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 7 November 2017 commencing at 7.15pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

4. Minutes

Meeting minutes Eastbourne Community Board, 5 September 2017 15

5. Reports referred for BOARD input before being considered by Standing Committee or Sub committee of Council

a) Days Bay Reserves Declaration and Classification (17/1670)

Report No. ECB2017/5/261 by the Asset Planner 21

b) Cheviot Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1662)

Report No. ECB2017/5/262 by the Contractor 53

6. Chair's Report (17/1638)

Report No. ECB2017/5/143 by the Chair 57

7. Mini Skate Ramp (17/1612)

Report No. ECB2017/5/263 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 59

8. Schedule of Meetings 2018 (17/1575)

Memorandum dated 13 October 2017 by the Senior Committee Advisor 98

9. Committee Advisor's Report (17/1637)

Report No. ECB2017/5/20 by the Committee Advisor 105

10. Reports from representatives on local organisations

a) Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust (17/1576)

Verbal update by Mr Gibbons.

b) Vibrant Village (17/1579)

Verbal update by Mr Gibbons.

c) Okiwi Trust (17/1586)

Verbal update by Ms Sutherland.

d) Educating Residents Around Trapping (ERAT) Steering Group (17/1583)

Verbal update by Ms Sutherland.

e) Eastern Bays Marine Drive Steering Group (17/1587)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks, Mr Ashe or Ms Sutherland.

f) Days Bay Wharf Steering Group (17/1580)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Mr Ashe.

g) Community Response Group (17/1582)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Ms Knight.

h) Keep Hutt City Beautiful (17/1584)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks.

i) Plastic Bag Free Eastbourne (17/1585)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Mr Ashe.

j) Muritai School Hall Management Committee (17/1578)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

k) Eastbourne Youth Workers' Trust (17/1577)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

l) Eastbourne Childcare Community Group (17/1581)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

11. 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

15 5 September 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 5 September 2017 commencing at 7.15pm

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

APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr B Kibblewhite, Chief Financial Officer

Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

2.	Presentation of Emergency Radio Operator Certificates The Chair presented awards for long service for Civil Defence Emergency Management and thanked the volunteers for their long service and commitment to the community: · Edward Mills for 10 years service · Peter Hector for 20 years service

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

4. Presentation

Presentations by Residents' Associations and other Community Groups

There were no presentations.

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

6. Minutes

Resolved: (Ms Horrocks/ Ms Sutherland) Minute No. ECB 17401

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Eastbourne Community Board held on Tuesday, 27 June 2017, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Chair's Report (17/1267)

Report No. ECB2017/4/116 by the Chair

The Chair elaborated on the report. She tabled an addition to her report which contained further information about a public meeting for the proposed skate ramp at San Antonio, as attached as page six to these minutes. She highlighted that the Board was waiting for Council to send tsunami zone letters to residents. She further queried whether the new dog signs in Days Bay were correct.

Resolved: (Ms Horrocks/ Mr Gibbons) Minute No. ECB 17402

“That the Board notes the report.”

Committee Advisor's Report (17/1268)

Report No. ECB2017/4/14 by the Committee Advisor

Members reviewed the 2017 Walkaround. In relation to item number 45 on the Walkaround, they noted that the Days Bay Residents’ Association had requested speed bumps to slow down traffic along Marine Parade in Days Bay. They asked officers to provide more information about the process for reducing speed along the busy area.

Resolved: ( Ms Horrocks/ Mr Ashe) Minute No. ECB 17403

“That the Board notes the updates in the report.”

9. Reports from representatives on local organisations

Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust (17/1269)

Mr Gibbons said that the Heritage Trail was making good progress. The signs would be ordered this month and installed in November 2017. He further said that the old Police Cells were now stored in Days Bay and designs were in progress for when it would be put on display in Eastbourne. He added that Greater Wellington Regional Council was progressing with the work on the McKenzie Track. There would be some events planned for Armistice Day on 11 November 2018 and the Board would be participating in the events.

b)	Eastbourne Youth Workers' Trust (17/1270) Ms Knight said that there was no new information to report.

c)	Muritai School Hall Management Committee (17/1271) Ms Knight said that there was no new information to report.

d)	Vibrant Village (17/1272) Mr Gibbons said that he had reported back on projects which involved Vibrant Village with his Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust report.

e)	Days Bay Wharf Steering Group (17/1273) The Chair said that the Days Bay Wharf Steering Group was waiting for the Wharf upgrade to commence.

f)	Eastbourne Childcare Community Group (17/1275) Ms Knight said that there was no new information to report.

g)	Community Response Group (17/1276) Ms Knight said that the Community Response Group was waiting for Council to send tsunami zone letters to residents.

h)	Educating Residents Around Trapping (ERAT) Steering Group (17/1277) Ms Sutherland said that they had a trap line operator meeting in August 2017. She added that the MENZ Shed and a Scout group were making traps.

i)	Keep Hutt City Beautiful (17/1278) The Chair said that Keep Hutt City Beautiful had clean-ups planned along the waterways.

j)	Plastic Bag Free Eastbourne (17/1029) The Chair said that there had been a public petition to Parliament for a ban on plastic bags.

10. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.00 pm.

Ms V Horrocks

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 7th day of November 2017

Appendix 1

20 07 November 2017

Eastbourne Community Board

27 October 2017

File: (17/1670)

Report no: ECB2017/5/261

Days Bay Reserves Declaration and Classification

Purpose of Report

1. Consultation has been carried out to seek the community’s view on a proposal to declare seven properties in Days Bay as reserve and classify them in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977. This report summarises the results of the public consultation and recommends that Council give approval to classify seven properties.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that seventeen submissions were received with fourteen submissions supporting the proposed reserve declaration and classification;

(ii) thanks submitters for participating in the consultation process;

(iii) agrees to declare areas A, B, C, D, E, F and G, illustrated on the plan in section seven of this report as reserve, in terms of section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977;

(iv) agrees that areas A, B, C, D, F and G, illustrated on the plan in section seven of this report, be classified as Recreation Reserve in accordance with section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977;

(v) agrees that area E, illustrated on the plan in section seven of this report, be classified as Scenic Reserve in accordance with Section 19(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977; and

(vi) directs officers to publish the classifications, as resolved at this meeting, in the New Zealand Gazette.

Background

2. The Days Bay Residents’ Association queried the reserve status of land in Williams Park in April 2017. In the process of responding, officers became aware that properties in Days Bay have not been classified under the Reserves Act 1977. The properties have been managed as reserve since 1914 and some current and old Certificates of Title indicate an intention for them to be managed as reserve. Classification would reinforce the purpose for which the properties are held by Council and the updated status would enable the properties to be administered in a way that is consistent with most of the reserve properties owned by the Hutt City Council.

