Agenda of Hutt City Council - 12 December 2017

COUNCIL
Membership:	13
Meeting Cycle:	Council meets on a six weekly basis (Extraordinary Meetings can be called following a resolution of Council; or on the requisition of the Chair or one third of the total membership of Council)

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Ordinary meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Tuesday 12 December 2017 commencing at 6.00pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

3. Mayoral Statement (17/1834)

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

5. Committee Reports with Recommended Items

a) Traffic Subcommittee

13 November 2017 18

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Gear Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions (17/1536) 19

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4b) London Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1551) 20

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be received.”

Item 4c) Richmond Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1601) 21

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4d) Jackson Street (313) - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (17/1539) 21

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4e) Burnham Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (17/1610) 21

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4f) Cheviot Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1549) 22

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed”

Item 4g) 8 Waiu Street - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (17/1558) 22

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4h) 8 Bexley Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1598) 22

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4i) Petone to Melling Shared Path: Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Pharazyn Street and Marsden Street (17/1542) 23

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4j) Te Mome and Hutt Road - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (17/1555) 23

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4k) Troon Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1560) 23

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4l) Norton Park Avenue - No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1548) 23

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4m) Hardy Street, Trafalgar Square - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (17/1534) 23

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4n) High Street (574) - Proposed P180 Parking Restrictions (17/1535) 24

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed”

Item 4o) High Street (839) - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1590) 24

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4p) Cambridge Terrace (Near Epuni Station) - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1593) 24

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed”

Item 4q) Laings Road - Proposed Parking Restrictions associated with the Civic Precinct Redevelopment (17/925) 25

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

b) Policy and Regulatory Committee

i) 21 November 2017 45

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Bell Park (17/1672) 46

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be received.”

Item 4b) Molesworth Street Reserve (17/1673) 51

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be received.”

ii) 27 November 2017 52

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Reserve Revocation - 9A Durham Crescent Epuni (17/1481) 53

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be received.”

Item 4b) Sale of Land Queens Drive (17/1697) 53

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed”

Item 4c) Days Bay Reserves Declaration and Classification (17/1641) 54

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4d) Parking Policy - completed consultation (17/1692) 55

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed”

Item 4e) Cemeteries Bylaw 2017 (17/1541) 57

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4f) Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2017 (17/1553) 57

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4g) Traffic Bylaw 2017 (17/1563) 58

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4h) Public Art Policy and Interim Public Art Guidelines (17/1708) 58

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4i) Development Contributions Policy Review for 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (17/1699) 60

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4j) Significance and Engagement Policy 2018 (17/1704) 61

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

c) City Development Committee

28 November 2017 123

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Wharves Update (17/1736) 124

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4b) Jackson Street Streetscape Design (17/1680) 125

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

d) District Plan Committee

29 November 2017 148

Recommended Item

Item 4a) Proposed Plan Change 48 Waipounamu Drive Kelson (17/1757) 149

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

e) Finance and Performance Committee

29 November 2017 392

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Long Term Plan 2018-2028 (17/1552) 393

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4b) Revenue and Financing Policy Review for 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (17/1700) 394

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be received.”

Item 4c) Equipment in Council Chambers (17/1244) 395

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

f) Community Services Committee

30 November 2017 404

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Free Swimming for under Fives (17/1646) 405

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

Item 4b) Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Advisory Group Meeting Fees (17/1701) 406

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

6. Miscellaneous

a) Proposal to Change Reserve Classification -105 Western Hutt Road (17/1861)

Report No. HCC2017/5/317 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 412

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

b) Right of Way - 135 Witako Street (17/1860)

Report No. HCC2017/5/314 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 416

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

c) Land Sale Proposal - Korimako Road Encroachment (17/1862)

Report No. HCC2017/5/315 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 419

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

d) Code of Conduct Review (17/1846)

Report No. HCC2017/5/313 by the Solicitor 423

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

e) Wellington Region Climate Change Working Group Terms of Reference (17/1863)

Report No. HCC2017/5/316 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 430

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

f) Application for Unbudgeted Project: Nuku Tewhatewha - Refurbishment and Interpretation (17/1864)

Report No. HCC2017/5/318 by the Director, Museums 436

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

g) Updated Schedule of Meetings for 2018 (17/1774)

Memorandum dated 21 Nov 2017 by the Divisional Manager, Democratic Services 441

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.”

7. Minutes - COUNCIL

10 October 2017                                                                                                   445
18 October 2017                                                                                                   467
6 November 2017                                                                                                 471

8. Committee Reports without Recommended Items

a) Hutt Valley Services Committee

24 November 2017 478

b) Finance and Performance Committee

18 October 2017 (Note: The recommendations were resolved
by Council at its meeting held on 18 October 2017) 517

9. 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.

