestic fleet. (underway)

• Consider introducing a mandatory speed limit (i.e. impose slow steaming) for ships transiting around Aotearoa.

• Electrify Aotearoa’s fleet (ferries, tugs, cement carriers and fuel tankers). (Some private electric ferries already built/procured)

• Improve the ship/port interface by implementing Just-in-Time arrival guidance.

• Incentivise or invest in renewable shore-side power supply for ships.

• Incentivise or invest in renewable energy for port operations.

• Consideration of a large dry dock in Aotearoa.

• Invest in future technologies (e.g. autonomous shipping that provide low carbon alternatives to road freight).

• Introduce decarbonisation as a criterion in government procurement of ships and shipping services.

Improving existing infrastructure and vehicles:

• Investigate potential for adoption of more efficient vehicle design.

• Investigate the impacts of better road design and maintenance.

Decarbonising fuels:

• Consider implementing a carbon intensity standard for all transport fuels.

• Incentivise and/or provide financial support to expedite the uptake of renewable fuels.

• Investigate and implement renewable fuel targets.

• Incentivise or invest in infrastructure for alternative fuels and/or electrification, including ultra fast charge. (Some Government investment has already taken place e.g. for hydrogen production)

Consultation question 11

Decarbonising our freight modes and fuels will be essential for our net zero future. Are there any actions you consider we have not included in the key actions for freight modes and fuels?

Chapter 9: Supporting a Just Transition

Key points

• Government has committed to taking a ‘Just Transition’ approach to becoming carbon free – this means making the transition fair, equitable and inclusive.

• The transition to a low carbon economy will create significant economic opportunities for businesses, and job creation in the transport and energy sectors.

• Some parts within the transport sector may be more affected by the transition than others, especially if they face rising transport costs, and/or find it difficult to adapt. Government could assist the sector to adopt new technologies to encourage an earlier transition, and support education and upskilling.

• Many people will benefit from the transition to a zero carbon transport system. For example, many New Zealanders will benefit from better transport options, better health, and lower and more stable transport costs over time.

• People who already experience social/economic disadvantages are likely to be disproportionately affected by any rise in transport costs (as already occurs when fuel prices rise). To make a Just Transition, Government needs to mitigate the impacts of interventions that could increase transport disadvantage. There are also opportunities for the Government to improve transport equity during the transition.

• The speed of change is an important consideration for a Just Transition. We urgently need to transition to a zero carbon system, so Government needs to clearly signal changes to give businesses and consumers time to prepare and make the necessary changes. Government also needs to work collaboratively with industries to ensure the transport sector can adapt and overcome challenges associated with the transition.

Consultation question 12

A Just Transition for all of Aotearoa will be important as we transition to net zero. Are there other impacts that we have not identified?

Chapter 10: Four potential pathways – What could it take to meet a zero carbon by 2050 target for transport?

The pathways place a different weight on avoid, shift and improve initiatives In all pathways, electrification of the vehicle fleet is important to achieve as close to zero carbon as possible by 2050. Where these pathways differ is the relative weight given to ‘avoid’, ‘shift’ and ‘improve’ initiatives within each theme (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Relative weight given to avoid, shift, and improve interventions in each pathway

• Pathway 1 assumes ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’ initiatives (Theme 1) play a significant role in reducing transport GHG emissions. This pathway requires reducing nearly 30 percent of the light vehicle kilometres travelled by 2050 through reducing trip distances and encouraging mode shift to public transport, walking and cycling. It also requires higher mode-shift from road to rail and coastal shipping.

• Pathway 2 assumes ‘improve’ initiatives (Theme 2) play a significant role in reducing emissions than Pathway 1. This pathway requires a larger number of electric vehicles with greater use of biofuels in the short to medium terms. There is also emphasis on ‘improve’ initiatives for freight.

• Pathway 3 assumes ‘improve’ initiatives (Theme 2) play a more significant role in reducing emissions than the other pathways. In this pathway, bringing more EVs into New Zealand transport system compensates for the limited avoid and shift changes. There is also much more emphasis on ‘improve’ initiatives in freight.

• Pathway 4 gives even stronger weight to ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’ initiatives (Theme 1) than all other pathways. This includes assuming that ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’ interventions happen more swiftly, bringing forward their impact on emissions and that the clean car policies will be very successful in accelerating the uptake of electric vehicles. This pathway requires reducing nearly 40 percent of the light vehicle kilometres travelled by 2035 and over 55 percent by 2050. In the long term, the greater impact of ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’ initiatives reduces the number of vehicles that need to be electrified.

The pathways with more emphasis on ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’, such as Pathway 1 and 4 are more effective at reducing emissions (Figure 9). Avoiding activities that produce emissions is, on balance, a more effective strategy than minimising the emissions from those activities.

Policy implications from the pathways chosen in Hīkina te Kohupara

The pathways in this chapter clearly illustrate that deep and widespread changes will be required to reach a zero carbon target for the transport sector by 2050. To inform thinking on which opportunities the government should pursue, this section highlights policy implications that became evident while modelling the different pathways and through research for Hīkina te Kohupara. It identifies implications for the short-term (up to five years), medium-term (five to 15 years), and long-term (15 years plus).