Discussion

3. Williams Park is a popular site in Days Bay and it offers a range of recreational opportunities. Land immediately east of Williams Park is managed by the Greater Wellington Regional Council and forms part of East Harbour Regional Park which is recognised for recreation, landscape and ecological values. Land on the seaward side of Eastern Bays Marine Drive in Days Bay is managed by Council and offers a range of coastal recreation opportunities.

4. There are four properties in Williams Park that have not been classified under the Reserves Act 1977. Another large parcel to the east has not been classified and is managed as part of the East Harbour Regional Park. Two properties on the seaward side of Eastern Bays Marine Drive have not been classified. All seven properties are owned by Hutt City Council and are managed as reserve.

5. Williams Park has been managed by the Hutt City Council since local government amalgamation in 1989. Prior to amalgamation the Park was owned and managed by the Wellington City Council and before that it was a privately owned by the Wellington Steam Ferry Company.

6. Strategic Direction 1 in Council’s Reserves Strategic Directions sets out Council’s expectation for land managed as reserve to be classified in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

7. Officers recommend that seven properties in Days Bay be classified.

	Legal Description	Size	Proposed Classification	Note
A	Part Section 33 Harbour District CTWN49C/741	.20795ha	Recreation Reserve	Part of Williams Park
B	Part Section 33 Harbour District CTWN49C/741	.19463ha	Recreation Reserve	Part of Williams Park
C	Part Section 33 Harbour District CTWN49C/741	5.6195ha	Recreation Reserve	Part of Williams Park
D	Part Section 33 Harbour District CTWN49C/741	.6508ha	Recreation Reserve	Part of Williams Park
E	Lot 2 DP 456938 CT591561	253.2814ha	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	Part of East Harbour Regional Park
F	Pt Sec 33 Harbour District CTWN250/231	.2539ha	Recreation Reserve	Days Bay coast
G	Pt Sec 33 Harbour District CTWN250/231	.5434ha	Recreation Reserve	Days Bay coast

Options

8. Council may wish to direct officers to report back on an area labelled C2 on the aerial plan below at a future meeting and consider whether this area is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements. This option was not included in the 2017 consultation material as it was not considered at that time. Area C2 is approximately 1855m².

9. If Council determines that Area C2 is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements, Council might eventually choose to specifically consider disposal of part of the property. The Public Works Act processes for dealing with surplus land held as a public work would need to be followed. Before Area C2 could be sold a plan change and subdivision would be required. If Area C2 is surplus, the remaining portion of Area C would be declared as reserve and classified as Recreation Reserve. If Area C2 is not surplus the entire Area C property would be declared and classified as Recreation Reserve.

10. Council could choose to not proceed with Reserves Act classification. However this is not in line with Council policy, which is to protect land held for reserve purposes by declaring it reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, according to its character and anticipated use.

Consultation

11. The Days Bay Residents’ Association, East Harbour Environmental Association, Mainland Island Restoration Organisation, Eastbourne Historical Society, the Rununga, Wellington Tenths Trust, Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and Greater Wellington Regional Council were invited to comment on the classification and naming proposal.

12. A public notice inviting submissions on the proposal to declare and classify seven properties managed as reserve in Days Bay was published in the Eastbourne Herald 23 June and the Hutt News 22 June 2017. Copies are attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

13. Seventeen submissions were received. Fourteen submissions support the proposal. There are no objections. A summary of submissions is attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Individual submissions are attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

14. With her agreement, Linda Buchanan’s submission SDB17/3 has been treated as a request for information rather than a submission.

15. Donald Long’s submission SDB17/8 supports the proposed reserve declaration and classification on the proviso that Council alters the noise limits and timing of noisy events in Williams Park. Mr Long has been advised that the District Plan, not the Reserves Act classification process, manages noise. Mr Long’s submission has been treated as neither supporting nor opposing the proposal.

16. The Mainland Island Restoration Trust SDB17/17 supports the proposal and requests that the four properties within Williams Park be classified as Scenic Reserve rather than the proposed Recreation Reserve. MIRO has been advised that, while scenic qualities are present, they are not the primary purpose of the four properties. The primary purpose of the properties is most closely aligned with the purpose of Recreation Reserve set out in Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Legal Considerations

17. The Reserves Act 1977 sets out the process and considerations for classifying land as reserve under Sections 14, 17 and 19. Declaring and classifying land under the Reserves Act is the primary method used by the Hutt City Council to protect reserves and control their management.

18. Reserve land should be classified before leasing, licensing or preparing reserve management plans.

19. All seven properties are in the General Recreation Activity Area of the District Plan.

Financial Considerations

20. The cost of undertaking reserve classification is less than $500. This has been funded from the Parks and Gardens operational budget.

Other Considerations

21. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it responds positively to Council’s Reserves Strategic Directions strategy to protect land it owns for reserve purposes and classify it according to its character and anticipated use in under the Reserves Act 1977. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because the cost of implementing the recommendation is low.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary of Submissions - declare and classify 7 Days Bay properties as reserve - August 2017	27
2 ⇩	Combined Submissions for 7 Reserve Properties in Days Bay Consultation - 2017	29
3 ⇩	Hutt News and Eastbourne Herald copies of advertisements for Days Bay Reserve declaration and classification - June 2017	52

Author: Kelly Crandle

Asset Planner

Reviewed By: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Bruce Sherlock

Strategic Projects Director

Attachment 1

Summary of Submissions - declare and classify 7 Days Bay properties as reserve - August 2017

	Submitter	submission	Proposed Action

SDB17/1	Jan and Arnold Heine	Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/2	Wellington Tenths Trust	Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/3	Linda Buchanan	Sought information about reserve status and clarification of reserve property boundaries	Officer responded with explanation and referred submitter to HCC website information. Officer e-mailed and offered to provide more information.
SDB17/4	Sarah and Jake McLaren	Submitter outlined the value of living near the reserves for their family. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/5	Mike Cotsilinis	Submitter sees classification as a way to protect land managed as reserve from development. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB/17/6	Gail Thomson	Submitter sees classification as a way to protect land managed as reserve for future generations. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/7	Donald Graham Thomson	Submitter recognises the recreational significance of the properties. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/8	Donald Stuart Long	Supports the proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve on the condition that Council reduces the permitted noise levels for early morning and late evening activities in Williams Park	Not appropriate for this Reserves Act process to deal with noise level issues which are a District Plan matter. Contact submitter and advise them to discuss the noise concerns with HCC Environmental Policy Division
SDB17/9	Craig Hunter	Submitter sees classification as a way to protect land managed as reserve from encroachment. Suggests that reserves could provide space for a higher road which would function as sea level rises. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve.	Accept submission
SDB17/10	Lower Hutt Branch RF&BPSNZ	Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve for reasons outlined in the consultation material	Accept submission