10. Sealing Authority (17/1573)

Report No. HCC2017/5/14 by the Executive Assistant, Corporate Services 530

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“It is recommended that Council approve the affixing of the Common Seal to all relevant documents in connection with the items specified in Schedule 1 in accordance with Standing Order 18.2.”

11. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

12. Committee Report with Recommended Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee

27 November 2017

13. Minutes - COUNCIL

10 October 2017

18 October 2017

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

(A)	(B)	(C)
General subject of the matter to be considered.	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.	Ground under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution.

Report of the Policy and Regulatory Committee held on 27 November 2017	The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege(s7(2)(g)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)(s7(2)(i))	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.
Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 10 October 2017 – Oxford Terrace – Mitchell Park – Property Purchase	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (s7(2)(i)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.
Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 18 October 2017 – CE’s Performance and Remuneration 2016/2017 Review	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.”

Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager Democratic Services

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Traffic Subcommittee

Report of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,

Lower Hutt on

Monday 13 November 2017 commencing at 3.00pm

PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) Cr S Edwards (from 3.03pm) Cr L Bridson Cr J Briggs Cr T Lewis Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: Cr Edwards for lateness.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager

Mr Z Moodie, Traffic Engineer Network Operations

Miss D Male, Committee Advisor

Mrs H Clegg, Minute Taker

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 17501

“That the apology for lateness received from Cr Edwards be accepted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Recommendations to Council - 12 December 2017

PRECEDENCE OF BUSINESS

In accordance with Standing Order 10.4, the Chair accorded precedence to item 4i) dealing with ‘Gear Street – Proposed Parking Restrictions’; item 4xiv) dealing with ‘High Street (574) – Proposed P180 Parking Restrictions’; and item 4iv) dealing with ‘Jackson Street (313) – Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions’.

The items are recorded in the order in which they are listed on the agenda.

a)	Gear Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions (17/1536)
	Speaking under public comment, Mr Steve Dundon, from Wellington Motorcycles, expressed support for the proposal, believing it would help alleviate parking problems in the street. In response to questions from members, Mr Dundon agreed the diversity of parking restrictions was appropriate as the use of the area was changing to become a mix of commercial, retail and industrial. Cr Edwards joined the meeting at 3.03pm. Speaking under public comment, Mr Wayne Sproston explained he had operated his business for the past 18 years at 11 Gear Street. He agreed with the previous speaker as to the changing nature of the area and, he believed the proposal would go some way to alleviate parking issues. He considered the proposal favoured one or two businesses at the expense of others, and would prefer no exclusive motorcycle parks to be formed and some unrestrictive parking to remain. He stated his business relied on on-street parking as well as the three to four on-site carparks he provided. Mr Sproston stated parking issues in the area had escalated after the arrival of the new business at 1 Gear Street (which did not provide on-site parking and used its loading bay for other uses), and that Wellington Motorcycles had many on-site parks, including motorcycle park areas. In response to questions from the members, Mr Sproston agreed the proposal should be reviewed after 12 months, but that there should be two P15 parks, some P30 and some P120, with the balance being all day parking. He explained his customers left their vehicles with him for service – usually for a half day duration. If there was no all-day parking close to his business, he was concerned where customers would be able to leave their cars. He added his staff parked in Riddlers Crescent. Speaking under public comment, Mr Dennis Hill explained he built his factory at 17 Gear Street in 1999 and provided three underground on-site carparks. He advised all businesses in the area had a desire to co-operate and compromise with each other and that there should be unrestricted carparks available for the use of everyone. He believed there should be no exclusive motorcycle parks and that the parks between 14 and 18 Gear Street could be unrestricted. In response to questions from members, Mr Hill advised he employed five workers and his business only used one on-street carpark. He stated he provided on-site parking for customers, to the extent sometimes employees’ vehicles were parked inside his workshop, which was a dangerous situation with the tools and equipment his business used.
	In response to further questions from members, Mr Hill advised the street was wide enough for angle parking, despite traffic volumes having increased due to the new large retail operations in the area. He agreed a 12 month review of any carparking changes should occur.
	The Traffic Engineer Network Operations elaborated on the report. The Traffic Asset Manager explained carparking presented a difficult situation in this area. In response to questions from the members, the Traffic Asset Manager agreed a 12 month review of the situation should occur. The Traffic Engineer Network Operations explained officers had regularly sighted motorcycles parked in carparks in Gear Street, which prompted the proposal for motorcycle parks to be formed. He acknowledged motorcycles were not restricted from parking in designated carparks. The Traffic Asset Manager explained Petone Community Board had heard that Wellington Motorcycles used their forecourt area as a show room for motorcycles and that customers were discouraged from parking their private vehicles amongst those for sale. With regard to the newest business in the street, the Traffic Asset Manager advised it was currently applying for a retrospective resource consent and that parking was an issue. He added that business had recently begun using one of its loading bays for the correct purpose and was in the process of closing the second, forming kerbing and providing for on-street parking. It was proposed those on-street parks become P15 and P30 at the request of the business.
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Lewis) Minute No. TRS 17502 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council: (i) approves the proposed parking restrictions in Gear Street, Petone as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, with the three parks outside 14 Gear Street, Petone currently proposed to be designated as P30 to be unrestricted carparks; and (ii) asks officers to review parking in the area in 12 months.”
b)	London Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1551)
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Lewis/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 17503 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions outside No 16 London Road, Korokoro attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