(note: the following are just headings, there is more detail in the document)

Policy implications from Theme 1 ‘Changing the way we travel’

· Quality compact, mixed use urban development and placemaking

· Public transport, walking, cycling and shared mobility

· Transport pricing

Policy implications of Theme 2 ‘Improving our passenger vehicles’

· Decarbonising light vehicles

· Decarbonising public transport

· Decarbonising aviation

Policy implications of Theme 3 ’Supporting a more efficient freight system’

· Optimising freight routes, equipment and vehicles

· Shifting road freight to rail and coastal shipping

· Cleaner trucks

· Cleaner rail

· Cleaner ships

Investment costs

Decarbonising our transport system through influencing energy and travel choices and demand would require substantial and sustained investment but, more importantly, such investment will need to commence soon.

We can classify the investment required into four broad categories:

• Growth enabling – this includes basic infrastructure expansion to manage population and economic growth and additional investment to change demand.

• Mode choice provision – this includes investment in sustainable transport choices to manage demand.

Pricing systems – this includes parking pricing and a distance based charging system to replace the current system that is tied to petrol use and other additional pricing strategies to manage demand during specific times and locations or by different vehicle types.

• Energy infrastructure – this includes electricity system and grid upgrade, additional renewable energy production plants and alternate energy refilling/charging infrastructure (including biofuel, electricity and hydrogen).

Consultation question 13

Given the four potential pathways identified in Hīkina te Kohupara, each of which require many levers and policies to be achieved, which pathway to you think Aotearoa should follow to reduce transport emissions?

Chapter 11: What opportunities should the Government progress over the first three emissions budget periods?

Includes some big tables on pages 126 to 134 setting out the policy interventions over each of the next three five-year periods. Too big to summarise here. Please have a look at the document at: https://www.transport.govt.nz//assets/Uploads/Discussion/Transport-EmissionsHikinateKohuparaDiscussionDoc.pdf

Consultation question 14

Do you have any views on the policies that we propose should be considered for the first emissions budget?

Chapter 12: Where to next?

Hīkina te Kohupara was produced to help inform the Government’s strategic approach to reducing GHG emissions from transport. It is the first step towards fully understanding how the transport sector can reduce its GHG emissions. It will be used to facilitate discussions with Ministers, Iwi/Māori, stakeholders and our wider communities on potential policies that we will carry forward in 2021 through to the first ERP under the CCRA.

Hīkina te Kohupara will underpin a 10-15 year strategy and action plan

Hīkina te Kohupara has highlighted that Aotearoa must implement a broad range of policies to achieve meaningful change and reductions in our GHG emissions from the whole transport system. Aotearoa cannot afford to cherry pick policies, nor are there policies that are silver bullets. In addition to informing the policies for the first ERP, Hīkina te Kohupara will be the foundation document from which a 10-15 year time horizon strategy and action plan will be developed. A strategy and action plan will be agreed with Government and used to inform future ERPs and future investment and resource needs.

How can you help?

Thank you for taking the time to read this paper. The Ministry invites your views on the opportunities outlined in this paper to reduce transport emissions and put us on a pathway to zero carbon emissions by 2050. Your views will help us to shape the advice we put forward to Ministers for the ERP, and for the development of transport strategic action plan for the next 10 to 15 years.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 June 2021

11.6 Links Avenue Safe System Review and Recommendations

File Number: A12570389

Author: Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. The Commissioners requested staff undertake a safe system review of Links Avenue following a deputation from a group of residents. This review was undertaken by Colin Brodie, Director, Colin Brodie Consulting Ltd and Hamish Mackie, Director, Mackie Research Ltd.

2. This report outlines the finding and recommendations of the review. The report also outlines the next steps that could be undertaken, the local safety benefits and the implications for the wider community as a result of the recommendations.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the safe system review report on Links Avenue.

(b) Directs staff to undertake consultation with the wider community on the recommendations of the report.

(c) Sets aside a $400,000 budget in the LTP to undertake an innovative streets style consultation with the community regarding trialling the recommended solution.

Executive Summary

3. The Council engaged the services of Colin Brodie and Hamish Mackie to undertake a safe system review of Links Avenue. A safe system review looks at only the safety aspects of a street or road. A safe system review does not consider wider network issues or consequences to the safety and congestion on adjacent streets if changes were made to the street being reviewed.

4. The review concluded that due to the mix of traffic and volumes there is a “belief of a tangible risk to pedestrians and cyclists using the shared use path along the length of Links Avenue”.

5. The review indicated there was merit in Council trialling an option of a cul-de-sac on Links Ave that would prevent the rat running along the street and substantially reduce traffic volumes past the school to reduce the risk of conflict between users, allowing the removal of the bus lane between Golf Road and Ascot Avenue, but still allow buses to travel along the street.

6. The safe system review team were provided a copy of a staff report presented to Council in October 2020. Councillors did not make a recommendation at the time for which option or options should be progressed. The earlier staff report is appended to this report along with the Safe System Review.

7. The key issue in Links Avenue is the volume and mix of traffic using the street. Due to the high volumes, changes have been needed to create separate space for the PT and walking and cycling modes. This creates little separation for users in the current configuration.

8. A cul-de-sac is the recommended option that would reduce the traffic volume back to a level that vulnerable users can mix with traffic. The other options in the Council report address specific aspects of the conflict between modes but cannot achieve the safety improvements that can be achieved with a reduced traffic volume

9. There are other actions already underway to improve safety in the wider area. These actions are:

(a) to implement a heavy vehicle ban in the residential areas of Arataki and the Mount

(b) to install a 30km/h variable speed zone in Links Avenue near the school

(c) provide an additional pedestrian crossing on Golf Road to encourage students coming from the west to access the school via Lodge Avenue rather than Links Avenue.