SDB17/11	Gary James	Submitter sees classification as a way to protect land managed as reserve for future generations. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/12	Mark Raymond Horgan	Submitter supports 7 properties being classified as reserve in order to protect their public use	Accept submission
SDB17/13	East Harbour Environmental Assoc.	Submitter strongly supports the proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as recreation or scenic reserves.	Accept submission
SDB17/14	Days Bay Residents Assoc.	Submitter strongly supports the proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as recreation or scenic reserves.	Accept submission
SDB17/15	Sarah Williams	Submitter sees classification as a way to protect land managed as reserve from development and to protect the natural environment. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/16	Arleigh Stein	Submitter sees classification as a way to protect land managed as reserve from development and recognises that classified reserves require special consideration when development is being considered. Supports proposal to declare and classify 7 properties as reserve	Accept submission
SDB17/17	MIRO	Submitter strongly supports the proposal to classify 7 properties as reserve but has a preference for the 4 Williams Park properties to be Scenic rather than Recreation Reserve	The 4 proposed Recreation Reserve properties are located within the developed area of Williams Park. Managing these as Scenic Reserve would not enable the current focus on recreation provision to continue. Recommend that Recreation Reserve is more appropriate than Scenic Reserve. Recreation Reserve is not a lesser level of protection under the Reserves Act, it simply just focuses on different values.

52 07 November 2017

Eastbourne Community Board

27 October 2017

File: (17/1662)

Report no: ECB2017/5/262

Cheviot Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions near the corner of Cheviot Road and Dillon Street as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions near the corner of Cheviot Road and Dillon Street as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.

For the following reason: to prevent parked vehicles forcing drivers to cross the centre line on a bend with limited visibility.

Background

2. Council has received a request from a local resident to improve safety on this sharp corner on Cheviot Road.

3. Concerns have been raised over the lack of space on the road when negotiating this sharp bend, particularly when vehicles are parked on or near this intersection. On occasion vehicles are forced to cross the centreline.

4. Further, there are no footpaths on either side of the road near this bend, meaning this section of road is shared with pedestrians and bicycles.

5. A check of crashes record in the NZTA’s Crash Analysis System for the last 10 years has shown no reported crashes at this bend.

Discussion

6. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as proposed will improve visibility and safety for drivers negotiating this bend.

7. This proposal will result in the removal of four parking spaces.

Options

8. The options are:

a. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the safety hazard will remain or,

b. To install the proposed improvements and reduce the safety hazard.

Consultation

9. A plan of the proposal was forwarded to 14 nearby residents. Six responses were received; one approved and five disapproved. The disapproving views can be summarised with the following points.

No. 29 – We question the need for a yellow line outside No. 33. We occasionally park a car on the road as we share a driveway with 3 other houses.

No. 46 – We have already had problems with people especially tradesmen parking on the berm making it difficult to maintain.

No. 39 – We fear that the proposed broken yellow lines would result in more rather than less speeding on that intersection. This would decrease rather than increase the safety at this bend.

No. 33 – The issue is speed and drivers cutting the corner, not parked cars. Cars are travelling far too quickly up and down Cheviot Road.

No. 50 - Personally it has never crossed my mind that there is a problem at this corner

10. Officers’ responses:

As a result of this consultation the proposal was amended. Broken yellow lines outside No.33 were removed, and the 12m of broken yellow lines outside No. 50 were shortened from 12m to 6m.

Broken yellow lines are necessary to help prevent drivers from crossing the centreline on a bend with poor visibility.

The safety of road users in this instance is more important than the inconvenience caused by the removal of four parking spaces.

Legal Considerations

11. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

12. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

13. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Cheviot Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	56

Author: Martin Barry

Contractor

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer – Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

58 07 November 2017

Eastbourne Community Board

19 October 2017

File: (17/1612)

Report no: ECB2017/5/263

Mini Skate Ramp

Purpose of Report

1. This report provides information on the proposal to locate a mini skate ramp on the hard surface area of HW Shortt Recreation Reserve to assist the Board in making a decision whether or not to proceed.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board considers the information provided in this report in making its decision on locating a mini skate ramp on the sealed area at HW Short Recreation Reserve.

Background

2. The Eastbourne Community Board was approached in late 2016 by a small group of residents (project sponsors) wanting to help fund and establish a mini skate ramp in Eastbourne. The project sponsors identified three sites at which the ramp might be located.

3. At its meeting of 4 April 2017, the Board resolved to support in principle the building of a mini skate ramp on the HW Shortt Recreation Reserve and asked officers to incorporate design measures to assist mitigation of noise. This decision was made following community engagement undertaken by the project sponsors, which showed very strong community support for the proposal. The site of the mini skate ramp is shown as a blue rectangle in the aerial image below.

4. Some residents, from the area close to the proposed site, expressed concern to the Board and to Council over this particular site, believing that noise would be an issue. They were specifically concerned that the surrounding buildings would accentuate noise, as it reverberates off surrounding buildings and other hard surfaces. I personally met with some of these residents to hear their concerns.

5. In late May the Board Chair put together a report on the process followed to date with the mini skate ramp proposal which included the options and consultation undertaken prior to the April meeting. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix 1.

6. Council officers undertook noise tests on 29 May 2017, with readings taken from both Tuatoru and Oroua Streets. The noise readings taken from the footpath immediately adjacent to residential boundaries were measured to be within the maximum permitted by the District Plan. The measurement results were as follows:

Site 1 – between 44 and 46 Tuatoru Street (West side of road)

Leq Lmax L10 (dBA)

Skateboard impacting with ramp 65 70 60

Skateboard impacting with asphalt 54 58 50

Skateboard grind on wood 50 56 47

Skateboard grind on pole 52 57 48

Site 2 - Outside 85 Oroua Street (East side of road)

Leq Lmax L10 (dBA)

Skateboard impacting with ramp 59 66 55

Skateboard impacting with asphalt 58 65 48

Skateboard grind on wood 48 48 48

Skateboard grind on pole 53 55 52

Leq Time weighted average

Lmax Maximum noise level

L10 Level equalled or exceeded for 10% of the time

7. A landscape architect was engaged by the skate ramp organisers to prepare plans which would enhance and soften the ramp in this location and help mitigate noise. Officers had input into their preparation. The plans are attached as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 to the report.

8. On receipt of these plans the Board arranged a meeting with concerned neighbours to present the plans and answer questions. Those present were encouraged to put their concerns in writing for consideration by the Board at its meeting of 7 November 2017. Comments, both for and against the ramp, are detailed in Appendix 4 to this report.