c)	Richmond Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1601)
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Edwards/Cr Lewis) Minute No. TRS 17504 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restriction in Richmond Grove, Petone attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”
d)	Jackson Street (313) - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (17/1539)
	Speaking under public comment, Mr Kartik Badiyani, new business owner at 313 Jackson Street, requested the proposed P30 parks directly outside his new business be changed to P15 carparks. He believed P30 carparks would be detrimental to his alcohol selling business. He advised he had spoken with both his landlord and the neighbouring business (a restaurant) who had both agreed to P15 carparking. As a means of compromise, Mr Badiyani stated the three carparks could be P30 from 9am to 3pm, and thereafter be P15, as his busiest time of operation was from 3pm to 9pm.
	In response to questions from members, Mr Badiyani advised there were no off-street parks available for his business, and that the current parking restriction for these parks was P60. He further advised he had made contact with the businesses across the road, but had received no response. He confirmed he had attended the Petone Community Board meeting where the item was discussed. The Traffic Asset Manager explained P15 carparks were originally proposed, with the consent of Mr Badiyani, his landlord and immediate neighbour. However, after more extensive consultation, officers had received overwhelming feedback requesting the parks become P30. He noted the Petone Community Board expressed concern at being asked to fix a problem that was not yet in existence. In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager agreed a 12 month review of the parking situation should occur.
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Lewis/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 17505 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council asks officers to review parking in this area by 313 Jackson Street, Petone in 12 months.”

Burnham Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (17/1610)

ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Edwards/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 17506

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a P30 Parking Restriction, from Monday to Friday only, in Burnham Street, Petone as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.”

f)	Cheviot Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1549)
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 17507 “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, Eastbourne as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”
g)	8 Waiu Street - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (17/1558)
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Bridson) Minute No. TRS 17508 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P15 Parking Restrictions outside 8 Waiu Street, Wainuiomata attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”
h)	8 Bexley Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1598)
	The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report. The Traffic Asset Manager acknowledged the resident of 7 Bexley Grove had a large on-site, paved parking area and confirmed that the resident had spoken to the Wainuiomata Community Board meeting. He advised the Wainuiomata Community Board did not endorse the officer’s recommendation as they believed installing yellow lines as proposed could create problems further down the street and may set a precedent.
	In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager explained the yellow lines over the driveways of numbers 6 and 8 Bexley Grove reinforced the law that there was to be no parking across driveways. He further explained that installing them across the driveway of number 7 would not solve the issue. He advised the residents of number 7 owned a number of vehicles along with work vehicles, and that generally emergency vehicles could access this street without damage occurring to any vehicle.
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 17509 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the extension of the yellow lines outside number 8 Bexley Grove,Wainuiomata by adding one further yellow line.”
	Crs Lewis and Sutton asked that their dissenting votes be recorded against the above matter.

i)		Petone to Melling Shared Path: Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Pharazyn Street and Marsden Street (17/1542)
		The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report. The Traffic Asset Manager advised if the removal of on-street car parks was not approved, NZTA would terminate the shared pathway at Parliament Street. In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager explained the results of parking surveys showed there was higher demand for parking in the area during the week than during the weekend, and that on-street parking was used by businesses and some commuters. He agreed there was a high parking demand and that the area would be reviewed in the near future. In response to further questions from the members, the Traffic Asset Manager explained traffic safety would not be compromised by the installation of traffic calming measures, and that Council’s Parks and Reserves Division was agreeable to the proposed parking areas being installed.
		ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. TRS 17510 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Pharazyn Street and Marsden Street, Lower Hutt as shown in Appendix 3 to the report.”
	j)	Te Mome and Hutt Road - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (17/1555)
		ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 17511 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions in Hutt Road and Te Mome Road, Lower Hutt as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

Troon Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1560)

ReCOMMENDED : (Cr Briggs/Cr Edwards) Minute No. TRS 17512

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Troon Crescent, Lower Hutt as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

Norton Park Avenue - No Stopping At All Times Restriction (17/1548)

ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Cousins) Minute No. TRS 17513

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Norton Park Avenue, Lower Hutt as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

Hardy Street, Trafalgar Square - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions (17/1534)

The Traffic Engineer Network Operations elaborated on the report.

