community boards – functions and delegations

This document records the delegation of Council functions, responsibilities, duties, and powers to Community Boards.

The Community Boards have been established under section 49 of the Local Government Act 2002 to represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of their community.

The delegations are expressed in general terms. The delegations shall be exercised with proper regard for the Council’s strategic direction, policies, plans, Standing Orders and its interpretation of its statutory obligations. The delegations are to be read together with the following propositions.

These delegations are based on the following principles:

· Issues relevant to a specific community should be decided as closely as possible to that community. Where an issue has city-wide implications, ie any effects of the decision cross a ward or community boundary or have consequences for the city as a whole, the matter will be decided by Council after seeking a recommendation from the relevant Community Board or (any ambiguity around the interpretation of “city-wide” will be determined by the Mayor and Chief Executive in consultation with the relevant Chair);

· Efficient decision-making should be paramount;

· Conflicts of interest should be avoided and risks minimised;

· To ensure processes are free from bias and pre-determination Community Boards should not adjudicate on issues on which they have advocated or wish to advocate to Council;

· Community Boards should proactively and constructively engage with residents on local matters that affect the community they represent and raise with Council issues raised with them by their community and advocate on behalf of their community.

These delegations:

(a) do not delegate any function, duty or power which a statute (for example section 53(3) and clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002) prohibits from being delegated;

(b) are subject to and do not affect any delegation which the Council has already made or subsequently makes to any other committee, Council officer or other member of staff;

(d) are subject to any notice issued by the Council, from time to time, to a Community Board that a particular issue must be referred to Council for decision;

(e) reflect that decisions with significant financial implications should be made by Council (or a committee with delegated authority);

(f) promote centralisation of those functions where the appropriate expertise must be ensured; and

(g) reflect that all statutory and legal requirements must be met.

DELEGATIONS

Decide:

· Naming new roads and alterations to street names (in the Community Board’s area).

· Official naming of parks, reserves and sports grounds within the provisions of Council’s Naming Policy. Note [1]

· Removal and/or planting of street trees within the provisions of Council’s Operational Guide for Urban Forest Plan where a dispute arises that cannot be resolved at officer level. Note [2]

· The granting of leases and licences in terms of Council policy to voluntary organisations for Council owned properties in their local area, for example, halls, but not including the granting of leases and licences to community houses and centres.

· The granting of rights-of-way and other easements over local purpose reserves and granting of leases or licences on local purpose reserves.

· The granting of leases and licences for new activities in terms of Council policy to community and commercial organisations over recreation reserves subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and land managed as reserve subject to the provisions of the Local Government 2002, in their local area. (Note: renewal of existing leases and licences will be reported once a year to Council’s City Development Committee).

· The allocation of funding from the Community Engagement Fund in accordance with Council’s adopted guidelines.

· Expenditure of funds allocated by the Council to the Board from the Miscellaneous Budget to cover expenditure associated with the activities of the Board. The Chair to approve expenditure, in consultation with the Board, and forward appropriate documentation to the Committee Advisor for authorisation. Boards must not exceed their annual expenditure from the Miscellaneous Budget.

· The allocation of funding for the training and development of Community Board or members, including formal training courses, attendance at seminars or attendance at relevant conferences.

Consider and make recommendations to Council on:

· Particular issues notified from time to time by Council to the Community Board.

· Roading issues considered by the Mayor and Chief Executive to be strategic due to their significance on a city-wide basis, including links to the State Highway, or where their effects cross ward or community boundaries.

· Parks, reserves and sports ground naming for sites that have a high profile, city-wide importance due to their size and location and/or cross ward or community boundaries.

· Representatives to any Council committee, subcommittee, subordinate decision-making body, working group, or ad hoc group on which a Community Board representative is required by Council.

The setting, amending or revoking of speed limits in accordance with the Hutt City Council Bylaw 2005 Speed Limits, including the hearing of any submissions.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Provide their local community’s input on:

· Council’s Long Term Plan and/or Annual Plan.

· Council’s policies, programmes (including the District Roading Programme) and bylaws.

· Changes or variations to the District Plan.

· Resource management issues which it believes are relevant to its local community, through advocacy.

· The disposal or acquisition of significant assets.

· Road safety including road safety education within its area.

· Any other issues a Board believes is relevant to its local area.

· Review Local Community Plans as required.

Reports may be prepared by the Board and presented to Council Committees, along with an officer’s recommendation, for consideration.

Any submissions lodged by a Board or Committee require formal endorsement by way of resolution.

Co-ordinate with Council staff:

· Local community consultation on city-wide issues on which the Council has called for consultation.

Maintain:

· An overview of roadworks, water supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage, waste management and traffic management for its local area.

· An overview of parks, recreational facilities and community activities within its local area.

Develop:

· Community Response Plans in close consultation with the Wellington Region Emergency Management Office, emergency organisations, the community, residents’ associations, other community groups, and local businesses. The Community Response Plans will be reviewed on an annual basis.

Grant:

· Local community awards.

Promote:

· Recreational facilities and opportunities in its area with a view to ensure maximum usage.

· Arts and crafts in its area.

Appoint:

· A liaison member or, where appropriate, representatives to ad hoc bodies, which are involved in community activities within the Board’s area, on which a community representative is sought.

Endorse:

· Amendments to the Eastbourne Community Trust Deed (Eastbourne Community Board only).

EASTBOURNE

A STATEMENT OF BASIC PRINCIPLES

The Eastbourne Community Board, representing the people of Eastbourne;

Recognises that we are part of a community living in a unique environment,

Believes that we have been entrusted with the care of an environment which is a major asset of the Wellington region,

Desires to conserve and enhance this asset for the enjoyment of future generations of residents and visitors, and therefore;

Acknowledges and promotes the key characteristics of Eastbourne and the Bays as:

1. A community situated on the coast of Wellington harbour, bounded by the sea on the one side and on the other by bush-clad hills;

2. A community comprising a string of smaller communities, with residential areas of low-rise, low-density housing, interspersed with many trees;

3. A community in which the citizens care and respect each other’s differences and right to quiet enjoyment of their surroundings;

4. A community where industry and commerce have developed without detriment to the natural environment;

5. A community where the arts are valued and where participation in theatre, painting, pottery, music, gardening and sports is actively fostered and encouraged ;

6. A community concerned for the welfare of the young and the old where the elderly may retire in dignity, where families have access to facilities to raise their children in an environment which promotes safety and well-being;

7. A community which values and encourages preservation of its heritage and history.

Further:

It is our stated intent that the recognition of these principles and acceptance of the key characteristics will underlie the activities which we as a community and board undertake, and that they will provide the criteria against which, and within which, any district plans, strategic plans or developmental or organisational initiatives may be assessed.

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Eastbourne Community Board

Meeting to be held in the East Harbour Women's Club, 145 Muritai Road, Eastbourne on

Tuesday 27 June 2017 commencing at 7.15pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

An apology from Mr Gibbons has been received.

2. Presentation of Emergency Radio Operator Certificates (17/872)

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

4. Presentations

a) Presentations by Residents' Associations and other Community Groups (17/777)

b) Presentation on Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document (17/870)

A presentation by AT Better Planning Limited 15

c) Presentation on Plastic Bag Free Eastbourne (17/961)

A presentation on Plastic Bag Free Eastbourne by Alice Montague.