Discussion

9. There is little or no opposition to the provision of a mini skate ramp in Eastbourne, but there is some opposition to the location of the ramp at the preferred site on HW Shortt Recreation Reserve.

10. Locating a skate ramp on a Council reserve, which is within the general recreation activity area, is a legitimate use of the reserve. Council has skate ramps at a variety of reserves elsewhere in the City, including Speldhurst Park, Avalon Park, Hugh Sinclair Park and Petone Recreation Ground.

11. Local residents, opposed to the skate ramp at this location, are concerned that the activity will generate noise which will negatively impact them. Based on testing of the site, noise levels are expected to be below the maximum limits set out in the District Plan.

12. Mitigation measures to soften noise and improve the visual landscape of this area have been undertaken. Officers are satisfied with the plans that have been prepared. It is expected that the plantings will marginally reduce the level of noise, providing a buffer between the ramp and the wall of the Eastbourne Community Sports Hall.

13. Officers consider that this area is suitable for a mini skate ramp, with the mitigation measures proposed, but would suggest that there should also be some controls on use, so that the skate ramp is not used after an appropriate hour (say 9pm). Having said that, it is noted that the main users of the mini ramp as designed are expected to be in the 8 -12 year age bracket.

Options

14. The Board can either agree to proceed with the skate ramp at this site or not. If it decides not to proceed at this site then it could ask officers to consider another site.

Consultation

15. The development of a mini skate ramp in Eastbourne has been the subject of widespread community engagement.

Legal Considerations

16. The activity is a permitted activity in terms of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan.

17. Measured noise levels from the skateboard testing carried out and occurring at appropriate times of the day on recreational land would not be considered excessive in terms of Section 326 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

S 326 (1) Meaning of “excessive noise”

In this Act, the term excessive noise means any noise that is under human control and of such a nature as to unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person.

Nor would those noise levels be considered unreasonable in terms of Section 16 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

S 16 (1) Duty to avoid unreasonable noise

Every occupier of land (including any premises and any coastal marine area), and every person carrying out an activity in, on, or under a water body or … the coastal marine area, shall adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land or water does not exceed a reasonable level.

For comparison, the District Plan noise performance standard for Noise Area 3 (the largest residential noise area and also the one used for Eastbourne) is:

Noise Area 3

Maximum 50dBA 7.00am 10.00pm

Maximum 40dBA 10.00pm 7.00am

The testing carried out shows that predicted noise levels from the use of the ramp would comply with the above standard, and thus be considered reasonable.

Financial Considerations

18. The cost of building the mini ramp and surrounding mitigation is estimated to be $35,000 plus GST. The project sponsors have raised $21,618. Some funding is available from the parks playground budget, but further fundraising may be required.

Other Considerations

19. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides advice to the Board on a local decision regarding the placement of recreational infrastructure.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	ECB Report on proposed skate park 28 May 2017	64
2 ⇩	Mini Skate Ramp Earthworks Plan 1	87
3 ⇩	Mini Skate Ramp Earthworks Plan 2	88
4 ⇩	Submissions - Eastbourne Skate Park	89