ReCOMMENDED : (Cr Bridson/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 17514

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P15 Parking At All Times Restrictions outside 9-21 Hardy Street, Lower Hutt attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

n)	High Street (574) - Proposed P180 Parking Restrictions (17/1535)
	Speaking under public comment, Mr Paul Schuchmann from the Knox Presbyterian Church expressed the church’s support of the proposal, as carparking in the area was under pressure. He explained the church was well used, both by parishioners and outside agencies, and their 56 parks on-site carpark was often full. It was stretched beyond capacity when commuters parked all day on the street, and short term parkers used the church’s carpark. Mr Schuchmann further explained that on-street time restricted carparks would provide an opportunity for residents to have visitor carparking and that residents in the close neighbourhood also supported the proposal.
	The Traffic Engineer Network operations elaborated on the report.
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Sutton/Cr Cousins) Minute No. TRS 17515 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of eight P180 Parking Restrictions outside Nº 574 High Street, Lower Hutt attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”
o)	High Street (839) - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1590)
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Cousins) Minute No. TRS 17516 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions adjacent to both approaches to the pedestrian crossing outside Nº 839 High Street, Lower Hutt as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

Cambridge Terrace (Near Epuni Station) - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (17/1593)

ReCOMMENDED : (Cr Bridson/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 17517

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Cambridge Terrace, Lower Hutt as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

q)	Laings Road - Proposed Parking Restrictions associated with the Civic Precinct Redevelopment (17/925)
	The Traffic Engineer Network Operations elaborated on the report.
	In response to questions from members, the Traffic Engineer Network Operations advised the road could be closed for major events, or when there were a number of events occurring in close proximity. This would then prevent commuters using the area and ease carparking congestion. He added that time restrictions on parking in adjacent streets finished at 5pm, which would provide additional carparking for event attendees in the evenings.
	ReCOMMENDED: (Cr Edwards/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 17518 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council: (i) rescinds all parking restrictions in Laings Road, Lower Hutt and the former Fountain Carpark between Knights Road and Myrtle Street, Lower Hutt to consolidate all parking in the street; (ii) approves the HC2 2Hr Max Metered 9am-5pm Mon-Fri (Sat-P120) Parking Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; (iii) approves the HC3 Unrestricted Metered 9am-5pm Mon-Fri Parking Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; (iv) approves the P15 Parking Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; (v) approves the P60 Parking Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; (vi) approves the Mobility Parking Restrictions At All Times as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; (vii) approves the P15 Loading Zone At All Times Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; (viii) approves the use of four car parks in the event centre parking lot as reserved parking for Council Authorised vehicles (Event Centre Staff) At All Times, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; and (ix) approves all No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Laings Road, Lower Hutt between Knights Road and Myrtle Street, Lower Hutt and the Event Centre Carpark as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.”

5. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 4.36pm.

MJ Cousins

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of December 2017

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

Report of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Tuesday 21 November 2017 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Cr M Cousins (Chair) Cr C Barry

Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson

Cr J Briggs Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)

Cr T Lewis Cr M Lulich

Cr L Sutton Mayor WR Wallace

APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Cr Milne.

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr G Barratt

Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Governance and Regulatory

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services

Mr B Hodgins, Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Ms S Simcox, Acting Divisional Manager Communications and Marketing

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. PRC 17501

“That the apology received from Cr Milne be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Deputy Mayor Bassett declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 4 a) Bell Park and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

4. Recommendations to Council - 12 December 2017

Bell Park (17/1672)

Deputy Mayor Bassett declared a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Speaking under public comment, Ms A Shaw said that she and her neighbours knew each other and have a safe park where they can kick balls. The Bell Park decision would impact families and children in a community which supported and cared for each other.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Shaw said that the proposal to develop the park and close a thoroughfare into it would affect her personally and her submission reflected this.

Speaking under public comment, Ms D Arcus said that she believed Bell park had been donated to Council for sports activites. When her children were young, families would meet at the park on Sundays and finish with a barbeque. She said that the park was neglected, the grass was long and very wet. Since the Mandel Mews development there had been more flooding in the area. She requested that Council keep the park for future generations and not use it for housing.

In response to questions from members, Ms Arcus said that she did not support any housing development on the park. She said people would use the park more if it was in better condition or had play areas for the children. The flooding had been bad in the past 3-4 years and would get worse if there was more housing.

Speaking under public comment, Ms L Scott said that she was seven years old, lived on Bell Road and went to Gracefield School. The park was behind her house and they liked to play on it, however, the grass had been long and in winter it was also muddy so they had not been able to use it. They practice touch rugby and play tag at the park. She was looking forward to summer when they would have picnics and water balloons at the park.