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

6. Minutes

Meeting minutes Eastbourne Community Board, 4 April 2017 24

7. Chair's Report (17/778)

Report No. ECB2017/3/87 by the Chair 31

8. The Esplanade Bus Lane (17/861)

Memorandum dated 31 May 2017 by the Traffic Asset Manager 33

9. Eastbourne Community Board Submission (17/752)

Report No. ECB2017/3/88 by the Committee Advisor 39

10. Election of the Deputy Chair (17/827)

Memorandum dated 24 May 2017 by the Committee Advisor 44

11. Committee Advisor's Report (17/757)

Report No. ECB2017/3/10 by the Committee Advisor 45

12. Information Items

a) Functions and Delegations of Community Boards 2016-2019 (17/934)

Memorandum dated 19 June 2017 by the Senior Committee Advisor 58

b) Report back from Community Boards' Conference 2017 (17/935)

Report No. ECB2017/3/89 by Mr Gibbons 64

13. Reports from representatives on local organisations

a) Eastbourne Youth Workers' Trust (17/780)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

b) Muritai School Hall Management Committee (17/781)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

c) Days Bay Wharf Steering Group (17/783)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Mr Ashe.

d) Centreport's Eastbourne Liaison Group (17/784)

Verbal update by Mr Ashe.

e) Eastbourne Childcare Community Group (17/785)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

f) Community Response Group (17/786)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Ms Knight.

g) Educating Residents Around Trapping (ERAT) Steering Group (17/787)

Verbal update by Ms Sutherland.

h) Keep Hutt City Beautiful (17/788)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks.

14. QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Susan Haniel

COMMITTEE ADVISOR

Attachment 1

Details of Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document

Allison Tindale
MURP (Hons), BEc & MNZPI
Upper Hutt, Wellington

- Description: Contact information,WHAT RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES PROPOSAL

April 28, 2017

I want to bring to your attention, details of the ‘Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document’ currently under consultation by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Consultation on this document closes on 19 May 2017 and I strongly urge your group to make a submission.

I am very concerned about the effect of the proposed ‘enabling’ planning powers for Urban Development Authorities and their potential to:

1. Override the ability of local residents (and in particular local resident and environmental groups) to meaningfully contribute to decisions about how their neighborhood should provide for additional housing growth.

2. Allow hearing commissioners appointed by Ministers to approve planning proposals which are inconsistent with existing planning schemes, without going through the usual steps and bypassing existing safeguards.

3. Reduce the ability of existing residents to safeguard a reasonable degree of ‘amenity’ (enjoyment of property), particularly in terms of access to sun/daylight and privacy within homes.

4. Cause distress to private landowners arising from new powers for Urban Development Authorities to compulsory acquire private properties for urban redevelopment.

To help you better understand what is proposed, I have provided the following information. In addition, to making an offer to meet your group in person.

New ‘enabling’ or ‘fast tracked’ planning provisions in recent years^{^[3]}, have sought to quicken the planning process through the removal of rights for public participation^{^[4]} and reduced environmental protection. The current proposal identifies housing growth as the top priority^{^[5]} for future planning decisions, and could allow for housing developments which create serious social and environmental harm.

The recent OECD Environmental Performance Review for New Zealand 2017 emphases that global best practice in urban planning includes both the principles of democratic participation and sustainable development^{^[6]}. It recommends that the “use of streamlined environmental planning with restricted public participation and no judicial control should be limited to only a few, clearly defined cases to prevent administrative abuse." (page 27)

The importance of public participation is also reflected in submissions made by Local Government New Zealand, New Zealand Planning Institute and, Sir Geoffrey Palmer^{^[7]}.

I am concerned that legitimate concerns of existing residents, particularly about reductions in existing levels of sun-lighting and privacy arising from new development, are being unfairly dismissed as ‘Nimbyism’. Unlike other countries, New Zealand has no national planning legislation or guidance which safeguards a reasonable degree of amenity for occupants of existing housing, or future occupants of new housing. There are no established rights to light, privacy or views/outlook.

At present, residents rely on the continued use of standards^{^[8]} in District Plans for the protection of their amenity. However, these standards are likely to change over time.

In contrast, state governments in New South Wales and Victoria have increased their focus on providing amenity and liveability in urban areas (at the same time as providing for house growth), through the 2015 revision of the NSW Apartment Design Guide and the publication of Apartment Design Standards for Victoria in late 2016.

Within New Zealand the ‘Auckland Design Manual’ produced by the Auckland Unitary Council, ‘Guidelines for the Design of Multi-Unit Apartment Buildings in New Zealand’ produced by the Cement and Concrete Association, NZ Building Code, and the report on ‘External costs of Urban Growth’ by MRCagney^{^[9]}, refer to the importance of providing or maintaining adequate sunlighting into dwellings.

Consequences from a reduction in sunlight can include serious health effects, especially if it results in reductions in internal room temperatures in already cold, moldy and/or poorly insulated houses. The most sustainable way of lighting and heating homes is through passive solar heat gain (i.e. exposure to the sun).

There are some 10 existing methods for the Central Government to ‘fast-track’ the assessment of ‘plan changes’ (changes to District or Regional plans) or the assessment of resource consents, and real questions need to be asked about what is the need for more.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, along with Dr. Roger Blackney^{^[10]} comment that fixes to the planning system to provide for greater housing growth “lie in better plans and better processes, not in altering the environmental bottom lines or in the absence of rules”^{^[11]}. Sir Geoffrey also identifies a dangerous trend in planning policy which places greater importance on the speed of decision making, rather than the quality of decision making^{^[12]}.

A similar planning context in New South Wales, Australia, has led to the creation of the ‘Better Planning Network’ – a collection of some 460 community groups to lobby for minimum standards in community consultation and the promotion of social, environmental and economic well-being for all. A similar group is needed in New Zealand.

Where could Urban Development Projects be Created?

There are few limitations in the Discussion Document as to where urban development projects could be created. It could apply to any urban land or undeveloped rural land sought for urban development. It could apply to both small^{^[13]} and large sites, and locally as well as nationally significant projects. It could cover both public and private land, including Council owned reserves. As well as land identified as having significant historical^{^[14]}, landscape or biodiversity value.

Once created, special planning powers could apply for some twenty years.

Does the Proposal include Public Consultation?

The proposal refers to public consultation occurring at two stages – a) the drafting of development project plan and b) more detailed development plans.

However, rights to participate would be less than that currently available and there is a lack of clear minimums for consultation. Neither stage guarantees that a hearing will take place (regardless of the number of objections received) and appeal rights are removed.

Of particular concern, is the lack of certainty that residents would have sufficient access to accurate and impartial information to make informed judgements as to likely scale of works and consequential effects^{^[15]}, especially at the initial stage.

Page 30 of the Discussion Document states that once the first stage is complete, “the urban development authority will be free to engage with the community as it sees fit”.

Whilst any member of the public can make a submission at the second stage, only an “affected party” can request that proposed provisions are independently reviewed. Concern is raised that this provision excludes resident and environmental groups from seeking independent review and that a narrow interpretation of “affected parties” will be used.

Requirements to give greater weight to the benefits of new development, combined with the need to have a minimum of 30 years of development capacity in advance^{^[16]}, mean that it is hard to imagine how any residential development could be declined, regardless of social and environmental costs experienced by local communities.

What risks are identified in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS)?

Paragraphs 55, 56 and 71 of the RIS identifies the following risks:

a) “…opportunities for the potential misuse of powers for private gain at the expense of public policy objectives...;

b) …the Executive having unjustified control in relation to the establishment of development projects and the overriding of other legislative instruments…;

c) … decision making about the specific acts of the development projects becomes overly politicised.";

d) … the proposal is seen as being a defacto removal of the RMA or at least an undermining of the status of the RMA; and

e) …the enabling nature of the legislation may put it at odds with existing local public policy objectives".

Will proposals have the agreement of the Local Council?

The Discussion Document points out that an Urban Development Authority Project Area will not be created where the Local Council does not agree.

However, newspaper articles from 2013 indicate that Auckland and Wellington Councils only entered into a Housing Accord with the Government following ‘strong arm tactics’. It is possible that similar tactics could be used again to compel a reluctant agreement and create a public image of ‘co-operation’.

Has Anybody else expressed Concern?