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

Attachment 4

Submissions - Eastbourne Skate Park

Name	Submission
Finola	This is just a quick note to say I am in support of the Eastbourne Skate Ramp and believe that all the correct processes have been followed to create a positive facility for young people in Eastbourne. The vast majority of Eastbourners have expressed support of this project, including many neighbours and adjacent facility owners. It would be a shame for this to project to not go ahead as a result of a very vocal minority. Much thought has been given to noise-proofing the ramp which is the main concern of surrounding residents, and many robust processes will be in place to address this. This area has been enjoyed by my family for multiple generations and I am looking forward to it's re-generation for use when I start a family myself.
Ruth & David Chinn	At a previous ECB meeting earlier in the year we attended, it seemed this was resolved (see below) and the ECB supported in principle the building of a mini skate ramp on the proposed H W Shortt Recreation Ground tennis court site. It is confusing as to why this is being voted upon for a second time in November? This is to confirm (again) that we are in favour of the skate ramp and the development of the tennis court site to benefit the community. We have seen the latest drawings and believe that this would be a great asset for Eastbourne. We live nearly opposite the courts at 75 Oroua Street and have no objections to any of the perceived side effects (noise etc.). We believe that the courts are underutilised and that the skate ramp would hopefully attract more children to the area and out of their bedrooms and away from their screens. It is a delight seeing (and hearing) children having fun with outdoors activities. The courts are there to be used – what’s the point of having them otherwise? I am currently a stay at home parent and I can assure you that the only activity I see during the week on the courts are the San Antonio School children playing at morning tea and lunch. There is provision for this to continue as with other uses of the courts after school and on the weekends; tennis, basketball, scootering etc.
Graham Wilson	I have received a leaflet that advertises a meeting of local residents in opposition to the proposed skate board ramp on the courts at the Eastbourne Community Centre. They quote a survey of 50+ signatures. I live in Tuatoru St and my signature is not one of them. I support the provision of recreation facilities for kids and I believe that the courts are seriously under utilised and need to have people back using them again. Skating and skate boarding is not new to the area. Around about 40 years ago a large wooden bowl with plywood working surface was built near the cricket nets in Shortt Park. Kids used it for about 20 years before it wore out and was demolished. MENZ Sheds constructed new portable skate ramps and rails about 15 years ago and these still live in the small storage room at the Community Centre. They are operated on the courts by the Youth Club when kids want to skate on Friday evenings in the summer. So kids have skated and clattered about in this area for as long as their parents have lived here. Many of us parents who have lived here and brought up our kids in the area have benefited from the facilities. We didnt mind them being noisy down on those courts, playing tennis, volleying tennis balls against the hall wall, playing netball and practising goal shots and yes skating about. It is ironical that some of those parents have become sensitive to the noise when it is other people’s kids making it. Maybe we are just old and crusty. But the onset of deafness helps if one seeks selective isolation. I have listened to a friend who doesnt live in the area state that allowing kids to congregate will bring sex and drugs into a “nice area”. So what is new. It is just scare tactics. Because the area is not isolated from community activities we would probably notice and do something about it. Hopefully Council will just man up and support recreation and kids wanting to do something that is not “screen time”. The area is designated for recreation purposes and that designation needs to be protected. Yes there are other places where a skate ramp might go. But as Mr Hodgins was quoted in the Herald – the activity will benefit from being surrounded by a paved surface. Not everyone will be able to occupy the ramp at once so they need a paved area to warm up on and wait their turn on the ramp. This is an existing paved surface that the community has already paid for. So sweat your assets and dont be bullied into spending money to lay more concrete. As we know from previous experience wooden skate ramps have a finite life and concrete surfaces last much longer so it makes economic sense for the “temporary” structure to sit on an existing pavement.
Peter Hahn	This is to confirm again that we are in favour of the skate ramp. We have seen the latest drawings and believe that this would be a great asset for Eastbourne. We live right opposite the courts and have no objections to any of the perceived side effects (noise etc.). We believe that the courts are underutilised and that the skate ramp would hopefully attract more children to the area and out of their bedrooms and away from their screens. It is a delight seeing (and hearing) children having fun with outdoors activities. The courts are there to be used – what’s the point of having them otherwise? Sorry, for not making it to the last meeting at the community hall. Please do not hesitate calling me anytime to discuss!
Lauren Delaney	I would like to again show my support for the proposed skate ramp at the recreational facilities area at the top of Tuatoru street. As a mother of three boys I love anything that will get my kids out of the house enjoying physical activity and fresh air. My husband and I have also recently invested in a skateboard in the hopes that we can join in and have fun as a family. I also love the idea of basketball facilities being provided on one of the courts, it would be great to see the area more fully utilised covering a wide range of sports and activities to cover the interests of more children and families. I recently saw the plans for the skate ramp in the Eastbourne Herald and think they look fantastic. Matt, Sinead and the team have done an outstanding job of putting the proposal together and held a comprehensive and thorough consultation process.
Aaron Theobold - NME	This is a short note to indicate my support for the proposed skate ramp. The latest drawings have been released and look good - I believe that this would be a great asset for Eastbourne. There has been significant research and due diligence put in to the proposal & the community has been consulted & kept up to speed through the whole process. Utilising the courts area to its full potential can only have positive implications and will be a great asset to the local children & community.
Virginia Saunderson.	I am writing in support of the Eastbourne Skate Ramp at the San Antonio courts. I saw the designs on facebook and they are much more attractive than I thought they would be, I’m so impressed. It will beautify a rather ugly, neglected corner and provide a new vitality to the area. It’s lovely to see the tennis courts used in summer and we live next to a park (Greenwood Park), and I just love to hear the sound of happy children playing outside in the fresh air, not at home on screens or mooching in the malls. We really must provide a range of local facilities to keep our kids outdoors and occupied in healthy pursuits in this new age of screens and technology. The San Antonio courts are under-utilised, central, part of a sports hub already (tennis, ESSC, netball, rugby, cricket, etc) so in my mind it’s an ideal location. We have a wonderful motivated community group keen to make it happen, so this is a unique opportunity to get this project underway.
Margaret Martin	I am against the placement of a skate board ramp on the “San Antonio” courts area. Unlike many people who are keen to have the skate ramp in this area, I have experience of the effects of the noise from skating and the impact of foot traffic in the area. It seems preferable to site a facility in an area where there is little conflict of use, management of the activity can be facilitated, and the activity meshes with the current usage of the area in a variety of ways. When a skateboard area was mooted in the early 2000’s the ECB recognised the right of the residents to quiet enjoyment of their properties. While we clearly have to provide a milieu encouraging strong and healthy growth of our young people, this can in no way negate that right. A solution needs to be developed which best fits our particular community. (document attached to email)
Maree Jansen - Youthworkers Trust	I attended the Board meeting on Tuesday night and raised my hand on several occasions to provide input for consideration, my points were to be representative of the 30+ children who attend Youth Group each Friday at The Loft. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to share but I did want the voice of the children heard by the board. I share this feedback understanding that the motion has been passed to support the proposal in principle - an outcome that is very positive for the community. For nearly 3 years now we have been running the youth group; we along with families in the community see this as an invaluable resource for keeping kids connected in the community. It also provides them a safe and constructive environment to release energy at the beginning of the weekend and a positive place for them to enjoy their early teenage social years. Over the course of the skateramp community engagement we have had countless conversations with the kids - all of which have been endorsing of the ramp and the proposed location. The proposed proximity is one that is both recreationally zoned; currently under-utilised, and very aligned with other resources within close proximity (Youth Group, sports Recreation centre, St Antonio school). They were all delighted with the outcome from the Board meeting and look forward to the prospect of being able to use the ramp as part of Youth Group activities and the general community resources. Thanks to you and the Board for your consideration to progress the proposal on behalf of the youth. For 15 to 18-year-old boys, 36.5% play tennis during a year, compared to 30.4% who skateboard, 58.1% who play rugby, 61.9% play soccer, and 31.6% play cricket. 60.9% of 15 to 18-year-old boys play basketball during a year. Eastbourne currently caters for soccer, rugby, cricket and tennis. These figures clearly show the rise of popularity in basketball in New Zealand and highlight the lack of public facilities for this in our community. A voluntary Eastbourne ‘hoop club’ (using the facilities in Wellesley College) established in the last few months has been a runaway success and already has a huge waiting list of children waiting to join up ( I would encourage you to check out the Eastbourne Hoop Club Facebook page). This is an opportunity for Hutt City Council and the Community Board to show leadership and have some real ambition for this neglected patch of land. Hopefully our community board will seize this opportunity to send a strong signal to the youth of our community that we see them as a valuable part of our community. Simply limiting this discussion to the installation of a skate ramp would be a wasted opportunity. I strongly support the current plans for the installation of a basketball court alongside a skate ramp in Eastbourne and hopefully the ECB and HCC will be able to initiate this project without any further delay.
Stephen Cobb	I understand Hutt City Council is currently considering a proposal to install a skateboarding ramp on the site of the concrete tennis courts on Oroua Street in Eastbourne and there has been some commentary in the Eastbourne Herald that a proper consultation process has not been followed. A failure to follow through and deliver this proposal would be a poor reflection of Eastbourne (and Hutt City Council) and send a negative message to the youth of our community. As a resident of Oroua Street who has not been involved in the development of the skate ramp proposal, I would like to note that I have been incredibly impressed by the efforts that have been made by the proponents of the skate ramp to pro-actively engage and consult with individuals living near the proposed site. The voluntary consultation process has, in my opinion, been far greater than I have seen for other proposals that have impacted on our community – for example, the erection of the mobile phone aerial in HW Shortt park was only subject to public consultation after an outcry from local residents, and I do not believe there was any public consultation before the Eastbourne community centre was ‘upgraded’ with astroturf and cricket nets (great for cricket but terrible for all the other sports codes that use that facility). The current concrete tennis courts on Oroua Street next to San Antonio School represent a scarce resource in Eastbourne, a flat area of public land that can be used by the whole community. I fully support the proposal to install a skate ramp in this area but this needs to be done as part of a more strategic approach to ensure this area meets the needs of the Eastbourne community. Currently this land is used for three tennis courts, a single netball hoop and (from time to time) as storage of mulch. Since moving to Eastbourne 11 years ago I have passed this area at least twice daily; most of the time the tennis courts are not used, occasionally one court is used and maybe twice a year there will be two courts in use. There is no shortage of tennis courts elsewhere in Eastbourne; Muritai Tennis Club, grass courts on Houhere Terrace and courts available in Days Bay. Adding a skate ramp to this area will increase the use of this land but a much more ambitious approach is required. Sport New Zealand's 2014 survey of sport and recreation in the lives of 15 to 18 year old girls provides some valuable data in helping our community to decide on the best use of this land. Amongst 15 to 18-year old girls, 33.2% play tennis during a year, compared to 17.8% who skateboard, 30.3% who play rugby, 46.9% play soccer, and 24.5% play cricket. However, 47.4% of 15 to 18-year-old girls play basketball during a year. Eastbourne currently caters for soccer, rugby, cricket and tennis. These figures clearly show the rise of popularity in basketball in New Zealand and highlight the lack of public facilities for this in our community. A voluntary Eastbourne ‘hoop club’ (using the facilities in Wellesley College) established in the last few months has been a runaway success and already has a huge waiting list of children waiting to join up ( I would encourage you to check out the Eastbourne Hoop Club Facebook page). This is an opportunity for Hutt City Council and the Community Board to show leadership and have some real ambition for this neglected patch of land. Hopefully our community board will seize this opportunity to send a strong signal to the youth of our community that we see them as a valuable part of our community. Simply limiting this discussion to the installation of a skate ramp would be a wasted opportunity. I strongly support the current plans for the installation of a basketball court alongside a skate ramp in Eastbourne and hopefully the ECB and HCC will be able to initiate this project without any further delay.