In response to questions from members, Ms Shaw said that she did not let her daughter cross the road and the only park she used was Bell park. If Council was to consider the Gracefield School playground as a park for children to use, then Council should contribute to the upkeep of the playground equipment.

Speaking under public comment, Mr PJ Bramley said that in 2012, Council adopted a strategy called “Go Outside and Play”. It provided for a range of spaces for socialising at parks that would be appealing and fun, however, there was no mention of Bell Park in the document. Council had not kept the park fit for purpose. The park had been too wet to play football on. Bell Park Square would not be safe to use as a recreation area because it did not have pedestrian access, it was not fenced and was surrounded by busy roads. It was not possible to play sport on the Waiwhetu Stream corridor. He requested that Council make Bell Park fit-for-purpose so that residents would use it more.

In response to questions from neighbours, Mr Bramley said that if Ignite Sports was to develop the park, he would like to be able to use the park at all times. He further said that he did not support the use of artificial turf.

Speaking under public comment, Ms P Hanna and Ms K Yung, representing Petone Community Board, said that they had door-knocked the affected residents. One of their main concerns was the lack of drainage in the area and that more housing would add to the problem. The park was being used by residents, there was no graffiti, and it was safe for children and dog walkers, and many of the residents had gates from their properties onto the park.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Hanna said that home owners already had the issue of stormwater run-off listed on their Land Information Memorandums and additional housing would add to the flood problems.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Yung said that the residents around Bell Park connected and engaged with one another which was a community strength.

Speaking under public comment, Ms P Whittington said that the proposal would impact on houses which back onto Bell Park. She would lose sun in her back yard. In the past year the park had been in a poor state and it was only mown once a fortnight. She added that green spaces in a neighbourhood were important for good mental health.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Whittington said that children used the park as a throughfare from Douglas Street.

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Shierlaw said that the 2012 review of reserves on the valley floor described the park as a large greeen space that was well used. Therefore, the reserve should be retained. Selling the land would require a strong mandate from the community, and the proposal for the park did not follow the correct consultation process.

In response from questions from a member, Mr Shierlaw said that the proposal was for two thirds of the land to become housing and one third to remain as a park. He added that the reserve was not maintained to a satisfactory standard and the lawns were seldom mowed. The reserve was not a dog exercise area, however, there were no signs erected to reflect this.

Speaking under public comment, Mr K Goldsbury representing Ignite Sport Trust (the Trust), said that the Trust was a charity which provided opportunities for young people to play sport. If it purchased the club rooms at the park it would deliver workshops, be a hub for the community, make its resources available to the community, retain the green space, develop a hard court surface, provide a bookable multi-use, multi-purpose area, provide holiday programmes and after school facilities.

In response to questions from members, Mr Goldsbury said that if the park flooded, the repairs would be Council’s responsibility. He further said that if the Trust bought the club rooms, it would need substantial investment because the building was run down. The Trust would prefer to have all of the park to use and the proposal to sell some of it for housing would constrain its sporting activities.

Speaking under public comment, Mr A Lee said that disposing of the reserve was short-sighted because it would result in intensive housing with a smaller amount of green space. The proposal would add to the exisiting flooding problem in the area. Bell Square would be unsuitable for recreation because it was bounded by roads on all sides.

Speaking under public comment, Ms M Butland said that her family use the park to socialise, exercise, play soccer and fly kites. The park was safe because houses looked out over it. She would help with any working bees to maintain the park. She had seen the park used by the emergency helicoptor.

Speaking under public comment, Mr N Williamson said that he lived on Riverside Drive and his house backed onto the park. Flooding had been an issue for the previous football club at the park and the area was recorded on Flood Hazard Information Sheet by Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) in 2010. Intensifying the housing would increase the amount of surface water in the area. He added that if the Ignite Sport Trust bought the club building it would have room to grow if the park was retained.

Speaking under public comment, Ms M Merrett representing Friends of Waiwhetu Stream said that covering the land with impervious surfaces caused flooding and three quarters of Lower Hutt stormwater went into Waiwhetu Stream. She said that some properties in Lower Hutt had virtually no permeable surfaces. Furthermore, Bell Park could be used to alleviate flooding.

Speaking under public comment, Mr H Steele said that he had lived in the area prior to the 2004 floods. He espoused the importance of ground water because it filtered slowly through the ground unlike surface run-off which went unfiltered to Waiwhetu Stream. Ground water also reduced peak flows in the streams. Any development should have hydraulic neutrality and Hutt City needed to become a water sensitive City.

Speaking under public comment, Ms C Smith showed a photo of her backyard under water. She said that her backyard had been underwater twice this year, and her front yard had also been affected. She also had flooding underneath her house.

In response to questions from members, Ms Smith said that the flooding problem had been there for 40 years, however, it was now worse.

Cr Cousins asked Ms Smith to report her floods to Council.