The New Zealand Planning Institute’s ‘Preliminary Analysis of NZ Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document’ dated 9 March 2017 refers to “major concerns with the proposals as drafted” (page 6) and that proposed powers “could undermine property and participation rights at the core of good planning” (page 5).

The following comment from Laura McKim, Strategic Advisor, Strategic and Corporate Planning at Greater Wellington Regional Council indicates some concerns with the proposal:

“…it is important however that the framework provides adequate protection of the environment, has sufficient community input and doesn’t undermine key regional plans and programmes.”^{^[17]}

As does the statement by Wendy Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning, Hutt City Council

“However, we do have some concerns relating to the independence of Council decision making and Council’s ability to meet its responsibilities…Further, it is unclear how individual rate payers and residents interests are protected as their rights to be consulted and ability [to] provide feedback on proposals appear to be considerably diminished…

It is difficult to see how the approach suggested for the new Development Plan is substantially different or better than the current plan change process….We are concerned about the ability to override the District Plan particularly where there are apparent inconsistencies with wider aspects of the plan for example vegetation, and ecological and heritage.”^{^[18]}

Along with the comment in draft submission by the Society of Local Government Managers

“….We have some reservations about the powers that the UDAs will have to override plans and policies and would like to suggest some safeguards against this…”^{^[19]}

Final Comment

I anticipate that existing neighbourhoods will need to change to varying degrees, to provide for increased housing supply. However, I believe housing growth needs to occur in a sensible planning framework that provides minimum safeguards for both the natural and urban environment, along with opportunities for meaningful community consultation.

As stated above, I strongly urge members of your group to make a submission on the proposal by 19 May 2017. Further details on the proposal and how to make a submission can be found at:

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/consultation/urban-development-authorities

Yours sincerely,

Allison Tindale

AT Better Planning Limited

23 4 April 2017

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Eastbourne Community Board

Minutes of a meeting held in the East Harbour Women's Club, 145 Muritai Road, Eastbourne on

Tuesday 4 April 2017 commencing at 7.15pm

PRESENT:	Mr R Ashe	Mr M Gibbons
	Ms V Horrocks (Chair)	Ms L Knight (Deputy Chair)
	Cr T Lewis	Cr M Lulich
	Ms A Sutherland

APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer

Mr C Cottrill, Reserves Assets Manager, Parks and Gardens (part meeting)

Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Speaking under public comment, Mr P Sprey thanked the Board for the recent traffic improvements in Ferry Road. He said that his vision for the Eastbourne Bays was for permanent solutions to road drainage and culverts, and for underground power and phone services.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Sprey said that he would email the Board a summary of his vision.

The remainder of the public comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. Presentations

a)	Presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) There was no presentation.

b)	Presentations by Residents' Associations and other Community Groups There were no presentations.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

5. Minutes

Resolved: (Ms Horrocks/ Ms Knight) Minute No. ECB 17201

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Eastbourne Community Board held on Tuesday, 7 February 2017, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Chair's Report (17/420)

Report No. ECB2017/2/64 by the Chair

The Chair elaborated on the report.

Ms Knight gave an update on the progress of the blue tsunami lines.

Mr Ashe said that the shared path was making slow progress. He requested a report on the project for the Board’s next meeting in June 2017.

Resolved: (Ms Horrocks/ Ms Knight) Minute No. ECB 17202

“That the Board notes the report.”

Proposed Mini Ramp (17/508)

Memorandum dated 15 March 2017 by the Reserves Assets Manager, Parks and Gardens

Speaking under public comment, Mr E Cowley said that he supported the skate ramp in principle, however did not support the site. He further said that the ramp would be noisy, the proposed site was concrete with concrete walls around it and there were no other skate ramps in the near region which compared to the proposed site. He added that he preferred the CL Bishop Park site which had grass and would be a destination because it had other facilities, including shops.

Speaking under public comment, Ms R Hainsworth said that noise echoes in the proposed site. She further said that CL Bishop Park would be quieter because there was a grass surface. She added that CL Bishop Park had better visibility for overlooking any disputes or accidents, compared to the proposed site.

Speaking under public comment, Ms B Sullivan said that she supported a skate ramp but did not support the proposed site. She further said that there had been insufficient information given to the affected neighbours. She said the proposal was at odds with the Board’s Statement of Basic Principles, points three and six, which were concerned with a resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of surroundings, and issues of dignity, safety and well-being. She added that the acoustics at the proposed site would act as an ampitheatre to the noise of wheels and skateboards hitting the hard surface. She requested that the Board consult more widely and provide information on all the options.

Speaking under public comment, Ms V Flaus said that she lived opposite the proposed site. She added that she supported people skating, however she was concerned about the consultation process and that she had not been given information to consider all of the location options.

Speaking under public comment, Ms R Palmer said that a skate ramp would be a good asset for the community, however, Days Bay park would be better. She added that the hard surface of the proposed site had safety issues. She added that the proposed site had no other facilities for children or parents, such as seating or shops.

Speaking under public comment, Mr G Palmer said that the Board had rejected a similar proposal in 2001 because it would have interferred too much with the lives of the people who lived near the park.

Speaking under public comment, Ms M Martin said that she agreed with Mr and Ms Palmer. She added that during the skate ramp trial in 2001, the noise of clanking of skateboards on the ramp had gone on for hours and upset her. She further said that the noise could go for 12 hours on the weekend and she could not enjoy the peace of her home. She said that CL Bishop Park would be a better site with more facilities. She noted that in the survey only 24 percent of respondents had opted for the proposed site.

Speaking under public comment, Mr D Chin said that he lived near the proposed site and supported the proposal. He added that on the weekends he did not see people using the site.

Speaking under public comment Mr G Drummond said that he saw a lot of people making use of the park with skates and bikes and that the proposal would increase use across the site.

Speaking under public comment, Ms R Attwell expressed concern about the consultation process. She added that she was not on Facebook and therefore had not known about the proposal from the outset. She requested that for future consultations, an advertisement be placed in the Eastbourne Herald at the same time as the online information, which would get everyone involved from the beginning.

Speaking under public comment, Ms S Diederich apologised to anyone who had not been included in the process. She said that the consultation process had used such strategies as door knocking, online surveys and letter box drops.

Speaking under public comment, Ms W Pharazyn said that she lived directly opposite the tennis court and people used the courts all the time to play tennis. She further said that the tennis courts needed to be divided from a skateboard area and hedging could be used for this purpose. She added that the proposed site currently looked like a prison cell. She requested that the other proposed sites be similarly investigated with regard to improvements.

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Hayes said that plantings could reduce noise by breaking up the flat surface and could be part of a wider improvement process to result in a win-win solution. He added that the current proposal was different to the 2001 skate ramp trial. He further said that the initial survey in October 2016 was a preliminary survey to ascertain whether the community had any interest in a skate ramp. The proposal was for the skate ramp to be open from 8am to 8pm and he anticipated the use of the ramp would be limited by factors such as weather and children going to school.

Speaking under public comment, Ms J Ponder said that the proposed site was not the right area for the skate ramp. She further said that she remembered the noise from 2001 when the noise echoed around the area.

Speaking under public comment, Ms P Madgwick said that she remembered the previous skate ramp, that it had not been maintained and had been left to deteriorate. She further said that a skate ramp needed funding and a maintenance plan. She added that the wider possibilities for the skate ramp had not been explored.

Speaking under public comment, Mr G Blair said that he lived next door to the proposed site and he supported the proposal. He added that the area was underutilised apart from the tennis courts and a couple of kids kicking a ball around on the weekends. He reiterated that it looked like a prison cell and supported turning the area into something fantastic. He suggested safety measures such as using a sand or rubber base for the skate ramp.

Speaking under public comment, Mr P Sprey said that a pit ramp, ie a skate ramp built into the ground, would throw the noise vertically and not horizontally.