The last two actions are still in progress but will be implemented as soon as possible.

10. Links Ave is an important part of the bus network and in the TSP has been identified as a primary PT and cycle corridor. The bus had earlier been routed down Maunganui Road, but this is disconnected from the origin and destination locations that bus passengers use. In Links Avenue, non-residential traffic using the street is the lowest priority under the TSP plan.

Background

11. Links Avenue was a relatively quiet local road (approximately 2,000vpd) prior to the start of the construction works on the Baylink to Bayfair (B2B) construction. After the B2B construction got underway, significant congestion on the State Highway meant buses were shifted off Maunganui Road to improve service reliability as well as address significant safety concerns with bus passengers needing to cross the 4-lane highway to get to and from the bus. A student using the buses had been hit by a vehicle on Maunganui Road prior to the relocation to Links Avenue so the continued use of Maunganui Road for buses is not considered a safe option.

12. There are approximately 6,000 passengers that get on the bus in Links Avenue each month, with 2/3 of those being students.

13. Traffic volumes are now over 5,000 vehicles per day, and still rising, along with the heavy vehicles that were starting to use the street as a shortcut.

14. Bus services were unable to maintain travel time reliability due the traffic queue extending along Links Ave and moving slowly in the morning peak. As a result, a bus lane was installed on the southern side. This required the removal of parking on one side of Links Avenue and the two general traffic lanes to be shifted over to be against the kerb on the opposite side.

15. A shared use footpath was installed to provide better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

16. When initially started the B2B project was planned to be complete in late 2020, so the changes in Links Avenue were expected to be in place for 18months to 2 years. The B2B project has been delayed a number of times since construction commenced and now is not expected to be complete until late 2022.

17. Some residents on Links Avenue have been expressing concern about the safety of the users on Links Avenue. Council had safety reviews completed by internal staff and independent safety auditors. In addition, Waka Kotahi have undertaken a review. Minor improvements were identified, and changes made, but overall, the street was not found to be unsafe.

18. The Arataki area has only three east/west connection options (Oceanbeach Road, Links Avenue and SH2 Maunganui Road) so any changes to one of these routes that reduces traffic capacity has significant impact on the other two.

19. In late 2020, Councillors asked staff to prepare a report that presented options that could be undertaken in Links Ave to address the resident’s safety concerns. This report was presented in October 2020.

20. Councillors did not make a decision on a preferred option but asked that the community be consulted on the options presented in the report. As a result, the report was considered by the Arataki Community Liaison Group which had recently been formed. This group discussed the staff report and recorded the following in the meeting minutes:

The options to address the safety concerns on Links Ave were discussed in detail including the impact the new completion date of the Baylink project will have. A shorter list of the more practicable/achievable options were identified (below) to take to the wider community for feedback.

· Street scaping – to give the street a more ‘residential’ feel that would hopefully dissuade ‘rat-runners’ and enhance the amenity and connection for residents (confirmation of existing underground services would be necessary for this to be viable)

· Speed limits – reduce the speed limit of this area through the upcoming city-wide consultation

· Adding an on-road cycle lane and removing the existing bus lane – this would mean all parking would be removed to make way for the cycle lane (extra research would be required by Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) first)

· Alternative bus routes – redirecting some bus routes to exclude Links Ave (BOPRC are currently working on the feasibility of this)

· Undergrounding – services e.g. powerlines could be moved underground to allow for more shared space and amenity

Options Analysis

21. In relation to the options included in the staff report, the best solution to address safety for all users is to reduce the traffic volumes in Links Avenue. The only practical way to reduce traffic volume is through a cul-de-sac, which is why the safe system review recommended this being trialled.

22. Removing buses from the street will not significantly improve safety and will impact the 6,000 bus users each month that catch a bus on Links Avenue.

23. A cul-de-sac can be trialled before it is permanently implemented to see if it achieves the safety improvements expected and to accurately assess the other network implications.

24. Independent to the TCC reviews underway, NZTA also had staff recently review options to improve safety along Links Ave. This review recommended a cul-de-sac treatment as the best solution to achieve a safety improvement which aligned with the safe system review.

IMPLEMENTATION

25. 24/7 enforcement of the bus lane bypass utilising License Plate Recognition Camera’s (LPRC’s) would be required to ensure traffic volumes remain low. Illegal use of a bus lane is a $150 ticket per offense.

26. It is expected the traffic unable to travel along Links Avenue would divide evenly between Maunganui Road and Oceanbeach Road, so an additional 2,000 vehicles per day could be expected on each road. In the morning peak, this will increase the congestion and make add an additional 5-10 minutes in travel time for vehicles. At times this could be up to 20 minutes in severe congestion.

27. The cul-de-sac trial would need to be in place for 6 months to allow time for traffic behaviours to change and allow for an accurate impact assessment on both safety in Links Avenue and the wider traffic network to be completed.

28. An innovative streets style consultation process is very effective at engaging with the wider community on changes. This was recently done for a proposal on Marine Parade. The process requires significant communications and engagement and staff resources to be done well and experienced facilitators to ensure all the wider community views are captured and reflected in the outcomes. We anticipate there would be very different views about what should happen. An estimate of the cost of this process from recently completed innovative streets style consultation processes is $350,000 - $400,000 and it could take 3-6 months to be fully completed.