Matthew Mallett	I am writing to confirm my support for the proposed Eastbourne skate ramp. I have viewed the latest drawings and consider that the ramp (in the form proposed) would be a great asset for the Community and, in particular, its youth.
Lucy & Luke	Lucy and I live at 28 Tuatoru St and we are in support of the skate ramp at San Antonio courts being constructed as per plans drawn by Earthscape Design. We feel it will be an asset for the community.
Sean O'Sullivan	I am a resident Eastbourne reside with my family at 81 Oroua Street. We are adjacent to the tennis court area upon which the proposed skate ramp is planned. I am a parent of 6 – 5 boys .I understand the need to have this type of facility for our locality. I was a supporter of it previously. While it is always easier to support something like this, that is not “over the road”, I have reviewed the plans and would like to congratulate the organisers on the design. I remain fully supportive of the proposal. I hope that you will be of a similar view when it comes to you for final approval.
Wendy Pharazyn	Below is my submission regarding the siting of the skate ramp. Matt Hayes said to me after the ECB meeting in early April that the landscape architect Neil Tonkin said to him that "no one wants a skate ramp next to them but, unfortunately, some people have to be the sacrificial lambs." or words to that effect. For many reasons, that have been stated over the last number of months, the tennis court/netball site is NOT suitable for a skate ramp. Concerned residents may seek legal advice if the tennis court/netball site is approved by the ECB for the skate ramp. I have found this whole process extremely distressing. I am probably going to move from Eastbourne as a consequence of the level of stress it has caused me.
Margs Mills	My name is Margs Mills and I live at 33 Tuatoru Street in Eastbourne 5013. I attended the meeting on 20 September at 7.15 pm at the RSA rooms at the top of Tuatoru. The meeting was an invitation to concerned local residents. The Hutt City Council, the skate ramp committee and the Eastbourne Community Board wanted to show us the plans they had for the ramp, the site being by San Antonio School and Church. There was a good turnout from a variety of locals of different ages. Right from the beginning it became clear that the local residents were very upset by the site choice. Virginia Horricks did a sterling job of chairing a highly emotional meeting! There are many and varied objections to this site including noise, business, etc and the strong feeling is that as this is a residential area by a school and church. Most people want a skateboard ramp for the children but not on this site. If our concerns and objections are over ridden and the ramp is placed there, it will only create more distress on all sides. Over the last few weeks I visited the houses in Tuatoru and Oroua Streets to ask people how they felt about the site chosen I e by the church. I collected over fifty signatures. People did not want the ramp by the school but rather in a park. I have spoken to Father Maylon, the parish priest and he is unhappy with the site. There are services every Saturday at 5.30 and also during the week as well as funerals etc. There is, however, a solution. Most people want the ramp to be built in a park. It is a park activity and belongs alongside other recreational activities. Our local Bishops Park is ideal. The children could play on the ramp, the swings and slides, go for a swim in the pool or the sea. They are near toilets, rubbish bins and local shops for ice creams etc. There are a couple of sites in Bishops Park that would be suitable and provide a lovely location for our children to enjoy the ramp and other activities on hand. They would be well away from houses and shops so noise would not be a problem. There are plenty of people around this area enjoying the park so the skaters would not be isolated bur part of the park community. I think the Eastbourne Community Board, The Hutt City people and the skate ramp committee got a bit of a shock when they saw and heard the level of distress felt by the locals. They love their peaceful environment and they will not give up or go away. Most of the people who want the site by the church do not live there! I hope that in light of all this the council will see sense and choose another site, suitable for everyone.
David McDougall	Skateboard ramp - wrong venue versus the right site The proposed venue on the area known locally as 'the tennis courts' is unsuitable, and as you probably became aware at the recent meeting with the Community Board, has upset many residents. The main problem being the noise factor and its proximity to houses, with some occupied during the working week and all at week-ends. Alternative site - where there are no proximate houses This site is on the seaward side of the swimming pool abutting the western wall. It would be necessary to bulldoze a strip wide enough to accommodate the planned ramp with some adjacent area also flattened. Access can be gained from the children's playground and/or from opposite the yacht club. At present this area is covered in buffalo grass, kikuyu and marram grass (nothing of any value). These plants are holding the sand perfectly. The kikuyu could be planted on the bulldozed edges, or possibly some other material used. As stated it is well away from houses, handy to shops for ice-creams etc., public toilets, the Yacht Club, Scout Den, wharf and children's playground, and of course Bishop Park. There would be no need to lock up after 6p.m. No residents will be upset by the noise factor. Everyone will be happy!! I would like to emphasize that the process to 'sell' this idea has been flawed: 1. the principles of democracy have been ignored. 2. Marine Parade residents have been overlooked in the canvassing of the local community, while far away streets (Makaro and Titoki) have been approached. 3. It appeared from what was said and how it was presented at the recent meeting, that the Community Board had already made up its mind as to the siting of the ramp. 4. We know from experience that noise from the grind and banging of skateboards carries well into the surrounding area - to say nothing of children's excited voices. This is increased by the surrounding hard surfaces. 5. Who does "own" the area? We were told that it is San Antonio School who frequently use the area. However, my understanding is that San Antonio only own a narrow strip next to their northern boundary. 6. The walls which surround the ramp are frequently used for tennis practice and for children to practice their ball kicking skills. To my knowledge the function of the Community Board is to consult with residents and to recommend a course of action to HCC. Does this arrangement still pertain? We would hate to see a decision made which would split the community, and which could end in a lengthy and expensive legal process. My wife, Judith, and myself have contributed, in time and effort, a good deal to the Eastbourne environment and amenities, and we feel it is time that this contribution is taken into account. I have led a group for 14 years to restore with native species, 600 meters of Eastbourne beach, previously covered in marram grass, tree medick, and other weeds. This work is ongoing with up to 15 residents working two hours per month. Judith’s and my contribution is considerably greater. In the last 10 years since I have been keeping accurate records our personal total of volunteer hours is close to 3,000. Other groups have also contributed, including the Global Network Volunteers for some years led by Robert Ashe. Greater Wellington Regional Council and more recently Hutt City Council have supported us and provided many thousands of plants as well as their expertise. In 2013 our group was recognised with an Eastbourne Order of Excellence by the Community Board and presented to us by the Mayor. In 2015 our group was recognised with the Dunes Restoration Trust of NZ as “The best Community Group for Outstanding Contribution to Coastal Revegetation”. Judith has, in recent years, worked with Muritai and San Antonia Schools, both of which have their own designated area of dune to plant and maintain. Judith educates the children about dune processes and vegetation. We were both instrumental in initiating the Muritai Croquet Club and I looked after the lawn for seven years. I belonged to MIRO for ten years, both trapping and monitoring predators.
Judith McDougall	I strongly object to the placement of a Skateboard Ramp on the above site for the following reasons: 1. The unacceptable noise level: The surrounding concrete walls and hard ground surface create an echo effect which accentuates the noise of the skate boards to a level which is unacceptable so close to residential housing. An inadequate noise test was done – one skateboard being thrown to the ground was no measure of a potentially large group of children all skating on the ramp and the surrounding area. 2. This noise may be able to be tolerated occasionally, but not with the frequency likely to occur. The local children are likely to use the area after school, all day in the week-ends and during school holidays. 3. I am old, retired from work, and enjoy the peace and quiet of our beautiful residential area. It would be a travesty to ruin that, even for one family, let alone for the many who will be affected. Nearby adults, old people and families have a right to a relatively quiet, peaceful home environment, just as much as children have a right to a skate ramp, perhaps more so, particularly as the ramp could be placed in a park area, where noise is more expected and tolerated. The noise level, likely to be all day during week-ends and holidays, would be INTOLERABLE for nearby residents. 4. Closing the ramp at 6p.m. will not stop skaters using the wider area after that time – with a continuation of loud noise. 5. The siting, in a dark corner of the area, along with the closure of the ramp in the evening could attract older teenagers to congregate there, with the potential problems that could engender. 5. Although the suggested siting is physically close to residential areas, it could potentially be unsafe, in particular for younger children to use in the evenings when the lighting would be poor, with few passers-by or direct vision from nearby residents. 6. Reasons for other potential sites not being considered have not been given. One document suggested that Bishop Park and the current site under consideration were equally acceptable. Why is this site not being considered, given that this other site does not have the same problems in sound accentuation as the current one being considered. It is also open to passing traffic, so potentially safer; close to shops for refreshments, and it is designated as a park, with the swimming pool and play area close by, which local residents knew when they took up residence there. The northern end of H W Shortt Rec. could also be considered. Being surrounded by a grassy area, it would be better in terms of the noise. It was discarded – why? A wooden ramp was there several years ago. In conclusion: I am 80 years old and home most days. I enjoy the peace of my beautiful surroundings. The noise level engendered by this initiative is totally unacceptable. It has the potential to ruin my and my husband’s peaceful old age. We put a lot of time and effort into improving our local beach environment. It seems grossly unfair for our leisure time to be compromised by an initiative that could equally, and perhaps even better, meet the skaters needs, if placed at Bishop Park or another alternative site. I plead with the Community Board to reconsider your decision.
David McDougall Part 2	Re : Proposal to situate Skate-board ramp at tennis court/San Antonia site. Herewith my further objections to the above structure being built on this site: (1) As I understand it the Community Board has not as yet produced documents regarding the rejected sites, and the reasons why they were rejected. Unless these are forthcoming our group of 'objectors', will apply under the 'Official Information Act.' (2) The Community Board is taking an enormous risk. The proposed site is unacceptable being far too close to existing houses. The level of noise created by skating on the ramp will be amplified greatly by those awaiting their turn skating on the hard surround. The area enclosed on two sides by concrete walls creates an echo effect. The sound testing done by HCC was inadequate and bears little relationship to what would ensue in practice. It would be unfortunate for all concerned if this leads to a legal challenge. (3) Another issue that has an element of risk that needs to be canvassed : The promoters of the skate-board ramp have raised thousands of dollars from the public before a decision by the Community Board has been made. Has the Board already indicated to the promoters that they have decided on this site? I should hope not. It would be a case of 'the tail wagging the dog.' I trust the fact that money has been raised with this site in mind, will not be putting pressure on the Board to go ahead with the plan regardless of objections. (4) I wish to reiterate that we are not anti skate-board ramps. However I would be surprised if anywhere else in NZ one is situated as close to residences, and on such echoing surfaces