The Reserves Assets Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the memorandum.

Resolved: (Mr Ashe/Cr Lewis) Minute No. ECB 17203

“That the Board:

(i) supports in principle the building of a mini skate ramp on the proposed H W Shortt Recreation Ground tennis court site;

(ii) requests officers to provide a full report, to be made available to the public on the other two proposed sites – CL Bishop Park and the North West Corner to the Cricket nets at the HW Shortt Recreation Ground;

(iii) requests officers to incorporate design measures to assist mitigation of noise from the mini skate ramp;

(iv) requests officers to monitor noise complaints and other complaints; and

(v) requests officers report back to the Board where necessary.”

2017 Community Boards' Conference (17/511)

Memorandum dated 17 March 2017 by the Senior Committee Advisor

The Chair elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Ms Horrocks/ Ms Sutherland) Minute No. ECB 17204

“That the Board:

(i) notes the Community Boards’ Conference will be held in the Methven from 11-13 May 2017 attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) notes the Training Policy for Community Boards and Community Committees’ adopted by Council at its meeting held on 14 March 2017, attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(iii) notes that the number of members being funded through the training budget to attend the conference is limited to one per Board;

(iv) notes the estimated cost of attending the conference per representative is approximately $1,500.00; and

(v) agrees that Mr Murray Gibbons represents the Board at the 2017 New Zealand Community Boards’ Conference.”

Committee Advisor's Report (17/421)

Report No. ECB2017/2/6 by the Committee Advisor

The Chair elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Ms Horrocks/ Mr Gibbons) Minute No. ECB 17205

“That the Board:

(i) notes the updates in the report; and

(ii) appoints Ms Horrocks as the Board’s representative on the Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful Committee.”

10. Reports from representatives on local organisations

Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust (17/422)

Mr Gibbons said that the Heritage Trail was making progress and would attract visitors to Eastbourne. He added that the Heritage Trail was part of the Vibrant Village project. He further said that the old cell block would be moved in the next few weeks to the Menzshed, where it would be refurbished.

b)	Eastbourne Youth Workers' Trust (17/423) Ms Knight said that the Trust supported the proposed mini ramp.

c)	Muritai School Hall Management Committee (17/424) Ms Knight said that there was nothing to report.

d)	Vibrant Village (17/425) Mr Gibbons said that he had reported on the Heritage Trail in his Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust report.

e)	Days Bay Wharf Steering Group (17/426) Mr Ashe said that there had been no activity since the last Board meeting.

f)	Centreport's Eastbourne Liaison Group (17/427) Mr Ashe said that the group was inactive.

g)	Eastbourne Childcare Community Group (17/428) Ms Knight said that the Group currently had a waiting list.

h)	Community Response Group (17/429) Ms Knight said that the blue tsunami lines were progressing.

i)	Educating Residents Around Trapping (ERAT) Steering Group (17/430) Ms Sutherland said that the Group had its inaugural meeting and the roll-out had been discussed.

11. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.50 pm.

Ms V Horrocks

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 27th day of June 2017

MEMORANDUM 32 27 June 2017

Our Reference 17/861

TO: Chair and Members

Eastbourne Community Board

FROM: Damon Simmons

DATE: 31 May 2017

SUBJECT: The Esplanade Bus Lane

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board:

(i) notes the information in the memorandum;

(ii) notes that council officers will monitor bus travel times along The Esplanade every six months to determine whether intervention is warranted in the future;

(iii) notes that any intervention would include consideration of all road users and the objectives of Council’s Network Operating Framework and the NZTA’s One Network Roading Classification system.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. The purpose of this memorandum is to answer the Eastbourne Community Board’s request for consideration of possible improvements to The Esplanade Bus Lane in order to reduce the bus commuting time from the Eastbourne Terminal to Wellington Railway Station.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Eastbourne Community Board (ECB) to report on possible improvement options to the existing Bus Lane along The Esplanade, Petone.

3. The concern expressed is that due to increased traffic volumes on The Esplanade and State Highway 2, during morning peak, the Eastbourne bus commute (#81 and #85) to Wellington Railway Station has increased to ‘well over one hour’.

4. The ECB also noted that the bus lane is short, requires an early merge with commuter traffic and is regularly occupied by general commuter traffic turning right from Te Puni Street onto The Esplanade.

5. The ECB suggested that possible immediate and inexpensive improvements could include:

a. Re-aligning the centre island on The Esplanade to allow the bus lane to be extended through to the Petone over bridge roundabout;

b. Extending the bus lane east to the area between the rowing club and yachting clubs; and

c. Implementing a “no right turn” ban on movements from Te Puni Street to The Esplanade during the morning peak period.

Discussion

6. The existing westbound (towards the State Highway) bus lane commences at Fitzherbert Street and terminates approximately 230m from the Petone/ Hutt Road roundabout.

7. To the east of Fitzherbert Street (towards Seaview) The Esplanade generally has a single westbound traffic lane, with localised widening to allow right turn movements into and out of the side roads, and also at the Cuba Street signalised intersection.

Figure 1 Current extent of The Esplanade westbound bus lane

8. Vehicles turning right out of Te Puni Street are required to exit the bus lane and merge into the kerbside lane for all other vehicles.

9. This merge manoeuvre from the Te Puni Street traffic can hold up buses in the bus lane when the kerb side lane is blocked back. Alternatively, some of the Te Puni Street vehicles don’t merge until the bus lane terminates.

Figure 2 Existing termination of The Esplanade westbound bus lane

Figure 3 Existing start location for The Esplanade westbound bus lane

10. The existing bus lane is located in the right hand lane of the two traffic lanes on The Esplanade. This is a relatively atypical situation – bus lanes are more typically located in the left hand/ kerb side lane to access kerbside bus stops.

11. This atypical situation accommodates the buses which turn into Te Puni Street to access the Petone Rail Station, and also to allow buses turning right out of Fitzherbert Street to directly enter the bus lane without merging with through traffic in the kerb side lane.

12. The bus lane currently operates between the hours of 7am and 9am on weekday mornings.

13. Hutt City Council Officers contacted Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) to discuss the current bus lane situation and request data from the #81 and #85 commuter routes to quantify travel times.

14. GWRC do not currently have any concerns regarding the travel time for the Eastbourne bus commuter routes to Wellington Railway Station.

15. GWRC provided the morning peak period travel time data for a single week from each of the last four years (2014 to 2017) for the Eastbourne buses (route #81 and #85).

16. From the data considered for the #85 route (which travels along The Esplanade) it is evident that:

a. Between 2014 and 2017 the worst average travel time has increased from around 52 minutes to 56 minutes (an 8% increase);

b. The longest travel time shown for the 2017 data was 65 minutes;

c. The longest travel times occur for the 7.55am departure time.

17. From the data considered for the #81 route (which travels along Jackson Street between Jessie Street and Fitzherbert Street) it is evident that:

a. Between 2014 and 2017 the worst average travel time has increased from around 57 minutes to 61 minutes (a 7% increase);

b. The longest travel time shown for the 2017 data was 68 minutes;

c. The longest travel times occur for the 7.40am departure time.

18. Travel times can be significantly longer when affected by incidents/ crashes on the local network or the state highway.

19. Bus travel times during the shoulders of the peak period (6am to 7am and 9am to 10am) are typically between 35 and 45 minutes. Therefore bus travellers during the peak period (7am to 9am) currently experience around 20 minutes of additional delay.

20. The normal morning peak traffic pattern is for the queue from the Petone southbound onramp/ State Highway 2 merge to extend back through the Hutt Road/ The Esplanade roundabout and result in congestion on both The Esplanade and Hutt Road.

21. The current bus lane configuration allows buses to bypass this queue between Fitzherbert Street and the bus lane termination, 230m east of the Hutt Road roundabout where they merge with other traffic.