Financial Considerations

29. The installation of a temporary trial of a cul-de-sac option could be undertaken quickly via a Temporary Traffic Management Plan being implemented, but a permanent installation would require budget to be set aside in FY22 or 23. The LRPC cameras would be installed at the same time and could be reused on other projects.

30. The council currently has no specific funding set aside for changes to Links Avenue. There is a minor safety budget in each financial year, but this is fully allocated to other projects in FY22 so other projects would need to be delayed to accommodate Links Avenue.

31. One consequence of this traffic volume is that the pavement is now in poor condition and needs to be renewed as soon as possible to prevent it failing and needing expensive rehabilitation that could be up to 10 times the renewal cost.

Legal Implications / Risks

32. A Traffic Management Plan will be required to trial a cul-de-sac option as it will be changing the road layout for general traffic while it is in place.

33. The bus lane would need to be amended in the current bylaws register to allow a two-way movement of buses if a cul-de-sac trial is undertaken.

34. Enforcement of the bus lane would be required during the duration of any trial to prevent other vehicles from continuing to use Links Avenue as a through route.

35. Advance signage on approaches to Links Avenue would be required to advise traffic that Links Avenue is no longer a through route. A No Exit sign would be placed at Golf Road while the cul-de-sac is in place.

Consultation / Engagement

36. The Arataki Community Liaison Group, which are representatives of the Arataki Community have considered the earlier staff report on options that could be consulted on Links Avenue so are aware of options that could be considered. They discounted the cul-de-sac option due to the impact on traffic volumes

37. To expedite an immediate safety improvement, the trial of the cul-de-sac could be implemented almost immediately while the wider consultation is undertaken with the community.

Significance

38. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals, and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal, or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

39. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the changes to the street layout

40. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue/decision/matter/proposal is of med significance due to the potential impact on surrounding streets and the impact this would have on congestion in the area.

Next Steps

41. A cul-de-sac trial could be implemented in Links Avenue reasonably quickly. The scope of any wider consultation with the community and different users’ groups would determine the timing for any changes and trials.

Attachments

1. Links Ave Safe System Assessment FINAL pdf - A12593807 ⇩

2. Links Avenue Options Investigations - A11850925 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 June 2021

10.3 Links Avenue Options Investigations

File Number: A11850925

Author: Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to report back to Council options for changes to Links Avenue as requested by the Projects, Services and Operations Committee (PSOC) after receiving a deputation from a group of Links Avenue residents concerned about the safety of the road layout.

2. This report presents options relating to changes that could be made to the street to increase shared path widths, change the road layout as well as options to reduce the volume of traffic and congestion along the street. The advantages and disadvantages of each is included in addition to the costs and wider impacts on the surrounding streets.

3. The report contains a legal opinion on the powers of the Council in relation to the routes used by passenger transport services and the setting of Passenger Transport (PT) routes. The options considered by staff reflect the ability of Council to have buses removed from Links Avenue.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) That Council receives the report and recommends a shortlist of options to be considered further by staff and consulted with the community.

Executive Summary

4. Staff from the Tauranga City Council and the Regional Council have met with the residents that presented at the recent PSOC meeting to better understand their concerns and discuss options that could be implemented and the potential impacts of each. Their primary concern is the safety of users on the shared path and the separation from traffic between Golf Road and Ascot Road.

5. The key issue in Links Avenue is the high traffic volume using the street as a rat run to avoid the congestion on SH2 as a result of the NZTA Baylink to Bayfair project. In the morning peak, traffic backs up along Links Avenue and this has created issues for the other modes trying to use Links Avenue (pedestrian, cyclists and PT users)

6. As a result of the congestion and its impact on bus reliability, this Council approved the implementation of the bus lane to allow buses to bypass the morning peak queues and provide a better level of reliability for PT users into the CBD and the schools in the area.

7. Links Avenue has approximately 6,500 bus passengers that get on and off the buses each month based off the Bee card data collected by the Regional Council. This data also shows that approximately 2/3 of the users are school children going to schools in the general area, so the PT service is an important service for parents and students getting to and from school in the Papamoa and Mount Maunganui area.

8. There are several measures that could be implemented along Links Avenue to alter the way it currently works and to reprioritise what modes are catered for. Each has direct impacts on the street function, the residents who live on the street, PT users and users of other modes as well as the surrounding streets due to changes in traffic flows and potentially PT services. The changes could be undertaken as standalone or as a combination.

9. In some of the options, the issues being experienced in Links Avenue could be simply transferred to another location so may not resolve the issue and may not align with future intents of the TSP alignment for modes and routes.

Background

10. The current road layout in Links Avenue was installed after the PT services were relocated off SH2 due to significant congestion as a result of the NZTA Baylink to Bayfair (B-B) project. The buses were routed along Links Ave to provide a better reliability of service and to maintain a close proximity to the destinations of passengers going to and from the schools in the area.

11. Links Avenue is 10.5 to 11m wide along its length and has an estimated AADT of 5500 which is significantly higher than would be expected for a similar street elsewhere. In 2013, prior to the B-B project, the volume was 2982, and rose to 5130 in 2018 once the B-B works commenced. The traffic volumes have almost doubled.