Background

4. The Local Government Act 2002 requires that a local authority must hold the meetings that are necessary for the good government of its district.

5. The Act requires that notice be given in writing to each member of the time and place of a meeting, not less than 14 days before the meeting or, if the local authority has adopted a schedule of meetings, not less than 14 days before the first meeting on the schedule.

6. Attached as Appendix 1 to the report is a draft schedule for five meeting cycles for 2018.

Committee Structure Review

7. At its meeting on 22 November 2016, Council resolved the following (Minute No. C16514):

“That Council:

(i) notes the Council Committees for the 2016-2019 triennium attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) notes that the membership and full terms of reference for each committee will be available at the December 2016 Council meeting; and

(iii) notes that a review of the Council Committees will be undertaken in 18 months’ time.”

8. The review of the committee structure is due to be undertaken in early 2018. The meeting schedule will be reviewed at this time, if required.

Comment

9. The draft schedule provides a free week during week 1 of each meeting cycle when the first order papers for the cycle are being prepared, a week during which community board meetings are scheduled, two weeks during which the major standing committees of Council and subcommittees can meet, and a Council meeting in the sixth week of the cycle.

10. This allows reports that are of relevance to a community to be considered by the appropriate community board before going to the appropriate committee of Council.

11. Meetings of the Community Panels will be held as required.

12. In situations where additional meetings of Council and its committees/subcommittees are required, ideally 14 days’ notice will be provided to members. Where a lesser period of notice is provided, such meetings would be treated as extraordinary meetings.