22. Extending the bus lane to the west (towards Hutt Road) would allow buses to bypass more of the tailback from the State Highway, however cars turning right from Te Puni Street would still impede the bus lane by merging into the kerbside lane.

23. This situation could be avoided if right turns from Te Puni Street to The Esplanade were banned during the morning peak, however this would present several difficulties;

a. Constant Police enforcement of the ban would be required; otherwise drivers would make the manoeuvre regardless of the ban;

b. Police are likely to be reluctant to assign ongoing resources for this purpose which will be seen as having a low priority;

c. Drivers who currently undertake this manoeuvre would relocate to either Hutt Road or Victoria Street, increasing their travel time and adding to congestion at those locations.

24. If the existing bus lane merge was extended towards the Hutt Road roundabout a merge would still be required before merging with Hutt Road traffic heading to the State Highway. The busway would only be extended by around 120m as a result, therefore benefits to bus travel from this modification would be limited. The extended bus lane would also serve as a feeder lane to the right turn at the Hutt Road roundabout.

25. Extension of the bus lane to the west would also result in vehicles turning right from The Esplanade to Honiana Te Puni reserve crossing two lanes of traffic, increasing the risk for vehicle conflict.

26. Extending the start of the westbound bus lane further to the east around Nelson Street would allow more of the queuing through traffic to be avoided by buses, however this could not be achieved without removing kerbside parking outside the rowing club.

27. Vehicles turning right into, and right out of Nelson Street and Sydney Street would also need to merge through the extended bus lane, adding similar issues to that currently experienced at Te Puni Street, limiting the benefit of the extension.

28. Council regularly gets requests from bus users to extend the operating hours of the bus lane, specifically bringing forward the start time from 7am to 6am.

29. The distribution of travel times shown in the GWRC travel time data shows that some travel time saving could be achieved for buses if the bus lane opened at 6.30am, however this would need to be measured against further delay for other road users.

30. The NZTA’s proposed Petone to Grenada (P2G) project is expected to reduce congestion along The Esplanade, however the timing for this project is unclear as it is still at the investigation stage.

31. The proposed Cross Valley Link (CVL) project would also significantly reduce congestion on The Esplanade. This project is also at an early stage and the timing for construction is uncertain.

Conclusions

32. The GWRC bus travel time data shows gradually increasing travel times on both the #81 and #85 bus routes.

33. Travel time growth on both routes is currently around 2% to 3% per year (around 1 ½ minutes per year).

34. Based on the data provided and analysed, there does not seem to currently be a significant increase in travel time for the #81 and #85 bus routes year on year, however the increasing trend suggests that intervention may be required in the future.

35. The benefits to extending the existing start and termination locations for the bus lane are limited and would introduce a number of additional vehicle conflicts and require removal of parking spaces.

36. Banning the right turn movement from Te Puni Street to The Esplanade would be difficult to enforce and result in increased congestion elsewhere.

37. The benefits to bus travel times, and disbenefits to other commuter traffic, from such measures as extending the operating area and times for the bus lane, and from banning particular turning movements, would need to be studied in more detail and quantified before design and implementation.

38. Given the uncertainty around the implementation and timing of the proposed P2G and CVL projects, and the increasing trend in traffic volumes and travel times on The Esplanade for all road users, council officers will monitor bus travel times every six months to determine whether intervention is warranted in the future.

39. Any intervention would include consideration of all road users and the objectives of Council’s Network Operating Framework and the NZTA’s One Network Roading Classification system.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Attachment 1

ECB Submission to the Annual Plan 2017

Submission on HCC Draft Annual plan 2017-18

April 2017

Consultation

In formulating this submission the Board has carried out the following consultation:

· Public meeting on the future of the Harbour Ward wharves. This meeting, on 11th April, was well publicized in the Eastbourne Herald, the ECB email network and the Eastbourne Community Facebook and was attended by over 50 people. Council officers and consulting engineers answered a large number of searching questions and residents contributed thoughtful ideas. This meeting helped the Community Board gauge the feelings of the community on the future of the wharves.

· Over the last two years a proposal to develop recreational facilities on the Day’s Bay wharf has led to intense community discussion on the its future. Community Board members have been at two public meetings to discuss this and have had email and real life conversations with many residents on their vision for this wharf.

· This submission was circulated to Residents’ Assns and the community for comment. Residents who responded supported the submission and several made helpful suggestions.

· Board members have had personal feedback through many conversations.

Our approach to commenting on the Draft Plan

· The Board commented online on questions in the consultation document Growing our City where we believed we had sufficient community feedback to represent our residents.

· This submission covers projects of specific interest to Eastbourne, namely

1) The future of the Council owned wharves

2) Progress on the Eastern Shared Path

3) Climate Change

We have also expressed support for Petone Community Board on several issues

Options for the Council-owned wharves

The four Harbour Ward wharves, now between 88 and 122 years old, are central to the security, transport, character, environment and economic well-being of Hutt City and Wellington. They are used extensively for recreation by people from all over the region and recognized as jewels in the Hutt City crown.

The ECB thanks the Council for the consultation over options for the future. Council officers and the consulting engineers have given time and thought to explaining the pros and cons of the various options and answering the many questions from the community.

Petone Wharf

We see the Petone Wharf as very valuable to the region and welcome the confirmation that it will be retained. While the historic and aesthetic value of the wharf make fully refurbish the most favoured option we are concerned about any use of exotic hardwood. We would like to see options for other wood explored in an effort to keep as much as possible of the character of the wharf. Partial removal of the wharf might also be acceptable.

Day’s Bay Wharf

Since the demolition of Day’s Bay wharf is not one of the options under consideration we accept that its value to the community does not need to be proved. However the choice between fully refurbish or remove and replace is a core issue for the community.

The historic character of Day’s Bay is greatly valued by locals and is part of its attraction to those from outside Eastbourne. This character, shown in the photos in the Day’s Bay Pavilion of the water slide, funfair and events that have taken place in the bay, is part of its attraction to the large number of tourists who come to Eastbourne. The knowledge of the generations who have fished, dived and jumped from the wharf increases the strong sense of community in Eastbourne. Community meetings over that last year and many emails to community board members have made clear the community’s preference for a refurbishment that will retain the historic character of the wharf.

However, as with the Petone and the other wharves, residents are concerned about the use of hardwoods which are extremely difficult to source from genuinely sustainable forest. At this stage we lack the information about the materials available for refurbishment and hope there will be much more discussion about such details before final decisions are made.

While our comments specifically address the options suggested in the consultation document we see this as an opportunity to consider the wharves in a wider context such as how they can become part of a harbour wide recreation, transport and resilience network.

Point Howard Wharf

While the Point Howard wharf is less substantial than the other wharves it is well used by local fishers and sailors and many people from outside Eastbourne. It is greatly valued by this community, not only for current uses but as a potential link to the outside world in case of earthquakes or other civil defence emergencies.

Rona Bay Wharf

The proposed options for Rona Bay wharf have aroused the greatest interest as, unlike Day’s Bay and Petone, there is an option to demolish. We strongly oppose this option and support the submission from the Eastbourne Yacht Club which makes the case for its retention very clearly. We draw Council’s attention to their excellent submission which shows:

· The wharf is used extensively by people from throughout Hutt City and Beyond

· Rona Wharf has significant heritage and aesthetic values

· The removal of the wharf is likely to lead to erosion of the beach and pose a real risk to the Muritai Yacht Club club house

· It is an important strategic civil defence resource

· It will provide value for money in the long term as a tourist attraction both to people from overseas and New Zealand.

The MYC submission also draws Council attention to the Beca, Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd on the Rona Wharf on 18th April1990. The Community Board supports further examination of the points raised in this report.

Tourism – the approach to Rona Bay wharf has been made a feature of the main St, Rimu st, with attractive paving and lighting leading people towards the wharf. We see the refurbishment of the wharf as an opportunity to build on this investment rather than waste it.