Speaking under public comment, Ms L Green said that the World Health Organisation said that green urban areas facilitated physical activity, relaxation, were important to mental health, and were an aid in the treatment of mental stress. If Ignite Sport Trust purchased the club building it would require more green space than the proposed amount of green space. She asked Council for improvements to the Park and the community would take a fundraiser role to protect the Park’s future.

Speaking under public comment, Mr T Williams emphasised that Council should not do anything to the Park, but to leave it the way it was and not install artifical turf. He implored Council to clean it up and look after the lawns.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Williams said the Park reflected ‘kiwiana’ and that it should be for the community and the children to enjoy.

The Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report. He said that the previous winter had been one of the worst winters for a long time and Bell Park was a wet park. The stormwater for the area fed into Awamutu Stream, however, the advice of Wellington Water was that the easiest medium-term solution for the Park would be to feed it into the Waiwhetu Stream. He added that some dog walkers who used the Park did not pick up the dog droppings. The title was held by the Crown, however Council would be entitled to either all or 50% of the proceeds of the sale of the land.

In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens said that Awamutu Stream was near its full capacity and Wellington Water preferred that stormwater from the Park went to the Waiwhetu Stream. He said that he did not know whether a resource consent would be required from Greater Wellington Regional Council for stormwater consent, and Tangata Whenua had not been consulted. He added that it could be feasible to put houses on Bell Square. He further said that the Park was a recreation ground and not a sports park. Operational protocols stipulated that recreation grounds were mown fortnightly and sports grounds were mown every 3-4 days.

Members noted that proposed Plan Change 43 for Residential Intensification had not included Petone, Moera or Eastbourne because of the effects of climate change, and Bell Park was in this area.

MOVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Bridson)

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the community feedback received on the future of Bell Park;

(ii) retains Bell Park in full as a reserve; and

(iii) requests officers to work with the local community and the Ignite Sport Trust, should the Trust decide to purchase the building on the Park from the Lower Hutt Football Club, to develop a proposal for the development of the Park.

The Chair said that residents needed to understand that the Park maintenace was prioritised for use as a recreation ground, therefore it would maintained as such, and not as a sports ground.

Cr Bridson said that houses in Eastbourne were starting to face difficulties insuring their properties. Adding more housing on a hazard area would not be a correct decision. She queried whether parts of the Park could be used used for stormwater overflow.

Mayor Wallace queried whether the Park could be used for wetland development. He further said that Council had a challenge to provide housing for young families. The Park provided green space and Council had the opportunity to enhance the land. There was a flooding risk in the area and more housing could make the flooding worse.

Cr Lulich said that it would be important to retain the whole Park for the community. He opposed the proposal to sell part of the Park for housing.

Cr Briggs said that Council was in need of housing, however, the proposed area was inappropriate for housing. Council also needed to retain and enhance the Park’s green space for the benefit of the community and the City.

Cr Barry said that Bell Park was a hidden gem and the proposal by Ignite Sport Trust had potential which would provide an asset that would be special for the community.

RESOLVED: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Bridson) Minute No. PRC 17502

“That the Committee notes the community feedback received on the future of Bell Park”

RECOMMENDED: (BY DIVISION) Minute No. PRC 17503

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) retains Bell Park in full as a reserve; and

(ii) requests officers to work with the local community and the Ignite Sport Trust, should the Trust decide to purchase the building on the Park from the Lower Hutt Football Club, to develop a proposal for the improvement of the Park.”

For

Cr Bridson

Cr Barry

Cr Briggs

Cr Cousins

Cr Edwards

Cr Lewis

Cr Lulich

Cr Sutton

Mayor Wallace

Against

Total: 9

Total: -

resolved: (Cr Cousins/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. PRC 17504

“That the Committee asks officers to work with Wellington Water Limited to improve the stormwater infrastructure.”

Molesworth Street Reserve (17/1673)

The Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report. He added that people had to cross private land when using the reserve to cut between streets.

Members considered that the reserve land was not being used for recreation and it would be best used for additional housing which would lift the population and support the school.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. PRC 17505

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the results of the community consultation on the Molesworth Street Reserve; and

(ii) agrees to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Molesworth Street Reserve and make the property available for housing, for the following reasons;

(a) the reserve has a low reserves value as independently assessed, with poor visibility and drainage and low use;

(b) there are other reserves in the immediate vicinity that help meet local recreation need; and

(c) the proceeds of the sale of the property will enable other Council reserve priorities to be undertaken, such as those identified in the Valley Floor Review Implementation Plan.”

5. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

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

Cr MJ Cousins

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of December 2017

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

Report of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on

Monday 27 November 2017 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) (until 7.22pm)

Cr C Barry Deputy Mayor D Bassett

Cr L Bridson Cr J Briggs

Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair) (until 7.22pm)

Cr T Lewis Cr M Lulich

Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Mayor WR Wallace.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

Mr B Hodgins, Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens (part

meeting)

Ms W Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning (part

meeting)

Mr J Pritchard, Senior Research/Policy Advisor (part meeting)

Mr G Sewell, Principal Policy Advisor

Mr J Hoyle, Communications and Marketing Advisor

Ms D Male, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PRC 17501(2)

“That the apology from received from Mayor Wallace be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Crs Cousins and Edwards declared a conflict of interest in item 11 Proposed Amendment to Local Alcohol Policy and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter. Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest in item 4h) Public Art Policy and Interim Public Art Guidelines and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

4. Recommendations to Council - 12 December 2017

a)	Reserve Revocation - 9A Durham Crescent Epuni (17/1481)
	Speaking under public comment, Mr S Pattinson, an Architect, gave a short presentation around options for the use of the land for medium density housing. He asked Council to retain the land to be at the forefront of how medium density housing was used, instead of ownership going to Housing New Zealand. He spoke about the need for small pieces of land to meet their potential to contribute to communities. This was based on research conducted on a number of cities including Upper Hutt and others in the United Kingdom.
	In response to questions from members, Mr Pattinson advised that he had not spoken directly to Housing New Zealand, he was encouraged to do so and would liaise with Cr Bridson, as Ward Councillor, if necessary.
	The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report. In response to a question from a member, he confirmed that the property to be relinquished was Crown owned land, not Council owned.
	RECOMMENDED:(Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Bridson) Minute No. PRC 17502(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council agrees to revoke the reserve status of the property at 9A Durham Crescent, Epuni being Lot 202, DP 15426, on the basis that the reserve is no longer required for its off-street parking purpose and would be more usefully incorporated into the residential development proposed for the Epuni area by Housing New Zealand.”
b)	Sale of Land Queens Drive (17/1697)
	The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report.
	RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Edwards)Minute No. PRC 17503(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council agrees to the sale of the property on Queens Drive, being Lot 4, DP 17143 on CFR WN700/74, to Napier BSL No 7 Limited in order to rectify a legal administrative issue which has been brought to Council’s attention by Land Information New Zealand.”

Days Bay Reserves Declaration and Classification (17/1641)

The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report. Futher information had been requested by the Chair on whether or not the area marked C2, within the officer’s report, could be sectioned off and developed. Area C2 was located at the top of Korimako Road in Days Bay. The area had been reviewed and found there was potential to develop the land and split into two sections. However, an ecological assessment conducted last week had found mature Rata and Black Beech trees in area C2, which were of ecological importance. Officers recommended to retain the area marked C2 as reserve and not proceed any further.

In response to questions from members the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens informed members that an approximate value, for making two sections out of the land, would be $700-800k and that there would be a requirement to consult should Council decide to consider using the land for another purpose.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Lewis/Cr Sutton) Minute No. PRC 17504(2)

“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 the 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.”

Members discussed the merits of requesting further information to determine whether part of area C2 was developable, prior to the Council meeting in December.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Milne/Cr Edwards) (BY DIVISION) Minute No. PRC 17505(2)

“That the Committee request officers to provide further information on whether a portion of area C2 could be developed without negatively impacting on the ecological values of the site for consideration by Council at its meeting of 12 December 2017, to make a fully considered and informed decision.”

The motion was declared carried by division with the voting follows:

For

Cr Bridson

Cr Barry

Cr Briggs

Cr Cousins

Cr Edwards

Cr Lewis

Cr Milne

Against

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Lulich

Cr Sutton

Total: 7

Total: 3

Parking Policy - completed consultation (17/1692)

Speaking under public comment, Ms H Swales, representing the Jackson Street Programme (JSP), said she preferred option mechanisms like those used in Taupo, Wellington City and New Plymouth, to monitor parking, frequency and the option to call through to parking wardens. To future-proof options and retain unpaid parking. The JSP would like measures introduced for Jackson Street where developers applied for consents without the inclusion of on-site parking. She commented that the road hierarchy documents were not available on the Council website, a copy was only provided when requested.

In response to questions from members, Ms Swales advised that the consultation information had been sent to members of the JSP to make submissions upon individually, they had declined to draft one response on behalf of all members. She believed that a number of residents were not aware of the consultation open days, as these clashed with big sporting matches.

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Fisher, representing the Petone Community Board thanked officers for facilitating the consultation open day. He was surprised at the low number of survey responses, which may have been due to the Parking Policy not relating to specific areas, such as Jackson Street. He commented that paid parking was a fear for residents of Petone, as the Parking Policy referred to the use of paid parking as a tool. The residents parking scheme at High Street, Petone was a concern to residents. The road hierarchy was supported by the Petone Community Board.