12. With the traffic volumes, you would typically expect the peak hourly traffic to be approximately 10% of daily volumes. In Links Avenue 25% of the daily traffic volume is in the peaks which indicates the higher level of rat running along the street.

13. The key issue on Links Ave is the volume of traffic combined with the high number of pedestrians and cyclists in the short peak periods at the drop off and pickup times associated with the school. This occurs for approximately 40 weeks a year during term times, and for half an hour in the morning and afternoon. For the remaining 23 hours and during school holiday periods the issue is not present.

14. In 2019 the current Council approved the installation of the bus lane to address the buses being delayed by a large increase in rat running traffic through the area also trying to avoid the congestion on SH2. Traffic had increased from an AADT of 2982 to 5130 and bus travel times had increased by as a result as the traffic queues on Links Ave extended about ¾ of the street at times. These changes were made in February 2019.

15. The bus lane was installed on the southeast side of Links Avenue to allow the buses to travel from Concord Avenue to Golf Road past the queued traffic. The bus lane required the removal of parking on the opposite side of the road and the traffic lanes to be moved across to be adjacent to the foot path.

16. The City Link and Hospital Link bus routes started in December 2018, approximately two months before the bus clearway was installed on Links Avenue. Comparing February 2019 with February 2020, patronage on these routes has gone from 35,500 to 44,700 (an increase of 11,000 or 25%). Data for August 2020 shows that there were 5,168 people boarding buses on Links Avenue.

17. A shared path has been installed from Golf Road to Ascot Road and along a section from Concorde to just pass the Links Avenue Reserve. Which then connects to the bus lane for cyclists.

18. The TCC travel safe teamwork with the Mount Manganui Intermediate School to educate the children how to safely use the cycle facilities to and from the school and nearby destinations such as Bayfair Mall. This work is ongoing as new groups of students start school each year. This service provides a high level of education for students to remain safe on the facilities in the general area.

19. After the installation of the bus lane, some residents have expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the street, especially with the buses.

20. In response to the resident’s concerns, the following safety reviews have been undertaken:

· TCC traffic engineering staff have reviewed the site layout

· A safety audit was undertaken by independent safety experts

· NZTA have had an onsite review undertaken by an internal safety expert based in another region of New Zealand.

21. These reviews have identified some minor changes, and these have been gradually implemented.

22. Residents have reported some non-injury accidents between buses and infrastructure as well as buses and cyclists. Each of these has been investigated by the Regional Council at the time, but no changes have been required to the road layout as a result of those investigations. One of these accidents was related to a school bus service and was not related to the services run by the Regional Council.

23. Bus drivers have implemented a voluntary 30km/h speed limit when travelling in the bus lane on Links Ave to increase safety and decrease the chances of any accident leading to serious injuries.

24. Attached to this report are the previous reports considered by Council and the accident investigations undertaken by the Regional Council. Also attached is a memo from the Regional Council providing data on the bus service patronage.

Options Analysis

25. The options investigated in this section are a review of options to address the issues of large traffic volumes, limited space and a need to increase the available space for pedestrians and cyclists along the route. Each option has the advantages and disadvantages listed as well as the impacts on the surrounding community. The indicative cost to undertake the works is also identified.

26. The options have been grouped around achieving a specific change as detailed below:

27. Traffic Volume Reduction

28. The key issue on Links Avenue is the volume of traffic as this has resulted in delays for buses which then required the installation of the bus lane. The traffic volume is high as there are limited options to travel between Papamoa and the Mount through this section and there are only 3 streets that connect (Ocean Beach Road, Links Ave and SH2). With the construction underway on the B-B project by NZTA, traffic has diverted to the remaining two connections and the volume has increased significantly along Links Ave.

29. Cul-de-sac option - To reduce this volume the street could be made into a cul-de-sac. This could be done at either end or in the middle and would reduce traffic to only residents. In this scenario, buses could be allowed to remain travelling along the street by forming a short bus lane through the cul-de-sac. With the low traffic volumes, the bus lane would no longer be required. To improve safety, a 30km/h speed limit could be implemented as traffic speeds would increase with the lowered traffic volumes.

30. Advantages – the street functions as a residential street rather than a collector, residents have less traffic, noise and air quality will be improved, it will be safer for pedestrians and cyclists due to lower traffic volumes and the ability to remove the bus lane. The bus lane could be removed as buses would no longer need to bypass the traffic queues and would be able to achieve reliable travel times along Links Avenue.

31. Disadvantages – Residents that live in Links Ave and streets that come off it will need to drive further to get to and from their homes, there will be a significant increase in traffic on Ocean Beach Road as through traffic diverts off SH2, traffic speeds in Links Ave will increase when we have the peak students numbers even with a 30km/h speed limit as currently the congestion is resulting in slow traffic speeds in the peak hours.

32. Indicative Cost – The costs to install a cul-de-sac will be dependent upon its location, but costs could range from $500,000 to $1million.

33. Increased space for pedestrians and cyclists

34. With the current shared path, the width is less than the recommended 4m due to power poles along the road edge. This results in cyclists and pedestrians needing to carefully travel along the path. To provide more space for pedestrians and cyclists we have the following options:

35. Undergrounding of the overhead services – If the existing overhead services were undergrounded between Golf Road and Ascot Road, we could widen the shared path to the recommended 4m.