Partially remove and replace – is not an feasible option for Rona Wharf as it would make it too short and shallow for almost every current and future activity.

Eastern Shared Path

The Board has been asked to convey frustration at the slow progress of this project. It is now several months behind the time table published on the Council’s own website which specified December 2016 as the date for the presentation of the indicative business case with recommended concept options to develop further. This had not happened at the close of submissions but there is a meeting scheduled for early May when we hope the business case will be presented.

Climate Change

For the last three years the ECB submissions have stressed the urgency of a coherent Hutt City plan for action on climate change. For the Eastbourne community climate change, with the consequent rising sea levels and increasing number and intensity of extreme weather events, is a major concern. The original Shared Path proposal suggested that in the future this project would be able to protect the access to Eastbourne but as the project developed it was recognized that it could not fulfil this function, at best giving some minor protection from storm waves. While the issue of climate change is extremely important to Eastbourne it is, of course, a vital issue for the future of the whole city.

The Eastbourne Community Board asks Hutt City to endorse Greater Wellington Regional Council's policy 2.1 (under the overarching objective of adaptation) to “Consider climate change as an integral part of planning and decision-making” (Implementation Plan p.2) with specific perfomance measures which form a major section of annual and long-term council plans.

Endorsements:

The Eastbourne Community Board supports the submissions of the Petone Community Board on he Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Submitter: Virginia Horrocks (Chair Eastbourne Community Board)
Home:045628381
Mob:0212308210
The Community Board would like to speak to this submission.

Attachment 1

Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround 2017

Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround 25 February 2017 Action Points List