10. The draft meeting schedule for 2018 has been adjusted to make provision for meetings associated with the Annual Plan process, including scheduling community board meetings during the Annual Plan consultation period.

11. A number of community boards on their own initiative have scheduled informal community meetings to discuss specific issues or as a forum for engaging with the community. It is anticipated that these informal meetings will continue, and will supplement the meetings held to conduct formal business, which are more structured and provide limited opportunities for public input.

12. The meeting schedule has been adjusted where necessary to take account of public holidays, which are noted on the schedule and also the Local Government New Zealand Conference.

13. To assist with forward planning, regular civic functions to be held in 2018 have been included in the schedule.

14. It will be necessary for Council to determine the venue for Council and committee/subcommittee meetings, and these are customarily held in Council Chambers. Community Board and Community Panel meeting venues are selected from within the communities served.

15. As circumstances may change over time, it is considered appropriate that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Mayor or Committee Chair to alter the date, time or venue of a meeting or cancel a meeting, should circumstances require this.

Consultation

16. The proposed schedule of meetings will be submitted to the November 2018 meetings of the community boards for agreement or approval in respect of their meeting dates, and selection of venues for their meetings.

17. In respect of the joint committee Hutt Valley Services Committee, the dates have been discussed with officers from Upper Hutt City Council.

18. In respect of the Hutt Valley Flood Management Subcommittee, Regional Transport Committee and the Wellington Regional Strategy Committee, officers from Greater Wellington Regional Council have notified the dates to officers.

19. In respect of the Wellington Water Committee, officers are waiting to hear back from Wellington Water Ltd.

20. In respect of the Wellington Regional Waste Minimisation and Management Joint Committee, the dates have yet to be determined. Decisions made in respect of these meetings will be report back to Council in December, along with the venues to be used for the community board meetings in 2018.

Legal Considerations

20. The Local Government Act 2002 makes provision for Councils to adopt a schedule of meetings. Adoption of the schedule presented will serve as notice to members that the meetings set out on the schedule are to be held.

Publicity Considerations

21. There are no publicity considerations arising from this report.

Financial Considerations

22. There are no financial considerations arising from this report.

Other Considerations

23. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the current/future needs of the community by providing the community a set meeting schedule when Council meets to make decisions impacting on the future community goals.

104 07 November 2017

Eastbourne Community Board

25 October 2017

File: (17/1637)

Report no: ECB2017/5/20

Committee Advisor's Report

1. Purpose of Report

The primary purpose of the report is to update the Board on items of interest.

Recommendation

That the Board receives the report and:

(i) determines the venue and start time for its 2018 meetings;

(ii) determines catering requirements for its 2018 meetings;

(iii) determines advertising requirements for its 2018 meetings; and

(iv) agrees to hold a tour of its community with the tour scheduled for a date to be confirmed.

2. Venue

In 2017, the Board met at the East Harbour Women’s Clubrooms. The Board is asked to confirm its venue for its 2018 meetings.

3. Start Time for Meetings of the Board

In 2017, the Board met at 7.15pm. The Board is asked to confirm the meeting time for its 2018 meetings.

4. Catering

The Board is asked to consider catering requirements for its 2018 meetings.

5. Advertising Meetings

The Board’s meetings are advertised in the Eastbourne Herald. The cost for this comes out of the Board’s miscellaneous administration budget. The Board needs to determine whether it wishes to advertise in any other advertising format.

6. Tour of Community Board Area

The Board generally does a tour of the Community Board area at the start of each year. The Board needs to determine whether it wishes to do a tour in 2018.

6. Current Consultations

Please see below a list of current proposals Council is consulting on. These can be viewed on the Council website http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/Your-Council/Have-your-say/Consulting-on/

Consulting on	Closing date
Proposal to revoke reserve status – 9A Durham Crescent	Friday 3 November
Parking policy consultation	Friday 3 November
New fees and charges under the RMA	Wednesday 22 November

7. Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround

Items from the 2017 walkaround are attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

8. Miscellaneous Administration Budget

The Miscellaneous Administration budget for the 2017/2018 financial year is $5,000. Expenditure to date is $878.52 and a breakdown is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

9. Training Budget

There has been no expenditure for the 2017/18 financial year.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround 2017	108
2 ⇩	Miscellaneous Budget - Eastbourne Community Board Expenditure October 2017	118

Author: Susan Haniel

Committee Advisor

Reviewed By: Kate Glanville

Senior Committee Advisor

Approved By: Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

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	*Log an RFS detailing actual 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 One sign has been installed. Completed	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. Email sent to Downer to confirm they have carried out work to stop any noise from the lid. Gwyn 25 Oct 17	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.	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	New mesh has been put in place to help with stability. Completed	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. More information required.	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. Completed	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. Funds have been raised for the 10,000 litre water tank. - Completed	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. This leak is caused by ground water (i.e. not storm, sewage or potable water related), all pipes close by have been checked to confirm this. A sump has been installed. Completed	Chris Matthews 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.	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. Completed - refer e-mail reply to Roger Bolam DOC/17/29956.	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. Completed	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 The diesel source has not yet been traced but it unlikely to be coming from the live-aboards or the marina area. Installation of end of pipe devices would be the most reliable way of addressing oil and litter issues in the stormwater network. Propriety devices exist but they are not cheap. The soap sud issue is more likely to be related to activities in the marina as it is not commonly observed from the stormwater network. This will be discussed with Seaview Marina. Completed	Gordon George
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. Completed	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	Contractor has been advised for future work, But the work that was carried out was well with in spec. Completed	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. Completed	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? Yes, there is a by-law in place. We can have a security guard on site for the night.	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. Damon spoke to the requestor re outcome. Not possible to proceed.	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 The signage at the top & bottom of Kaikoura Path will be waterblasted and repainted in the next 3 weeks. Completed	Nigel Parkin
28.	Weed Control along Kaikoura Path	Log an RFS	On a schedule but if weather encourages growth log a request. Completed	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. More information Required.	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. More information Required.
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	Sam logged an RFS on your behalf #374747 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. More information Required.	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. Completed	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. Completed	Alan Hopkinson -Road & Traffic Div
36.	Slowing traffic into the Petrol Station Speed too 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. 5. Alan is in discussion with petrol station owners at present to have these installed. Not council land, would be at station owners cost.	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. Road markings put in place. Completed	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. DBRA aware of process.	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. Completed	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. Contact parking services as required to notify of illegally parked vehicles.	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 This will be looked at as part of the Shared walkway/cycleway project	Simon Cager
	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. Completed	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. Completed	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. Completed	Clayton More – Road & Traffic

[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.

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