36. Advantages – The shared path meets the recommended width and the street aesthetic is improved with removal of the existing overhead services.

37. Disadvantages - The undergrounding will prevent the use of the existing shared path while construction is underway, residents in the length being undergrounded will be impacted as the services into their houses will also be undergrounded, there will be no ability for residents to park on the berm as currently happens at some houses, the path will cover the full width between the boundary and the property fences so there will be no green space in the street and vegetation will need to be trimmed to the fence. Residents exiting their property will need to be more cautious as the shared path will be up against the boundary so pedestrians and cyclists will be harder to see past fences.

38. Cost – The cost to undertake the undergrounding and widen the shared path is expected to be approximately $1-1.3million.

39. On road cycle lanes and removal of the bus lane - If the bus lane was removed, the road layout could be reconfigured. There are two options. Option 1 would have a 1.8m cycle lane each side and a 3.5 to 3.6m vehicle lane. This would create the 1.5m buffer space between vehicles and users of the shared path.

40. Alternatively, we could create a 1.5m cycle lane, a 3.2m vehicle lane and a 1.5m flush median down the centre of the road.

41. In both options there would be no parking on road the entire length of Links Avenue and on both sides.

42. Advantages – This is the lowest cost option as it is only road marking changes. Option 2 would have the lowest vehicle speeds due to the narrower vehicle lanes slowing vehicles and the flush median would allow for residents to turn into their houses without holding up traffic along the street.

43. Disadvantages – Buses will be slowed as they are unable to bypass the congestion in the street, residents on Links Ave will be impacted by having no on street parking for visitors or trade people etc, it is highly likely that people will park in the cycle lanes and partially over the shared path to drop-off and pickup. This will force cyclists into the live traffic lane and may lead to conflicts between car doors and users of the shared path.

44. Costs – The road markings could be reconfigured for approximately $50,000-$75,000

45. New shared path on opposite side of Links Ave – A new shared path could be constructed along the south side of Links Ave between Golf Road and the school to increase the space allocated for pedestrians and cyclists in this section. This would allow the larger groups to use both sides and avoid the congestion sometimes observed.

46. Advantages – There is enough space to build a widened footpath that could be used, there is an existing pedestrian crossing at the school, so students have a way to cross to the opposite side of the road and use a shared path.

47. Disadvantages – The pedestrians and cyclists desire line may not want them to cross the road to use a path on the opposite side resulting in limited use.

48. Costs – A new path would cost approximately $300,000.

49. Widening of the roadway – The existing street is only 10.5 to 11m wide which is relatively narrow. If the kerb and channel was replaced on the south side between Golf Road and Ascot Road, we could widen the road by 1-1.5m and create a buffer zone for the shared path on the school side of Links Ave.

50. Advantages – This section of Links Ave is the section with the highest volume of users of the shared path. The increased with will allow a buffer zone between the path and the vehicle lane.

51. Disadvantages – The work will require the temporary removal of the bus lane and will impact on the bus reliability during that time. The change will also narrow the footpath and berm on that side of the road, but it will still be 3-3.5m in width so can accommodate the footpath. Some underground services under the footpath may need to be lowered as part of the widening project.

52. Costs – The estimated costs for this are $600,000-$800,000 depending on the number of services that need lowering

53. Alternative Routes

54. There are large peak volumes of pedestrians and cyclists walking along Golf Road to the Mt Maunganui Intermediate school. These kids and parents can conflict with the high school students that catch the bus on Golf Road as both peaks can occur at the same time.

55. The students catching the bus are on Links Ave as they are catching a city to Papamoa service that comes along Hewitt’s and Golf Road. Previously the stops were near the over bridge, but we had students running across the road and through the planting areas where traffic were unable to see them as they got close to the road. The stop was shifted to Links e to improve safety.

56. Pedestrians and Cyclists use Lodge Avenue to access the school off Golf Road – Lodge Avenue is a short cul-de-sac that goes from Golf Road into the back of the school. If Pedestrians and cyclists used this entrance, they would not need to use Links Avenue, and this would avoid the conflict with the bus users and the traffic volumes. Discussions would be required with the school to create appropriate paths to connect to bike storage etc, but it would be significantly safer.

57. Lowered speed limits

58. The speed limit could be lowered in this area as part of the upcoming city-wide speed limit review. A lower speed limit would reduce the severity of any injuries that occur when traffic volumes are lower and traffic is able to travel at normal speeds, and will increase the opportunity for vehicles to stop if a cyclists was to fall off their bike or a pedestrian stepped into the road space in front of them.

59. With the current congestion in the peak hours, traffic is travelling slowly and therefore any lowering of speed limits will be make an impact during those times.

60. Permanent Speed Limit Change - a speed limit of 30 or 40km/h could be implemented although it should be noted that in the peak hours speeds along Links Ave are below 20km/h due to the congestion and traffic volumes. Buses are also operating at a voluntary 30km/h speed limit along the bus lane.

61. Advantages – a lower speed limit is more appropriate for a congested corridor and will reduce the severity of injuries if accidents were to occur.

62. Disadvantages – Without enforcement, it is unlikely traffic would stick to an isolated lower speed limit when the street is not congested, a new speed limit would need to be consulted with affected residents, NZTA and other statutory authorities and they may not approve unless they feel the road environment has been changed to reflect the lower limit.