	Issue	Explanation	Progress	Officer
	Point Howard
1.	Resealing Issues	All concern or noted faults need to be logged as a request via ‘Report a Problem on HCC website or by calling the HCC call centre to log the request to be looked into further. (Log RFS)*	Please log a request through the call centre or online via ‘Report a problem’ - Log an RFS* https://gissecure.huttcity.govt.nz/RAP/viewer/	Leanne Kernot – Road & Traffic Div.
2.	Chorus reinstatements badly completed after UFB installs.	As above. Any contractor UFB install queries go to Gwyn Slatter	Log an RFS* detailing actual location.	Gwyn Slatter – R&T Div.
3.	Pre-Seal repairs Smoothing needed of many severe undulations prior to sealing (pre-seal repairs)	Log RFS - with locations of concern	To log an RFS* with location	Leanne Kernot – Road & Traffic Div.
4.	“PEDESTRIANS” Signage requested (x5) to alert drivers to presence of pedestrians on roads 1/. Howard Rd at both intersections with Nikau Rd; 2/. Howard Rd above Nikau; 3/. Ngaumatau Rd, 4/. Howard Rd below Nikau Rd and 5/. Bottom of Howard Rd.	Would be open to looking at x1 sign at the start of Howard Rd if nothing already in place along the way. – Log RFS for your request.	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf. #374728 Passed on to get installed	Zackary Moodie – R&T Div.
5.	White Center line in Nikau Rd? Needing to keep drivers left and slow down traffic.	Unfortunately not an option as the road in not wide enough (has to be a minimum width to do)	Completed	Zackary Moodie – R&T Div.
6.	Chorus plates - continuing problems with noise with these as most are badly placed. A lasting remedy is needed. Currently plate opposite 8 Ngaumatau Rd is loose.	Log an RFS - Any outside contractor road works/install queries go to Chris Bennett / Gwyn Slatter to refer back to the contractor concerned.	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf. #374736. Chorus will weld the lid to the structure to stop the noise and long term may look to move the manhole out of the carriageway.	Gwyn Slatter/Chris Bennett – R&T Div.
7.	Broken Yellow Lines need repainting	Scheduled every 2 years. Was last done in Winter at residents request against Council advice to wait and not lasted.	Behind schedule, due Feb looking at March 2017 Completed	Nigel Parkin – Contracts Div.
8.	Footpaths needing repairs and resealing: Nikau Rd, path to Playcenter and footpath between Nikau and Ngaumatau Rds.	Log an RFS – actual locations listing approx. house no’s if available.	Log an RFS*	Leanne Kernot – Road & Traffic Div.
9.	Footpath from Howard Rd to Bus Stop in Esplanade needs spraying as dangerous when wet. Older residents advise that the wooden ramp is too steep and slippery and request long shallow steps	Log an RFS – Lichen on footpath	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf #374737	Clayton More - Contracts Div.
10.	Road reserve driveway access 115 Marine Dr	Informed that resident responsible for maintenance for driveway vehicle access to own property. HCC agreed to repair road edge to allow better water run-off from property to access the sump.	Completed	John Middleton – Contracts Div.
11.	Retaining wall at Reservoir Dangerous hole at top of retaining wall adjacent Howard Rd lookout needs repairs	Log an RFS include photo would also help to determine which department is responsible to be able to action quicker.	Log an RFS* with further detail	Parks & Gardens?
12.	Pt Howard Wharf Totally support its retention as a public amenity		For Information	Craig Cottrill
13. 1	Pt Howard Beach Toilets A low budget internal refit of these facilities is all that is required to bring these facilities to an acceptable standard	Proposed work - Install a skylight in men’s & women’s sides, refit benches in the men’s side, concrete crack & damage repairs, repaint after stripping & surface repair of loose material.	Log an RFS	Craig Cottrill
14.	Civil Defence Request emergency access to Pt Howard Reservoirs in the event of an emergency.	Request a subsidy or discount for a 10,000 litre water tank at the Civil Defence Centre - Cost $2K	For security reasons, Keys to the reservoir cannot be given out to residents (Wellington Water Ltd). In the event of an emergency, access to water tanks is controlled by the Hutt City Local Controller and Wellington Water. Recommend that you apply to the Mayor’s fund re the 10,000 litre water tank.	Geoff Stuart WREMO
15.	Drainage Seepage in road outside no.21 Howard Road	On-going for 10 years	Sam Logged an RFS on your behalf #374738	Wellington Water
16.	Noise Issue Recurring problem with 24hr scrap metal noise from Seaview. Highly invasive crashing day and night during loadouts from Macaulays & Sims Pacific Scrap metals. The current Bylaws need reviewing as they are not suited to protecting residents from this kind of noise intrusion. Request monitoring of noise immediately complaints are lodged.	Log an RFS for noise control to look into.	Completed - refer e-mail reply to Roger Bolam DOC/17/29956. Noise monitoring has always indicated compliance with Lower Hutt City District Plan noise performance standards. Matter could be referred to Environmental Policy Team at HCC if plan change requested.	Dean Bentley
17.	Seaview Marina – Fresh water flushing of Outboard motors – ok at idle but some users insist on revving. Request signage.	Log an RFS	There are signs in place about this issue at the washdown area where the motors are cleaned. Completed	Alan McLellan, Manager, Seaview Marina
18.	Sprint Car Events in Seaview - We request notification as an affected party before any more consents are granted. The noise is highly invasive.	We also request an email and mail drop notification a week prior to these events so residents can make plans to be away.	This event is a yearly event which is widely advertised well before to the day. Please supply email address to receive updates for future events.	Iesha McDonald
19.	Environmental Issues Oil can often be seen in the Seaview marina and white suds in light westerly conditions. There is a greater need for monitoring of live-a-boards and self-containment.	There is a greater need for monitoring of live-a-boards and self-containment	Sam Logged an RFS on your behalf – Hazardous Substance – Pollution - Water #374742	Trade Waste Division
20.	Howard Rd Slip The recent Pt Howard slip needs retention works to help it stabilise. Also the netting at the lower end of Howard Rd needs clearing – it is bulging out in many places with the weight of existing rockfalls.	Monitoring of this area of concern is in place when each slip occurs.	Log an RFS if slips occur are dealt with as a urgent matter	Road & Traffic Division
21.	Vegetation Cutting More severe trimming requested for greater visibility outside 8 Howard Rd, 21 Howard Rd. Less severe trimming requested at the “Hedgehog” at top of Hill. We request that this be allowed to re-vegetate naturally	Log an RFS	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf regarding 8 & 21 Howard Rd. Also logged regarding less trimming at top of hill as a request. #374743	Clayton More - Road & Traffic
22.	Rubbish Bin at lookout on Howard Rd frequently overflowing – needs emptying more regularly	Log an RFS	Log an RFS if overflowing, It is on a schedule to be emptied but difficult to monitor as weather dependant.	Road & Traffic
23.	Guy Fawkes Request Fireworks ban at Pt Howard lookout - Pro-active response to Christchurch fires. Rockets are currently able to be legally set off into the gorse which is a major hazard.	We have had small fires in the past. Propose perhaps fireworks be restricted to the beaches but certainly prohibited adjacent East Harbour Regional Park.	By-Law in place?	Craig Cottrill
24.	Marine Parade Cycle-lane Request that the cycle-lane be smoothed and re-sealed and that it be made compulsory for cyclists to use the cycle lane where present as is the law in Australia. Currently cyclists are causing unnecessary obstruction to motorists	Law change regarding cycling is a government issue not Council	Cycleways - Part of Eastern Bays Shared path discussion	Simon Cager
	Lowry Bay
25.	Marine Drive yellow lines – to prevent passing along the bay nr Cheviot Rd bus Stop	Log an RFS	Sam logged RFS on your behalf #374745 Investigation Underway	Sylvio/Damon – Road & Traffic Div
26.	Broadband availability in the Eastern Bays area, When will we get it?	Speed up delivery to Eastern Bays Area	This is managed by Chorus and is not a Council Initiative.	-
27.	Kaikoura Path Signs at the top and bottom of the path are looking tatty	Log an RFS	Sam Logged RFS on your behalf #374746	Craig Cottrill
28.	Weed Control along Kaikoura Path	Log an RFS	On a schedule but if weather encourages growth log a request.	Clayton More – Road & Traffic
	York Bay – Iain Bain
29.	Broken fence opposite 6 Taungata Rd	Log an RFS	Please log an RFS with more detail, if resident fencing boundaring a property, not a Council issue as Council exempt from Fencing Act	Parks & Gardens?
30.	Kaitawa Rd Culvert over bridge issue	Log an RFS	Iain to email Sam with details to be able to establish who’s responsible.
31.	Bus Shelters Any plans to replace with glass shelters	GWRC responsible for shelters	Ginny to refer to GWRC	GWRC
32.	York Bay Pump Station Pohutakawa tree roots protruding, need protecting from being constantly driven over.	Pump Station on Marine Drive, York Bay	Completed	Colin Lunn Road & Traffic
33.	Waitohu Road Query regarding broken yellow line placement	Iain to email	To log an RFS from details when emailed	Road & Traffic Div.
34.	Taungata Rd Agapanthus over footpath/road side	Vegetation overgrowth – R.H side uphill south side	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf #374748	Clayton More – Road & Traffic
	Sunshine Bay
35.	Speed Limits along the bays	Concerns as speed was reduced from Lowry to Sunshine from 70 to 50. This is needed all along the bays	Assessed several times over the years and the community as a whole do not support it, therefore cannot go ahead.	Alan Hopkinson -Road & Traffic Div
36.	Slowing traffic into the Petrol Station Speed to fast of cars into the petrol station, dangerous	Suggestion of speed humps needed to slow cars approaching and entering the station	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf #374751	Alan Hopkinson – Road & Traffic Div
37.	Sinking Seawall along the bay opposite petrol station is getting lower	Noticeably lower at this point opposite Petrol Station	Seawall / shared Path Project	John Gloag / Simon Cager – Road & Traffic Division
Days Bay
38.	Williams Park Mapfinder	Ongoing request for a wayfinder map to direct to Tennis Courts etc	New design guide now adapted, test in a different area then roll out as Williams park would not be just one sign but numerous. Definite progress	Aaron Marsh – Parks & Gardens
39.	Edge markers down Along the sea side south end of Days Bay.	Vandalised edge markers to be replaced.	Awaiting stock (stronger with more flex) Completed	Nigel parkin – Road & Traffic
40.	Cnr Ferry Road and Marine Drive new yellow line and posts Safety / Visibility issues with cars exiting Ferry Rd at too high speed.	Suggestion for the 3 posts to be relocated closer to the edge of the road to ease the turn a little avoiding entering the opposite lane.	Passed to Contractor already to be done within the next 2 weeks. Completed	Nigel Parkin – Road & Traffic
41.	Moana Rd Instruction sign no longer valid	Despite yellow lines on the right hand side of Moana Road there is a very old sign outside 12 Moana Road giving times of year parking is available which I have seen people pondering over & needs removing as no longer valid. I have spoken to the council over the years but it has never been removed – Log RFS	Sam logged RFS on your behalf #374788 Completed	Nigel Parkin - Road & Traffic
42.	Kotari Road Removal of yellow ‘no stopping’ lines. Were they official?	These were unofficial, painted by a resident therefore removed.	Completed	-
43.	Speed bumps Kotari Rd needed to stop cars speeding both up and down near the blind corner with Pitoitoi Road junction	Log RFS	Sam logged RFS on your behalf #374790	Alan Hopkinson – Road & Traffic
44.	Footpath on the Eastern side of Marine Drive between Kereru and Moana Roads in Days Bay Repeated annual concern about a safe and defined footpath on the Eastern side of Marine Drive between Kereru and Moana Roads in Days	BYL’s in place, Footpath / road are the same level now with repeated resurfacing over the years.	Will not be lowered until big area wide renewal is needed.	Road & Traffic
45.	Speed Humps Marine Drive	Speed bump in Marine Drive on the Eastbourne side of the pedestrian crossing opposite Cobar. There are some drivers whipping around from Eastbourne travelling far in excess of 50kph and one day someone will be severely injured by speeding vehicles. As I am writing this one vehicle has travelled south past the Gallery at a speed of probably 70kph.	Consultation process would be needed	Alan Hopkinson – Road & Traffic
46.	Williams Park Fence for advertising concerns raised about the Williams Park fence becoming a local billboard for matters not involving Days Bay.	Not approved by P&G Division	If noted then Log an RFS . No complaints have been logged. If Compliance see any signs we take action.	Paul Duffin
47.	Illegal Parking Persistent Illegal Parking (yet again) on the southern side of the Days Bay Wharf.	Letters have been written to the Manager of Parking Services HCC but to date little obvious action appears to have been taken to ticket illegal parkers from Eastbourne – who preclude visitors to the Bay utilising the services of the commercial businesses in the Bay.	Request time limit parking. Sam logged an RFS on your behalf. #374793	Barry Rippon
48.	To stop the incessant sand flow across Marine Drive from Days Bay Beach.	Can thought be given to the construction of a small nib wall which would (a) stop the sand drift and keep that precious commodity on the beach and (b) provide welcome seating and security for families visiting the Bay.	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf. #374794	Craig Cottrill – Parks & Gardens
	Muritai Area
49. .	Footpath pot hole Resident Val Meyers had a fall on Cnr Makaro and Oroua Street	Log an RFS	Sam logged on your behalf – no need to wait can be reported as soon as happened for repairs. #374797	Sam Whittam – Road & Traffic
50.	Norfolk Pine Trees – Nikau Street Ongoing issue	Ongoing issue with protected trees that cannot be removed. Assessed with an arborist report and monitored. 80+yr old trees	Resident informed cannot be removed due to shading property, just kept trimmed and monitored. Completed	Colin Lunn – Road & Traffic
51.	Weedspraying daisy type weeds growing on gravel beach area nice, no need to spray.	If classed as a weed will be sprayed.	Log an RFS – Any query please log an RFS with photos	Clayton More – Road & Traffic
52.	Nikau Street Street cleaning not done to the top of the street	Is on a programme, if disagree, please log an RFS at the time noticed.	Log an RFS when happens.	Clayton More – Road & Traffic

Attachment 2

Miscellaneous Budget - Eastbourne Community Board Expenditure June 2017

Miscellaneous Budget - Eastbourne Community Board Expenditure 2016/2017
Item	July	August	Sept	October	Nov	Dec	January	February	March	April	May	June	Total per Item	Balance
Opening Balance														$5,000.00
Advertising	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84	$267.84			$2,678.40
Venue		$65.22		$79.20				$75.00		$75.00			$294.42
Walkaround								$260.00					$260.00
Eastbournes													$0.00
Miscellaneous		$205.00						$40.87		$51.10			$296.97
Less Total Expenditure														$3,529.79
Closing Balance														$1,470.21

Attachment 1

Functions and Delegations of Community Boards 2016-2019

community boards – functions and delegations

This document records the delegation of Council functions, responsibilities, duties, and powers to Community Boards.

The Community Boards have been established under section 49 of the Local Government Act 2002 to represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of their community.

These delegations are based on the following principles:

· Efficient decision-making should be paramount;

· Conflicts of interest should be avoided and risks minimised;

· To ensure processes are free from bias and pre-determination Community Boards should not adjudicate on issues on which they have advocated or wish to advocate to Council;

These delegations:

(a) do not delegate any function, duty or power which a statute (for example section 53(3) and clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002) prohibits from being delegated;

(b) are subject to and do not affect any delegation which the Council has already made or subsequently makes to any other committee, Council officer or other member of staff;

(d) are subject to any notice issued by the Council, from time to time, to a Community Board that a particular issue must be referred to Council for decision;

(e) reflect that decisions with significant financial implications should be made by Council (or a committee with delegated authority);

(f) promote centralisation of those functions where the appropriate expertise must be ensured; and

(g) reflect that all statutory and legal requirements must be met.

DELEGATIONS

Decide:

· Naming new roads and alterations to street names (in the Community Board’s area).

· Official naming of parks, reserves and sports grounds within the provisions of Council’s Naming Policy. Note ^{^[20]}

· Removal and/or planting of street trees within the provisions of Council’s Operational Guide for Urban Forest Plan where a dispute arises that cannot be resolved at officer level. Note ^{^[21]}

· The granting of rights-of-way and other easements over local purpose reserves and granting of leases or licences on local purpose reserves.

· The allocation of funding from the Community Engagement Fund in accordance with Council’s adopted guidelines.

· The allocation of funding for the training and development of Community Board or members, including formal training courses, attendance at seminars or attendance at relevant conferences.

Consider and make recommendations to Council on:

· Particular issues notified from time to time by Council to the Community Board.

· Parks, reserves and sports ground naming for sites that have a high profile, city-wide importance due to their size and location and/or cross ward or community boundaries.

· Representatives to any Council committee, subcommittee, subordinate decision-making body, working group, or ad hoc group on which a Community Board representative is required by Council.

· The setting, amending or revoking of speed limits in accordance with the Hutt City Council Bylaw 2005 Speed Limits, including the hearing of any submissions.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Provide their local community’s input on:

· Council’s Long Term Plan and/or Annual Plan.

· Council’s policies, programmes (including the District Roading Programme) and bylaws.

· Changes or variations to the District Plan.

· Resource management issues which it believes are relevant to its local community, through advocacy.

· The disposal or acquisition of significant assets.

· Road safety including road safety education within its area.

· Any other issues a Board believes is relevant to its local area.

· Review Local Community Plans as required.

Reports may be prepared by the Board and presented to Council Committees, along with an officer’s recommendation, for consideration.

Any submissions lodged by a Board or Committee require formal endorsement by way of resolution.

Co-ordinate with Council staff:

· Local community consultation on city-wide issues on which the Council has called for consultation.

Maintain:

· An overview of roadworks, water supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage, waste management and traffic management for its local area.

· An overview of parks, recreational facilities and community activities within its local area.

Develop:

Grant:

· Local community awards.

Promote:

· Recreational facilities and opportunities in its area with a view to ensure maximum usage.

· Arts and crafts in its area.

Appoint:

· A liaison member or, where appropriate, representatives to ad hoc bodies, which are involved in community activities within the Board’s area, on which a community representative is sought.

Endorse:

· Amendments to the Eastbourne Community Trust Deed (Eastbourne Community Board only).

[1] This excludes sites that are considered high profile, significant on a city-wide basis due to their size and location, or where the site crosses ward or community boundaries.

[2] The Operational Guide for Urban Forest Plan is available from Council’s Parks and Gardens Division.

[3] Including the 2013 Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act and the recent passing of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

[4] A reduction in public participation was acknowledged in the 2017 OECD Environmental Performance Review of New Zealand and the 2017 final report of the NZ Productivity Commission inquiry into Better Urban Planning.

[5] This varies from the principle purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 being sustainable development.

[6] The 2016 National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity and the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act are highlighted as deficient on this topic.

[7] Including submissions on proposed bills, national policy statements and NZ Productivity Commission inquiries. Sir Geoffrey Palmer is a lawyer (QC), legal academic and past politician.

[8] For example, building height, building setback from property boundaries (including day light control angles) and site coverage

[9] 2016 MRCagney Pty Ltd, Covec Ltd and BECA ‘Cost benefit analysis of policy options for a National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, Appendix D: External Costs of Urban Growth, Final Draft, prepared for Ministry for Environment

[10] Dr Roger Blakeley was Chief Planning Officer, Auckland Council from 2010 to 2015. He was Secretary for the Environment and Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment from 1986 to 1995, during the time of the development of the Resource Management Act, 1991.

[11] 2015 Submission by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dr Roger Blackley on the NZ Productivity Commission Issues Paper for Better Urban Planning page 33

[12] 2016 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, ‘The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, the Productivity Commission Report and the Future of Planning for the Environment in New Zealand, Key Note Address to the Annual Conference of New Zealand Planning Institute page 6

[13] Special Housing Areas in Wellington City Council have included very small sites anticipated to provide less than 10 dwellings and this proposal may cover a similar scale.

[14] No Limitations on the use of historical resources are identified for European heritage.

[15] Including likely costs for funding supporting infrastructure or compulsory acquisition.

[16] Introduced in November 2016 under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity

[17] Agenda Report 2017.71 Date 10 March 2017 File CCAB-10-293. Regional plans and policies generally include the management of water quality in urban rivers, streams and harbours.

[18] Agenda Report for 1 May 2017 Policy and Regulatory Committee on Urban Development Authorities, Attachment 2 Draft Council Submission http://infocouncil.huttcity.govt.nz/Open/2017/05/PRC_01052017_AGN_2392_AT.htm#PDF3_Attachment_12949_2

[19] SOLGM 2017 Draft Submission on Urban Development Authorities page 1 http://www.solgm.org.nz/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=1227

[20] This excludes sites that are considered high profile, significant on a city-wide basis due to their size and location, or where the site crosses ward or community boundaries.

[21] The Operational Guide for Urban Forest Plan is available from Council’s Parks and Gardens Division.

Virginia Horrocks (Chair)	Liz Knight (Deputy Chair)
Robert Ashe	Murray Gibbons
Anna Sutherland	Cr Michael Lulich
Cr Tui Lewis

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Details of Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document	16

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Chair's report June 2017	32

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	ECB Submission to the Annual Plan 2017	40

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround 2017	48
2 ⇩	Miscellaneous Budget - Eastbourne Community Board Expenditure June 2017	56
3 ⇩	Training Budget - Eastbourne Community Board Expenditure June 2017	57