63. Costs – A speed limit change is the lowest cost option as it only requires new signs. The indicative cost is between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on where the new speed limit is applied.

64. Narrowing’s and vertical changes (road humps, platforms) - Measures could be installed along the street to slow traffic in addition to a lower speed limit being installed. These measures could be road humps or platforms at regular spacings along the street to slow vehicles as they travel along the street. This would ensure that speeds are kept lower outside of the peak congestion periods.

65. Advantages – speeds are kept lower at all times; it is more likely a lower speed limit would be approved by NZTA.

66. Disadvantages – road humps and platforms create more noise for residents as vehicles travel over them, vehicles are likely to speed up and then brake between the vertical road humps and platforms so while the average speed is lower, there are higher peak speeds between the humps and platforms, the humps and platforms, and associated signage are visually intrusive in the streets, bus passengers may experience a poor ride quality along Links Avenue.

67. Platforms and humps are more difficult for larger vehicles to use due to their longer wheelbase, so if they were not installed in the bus lane it is highly likely vehicles would simply bypass the hump by driving in to and out of the bus lane. This would endanger any cyclists that was riding along the bus lane.

68. Costs – The costs for this option could be approximately $500,000 depending on the number of narrowing’s, humps and platforms installed.

69. Fencing

70. To improve the separation between the shared path and the traffic lane between the school and Golf Road, a fence could be installed along the path edge so users of thee shared path are not able to fall into the road. This will prevent a path user from falling into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

71. At residential driveways there would be gaps in the fence to allow vehicles to enter and exit the properties.

72. Advantages – The fence will prevent users being able to fall into the road which will increase the safety for users.

73. Disadvantages – The fence will reduce the available path width as it needs to be placed approximately 300mm from the edge of the road and the fence will be approximately 75-100mm wide. There will be gaps in the fence at the driveways, so it is possible for a user on the shared path to end up in the live traffic lane at those locations. The fence would change the visual aspects of the street and may make it harder for residents to enter and exit their properties.

74. Costs – A pool style fence would cost approximately $250/m so the costs to install the fence between Golf Road and Ascot Road would be $100,000-150,000.

75. Alternative Bus Routes

76. The bus route could be changed to use another street. The alternatives are either SH2, where it previously ran, or Ocean Beach Road.

77. Links Avenue is currently served by two major urban routes:

· Hospital Link (Bayfair – Mount Maunganui – Tauranga CBD – Hospital) which runs every 15 minutes Monday to Friday and every half hour at weekends / public holidays.

· City Link (Bayfair – Tauranga CDB – Mount Maunganui) which runs every 15 minutes Monday to Friday and every half hour at weekends / public holidays.

78. These two routes provide a combination of 8 services per hour on Links Avenue in each direction on Mondays to Fridays (4 per hour in each direction weekends / public holidays). In addition, there are various school contract services transporting pupils to the Intermediate school on Links Avenue and the nearby Mount Maunganui College.

79. Data for August 2020 shows that there were 5,168 people boarding the bus on Links Avenue.

Fare Type	Boardings
Adult	837
Child	3,899
Tertiary	212
Supergold	211
Infant (under 5)	9
TOTAL	5,168

· Approximately 1,512 of these boardings were on the City Link route.

· Approximately 1,600 of these boardings were on the Hospital Link.

· 2,650 boardings were on dedicated school services.

80. The existing bus services could be changed to use another parallel road. The alternatives are either SH2, where it previously ran, or Ocean Beach Road.

81. There are three options:

· Re-route all urban services via Concord Avenue and SH2;

· Re-route all urban services via Concord Avenue, Ocean Beach Road and Golf Road; or

· Re-route eastbound services via SH2 and Spur Road so that they avoid the western section of Links Avenue.

82. The pros and cons of each option are summarised as follows:

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Concord Avenue and SH2	Buses will be removed entirely from Links Avenue and safety concerns addressed	Safety concerns for passengers alighting from westbound services having to cross four lanes of traffic on SH2 (which would mean no services could stop) Potential objections from the NZ Transport Agency for stopping buses on the State Highway Buses will be caught up in congestion during the Baypark to Bayfair works Passengers who live north of Links Avenue will have further to walk to catch their bus (at least another five minutes) No safe way for school students to access urban bus routes, possibly resulting in additional cost to provide more school buses Significantly reduces travel options for residents of Links Avenue Currently unable to turn right out of Concord Avenue onto SH2
Concord Avenue, Ocean Beach Road and Golf Road	Buses will be removed entirely from Links Avenue and safety concerns addressed Passengers who live closer to Ocean Beach Road will have less far to walk to catch their bus	The route is longer and less direct than Links Avenue, and could add another 5-10 minutes to journey times Passengers who live on or closer to Links Avenue will have to walk further to catch their bus (at least another 5 minutes) No access to Mt Maunganui Intermediate from urban bus routes Oceanbeach Road is just as congested with peak traffic, and this option will just move the buses from one residential street to another
SH2 and Spur Road	Enables eastbound bus services to avoid the section of Links Avenue that is of most concern to local residents (between Golf Road and Spur Road) Removes 8 buses an hour from the eastbound side of Links Avenue and effectively halves the number of buses on this section of Links Avenue. Retains the bus clearway and enables commuters to still have the advantage of a faster and more reliable trip to the Tauranga CBD in the mornings.	Passengers who live on or near the section of route from Golf Road to Spur Road will have to walk further along Links Avenue to catch an eastbound bus Creates confusion for passengers by having services using different routes in each direction Would require additional school bus services for pupils from Mount Maunganui College who currently catch the urban service at the eastbound stop nearest to Golf Road

83. The Regional Council is of the view that all the above options have significant disadvantages from a service operational and passenger convenience perspective. It is worth noting that the majority of passengers are children and expecting them to walk further to catch a bus could expose them to additional risk from having to cross busy roads.

84. Making buses less attractive by increasing both in-vehicle travel time and walk time to a bus stop will not deliver council objectives of increasing levels of bus patronage as set out in the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) Programme Business Case.

85. However, the Regional Council is also concerned to ensure that road safety issues are addressed where feasible and will be able to undertake further work to investigate potential service changes.

Financial Considerations

86. Due to the short time frames available to prepare the report, the costs included are indicative and high-level estimates that need to be further refined. Costs are based on typical rates per metre abut are likely to be +/- 50% due to the lack of detailed investigation.

Legal Implications / Risks

87. A legal review was undertaken of the powers of the Council regarding bus lanes. The following information has been provided by Simpson Grierson.

TCC does not have any power to directly determine (or change) a bus route in its district. Subject to any lawful traffic restrictions (see below) and road user rules, buses may travel on any roads in the district, including when they’re being used for passenger transport. The public bus services (including routes) are managed by the Regional Council, under contracts with the bus operators pursuant to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA). (In saying this, I assume there has been no transfer of public transport responsibilities from the Regional Council to TCC).

TCC cannot force the Regional Council to change the routes. However, one of the statutory principles applying to public transport services in the LTMA (s 115(1)(a)) is for regional councils and public transport operators to collaborate with territorial authorities to deliver the necessary public transport services, and this should extend to cooperating to address any public safety issues arising out of the contracted bus services and their routes. The Bay of Plenty Regional Transport Plan 2018 refers to an annual performance review of individual services but in our opinion aspects of a service could be reviewed outside of that timeframe if they are not meeting the needs of the community, which could include review because of route safety issues. Section 8.2 of that plan refers to a variation of a plan that is not significant, and therefore under s 126 of the LTMA can be undertaken without consultation under s 125 - though the views of the route operator would need to be taken into account. This suggests that the Regional Council could make a route change quite quickly if it accepted the need to do so.

Although TCC cannot require that a route change be made, the Regional Council and the relevant operator should at least be open to cooperatively discussing and hopefully addressing any TCC concerns, which could then be promptly implemented if accepted.

Where TCC does have power is in relation to control and management of the road. In its capacity as road controlling authority (RCA), TCC might be able to take steps under the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA), and its Traffic and Parking Bylaw made under the LTA, which influence the availability and/or suitability of Links Ave for buses and especially passenger transport buses. These regulatory steps would have to be taken on proper and reasonable traffic management grounds, and may not be factually or legally justifiable in the present circumstances. They would also have to follow the normal stakeholder engagement, presumably including the affected operator and the Regional Council. But in principle TCC could consider:

· removal of the bus lane. This would not prevent use of the road by buses but may make it practically undesirable for scheduled services. On the other hand it may make the road less safe if it is continuing to be used by buses;

· removal of the vehicle stands (bus stops) - I assume there are bus stops along the length of the road;

· introduction of no stopping zones along the road, including no stopping by certain vehicles at specific times.

Any of these changes above could be achieved through passing a resolution under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

Another theoretical TCC power would be to prohibit or restrict the use of the road to buses, perhaps at certain times. This requires a bylaw (s 22AB(1)(c) Land Transport Act – so an amendment to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw, which does not presently cover this type of prohibition). The statutory precondition for making the bylaw is that the vehicle or class of vehicles “by reason of its size or nature of the goods carried…is unsuitable for use on the road”. It is unclear whether that precondition would be met where the issue seems to be buses being used in conjunction with high numbers of schoolchildren, rather than the size of the vehicle per se, but again it could be considered.

We set out the above to illustrate possibly relevant TCC powers, and we are not suggesting such steps would necessarily be justified in the present situation. This would require further investigation and in any event would presumably follow attempts to resolve the matter collaboratively with the Regional Council and bus operators, in accordance with the LTMA.

Consultation / Engagement

88. All of the options considered above will require consultation with the community (residents, bus users and commuters) as there will be impacts that affect them. This will need to be undertaken prior to any changes being implemented.

89. A speed limit change is a statutory process, and this would need to be followed prior to a new limit being installed.

Significance

90. The options discussed above will impact on residents and users of Links Avenue so need to be discussed with the affected residents, the school, the wider community and bus users that would be impacted by any route changes.

Next Steps

91. Staff will develop more detailed options to engage with the community over once preferred options are known.

Attachments

1. 2020-09-23 BOPRC Links Ave Memorandum - A11878240

[1]Further information about these processes can be found in Council Report DC272 (10 September 2019)

[3] As amended by the Climate change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019

[4] Covering the 2015/16 financial year, prepared by AECOM, dated 9 November 2017 (Obj ID: A9219967)


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Monday, 21 June 2021
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 21 June 2021
Time:	10.30am
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

Chairperson	Commission Chair Anne Tolley
Members	Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Stephen Selwood Commissioner Bill Wasley
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	As required

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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