In response to questions from members Mr Fisher explained that time management for parking had been discussed at the Petone Community Board and the use of technology. His opinion on a similar residents parking scheme working across the city was that it may need some form of compromise, in line with the road hierarchy. He commented it could be required in school areas.

The Senior Research/Policy Advisor elaborated on the report. He advised that the consultation survey had been publicised on the Council website, in Hutt News, workshops were held and stakeholders not able to attend, were consulted. He further advised that the consultation survey was also part of the Petone Community Board recent meeting and publicised on the Petone Community Board’s Facebook page.

In response to questions from members, the Senior Research/Policy Advisor accepted the comments from the JSP in relation to technology, sensor technology was considered and to developers without sufficient off-street parking. The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning added that arrangements were made to provide a copy of the road hierarchy document when requested, as the document was around 300 pages. She also said that low level in interest for survey submissions may have been due to the more theoretical nature of the policy, not related to specific areas.

Cr Barry left the meeting at 6.28pm.

In response to a question from a member, the Senior Research/Policy Advisor said that promotion of public transport would evolve from the policy, they worked with Greater Wellington Regional Council who provided park and ride facilities.

Cr Barry re-joined to the meeting at 6.34pm.

The Senior Research/Policy Advisor advised that the road hierarchy would be used as a guide to make consistent decisions, the Transport Team had experience of using such types of hierarchy. Pricing for parking was a good mechanism to use, but did not have to be applied.

The Chair suggested that the Parking Policy be reviewed in 18 months.

Deputy Mayor Bassett expressed concern that the survey had not reached all residents who may have wished to comment. He supported the review of the Parking Policy in 18 months.

RECOMMENdED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PRC 17506(2)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the Parking Policy, as attached as Appendix 2 to the report, with the changes made as a result of the consultation process; and

(ii) asks officers to review the policy in 18 months.”

e)	Cemeteries Bylaw 2017 (17/1541)
	RECOMMENDED: (Cr Sutton/Cr Barry) Minute No. PRC 17507(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that no public submissions were received with respect to the proposal to revoke the existing Cemeteries Bylaw 2007 and adopt the Cemeteries Bylaw 2017; (ii) determines that, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed bylaw – a. Is the most appropriate form of bylaw; b. Does not give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; and (iii) agrees to revoke the existing Cemeteries Bylaw 2007 and adopt the Cemeteries Bylaw 2017, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, effective from 1 January 2018.”
f)	Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2017 (17/1553)
	RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barry) Minute No. PRC 17508(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that one submission was received with respect to the proposal to revoke the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2007 and adopt the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2017; (ii) notes that the Policy and Regulatory Committee has recommended to Council that the proposal as noted in (i) above be approved without amendment; (iii) determines that, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed bylaw – a. is the most appropriate form of bylaw; b. does not give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; and (iv) agrees to revoke the existing Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2007 and adopt the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2017, attached as Appendix 4 to the report, effective from 1 January 2018.”

g)		Traffic Bylaw 2017 (17/1563)
		Speaking under public comment, Ms H Swales, representing the Jackson Street Programme, said the Bylaws did not talk the same language, they needed to be consistent when looking at Bylaws. She also said that residential parking needed to be considered and loading bays on Jackson Street should be installed. In response to a question from a member, Ms Swales confirmed that JSP had missed the consultation submission date.
		RECOMMENDED: (Cr Sutton/Cr Bridson) Minute No. PRC 17509(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that no submissions were received with respect to the proposal to revoke the Traffic Bylaw 2007 and adopt the Traffic Bylaw 2017; (ii) notes that the Policy and Regulatory Committee has recommended that due to a change to the Road User Rule, there is now no need to include Clause 18 concerning window washers in the proposed bylaw; (iii) notes that the Policy and Regulatory Committee has recommended to Council that the proposal as noted in (i) above and the deletion of Clause 18 as noted in (ii) above be approved; (iv) determines that, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed bylaw – a. Is the most appropriate form of bylaw; b. Does not give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; and (v) agrees to revoke the existing Traffic Bylaw 2007 and adopt the Traffic Bylaw 2017, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, as outlined in (iii) above, effective from 1 January 2018, in accordance with section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.”
h)	Public Art Policy and Interim Public Art Guidelines (17/1708)
	Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter. Speaking under public comment, Ms H Swales, representing the Jackson Street Programme, said that the officer’s report noted work was continuing on guidelines and she asked if they were still being worked on and would they go out for public consultation.
	The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report. In relation to the question from the public speaker regarding the guidelines, she confirmed she was happy to consult further on the guidelines. She informed of a request from Ms Liz Mellish, representing the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, to advise that Ms Mellish was very happy with the policy, happy to work further on the guidelines and supported public art. Ms Mellish would like to see another Maori or Pacific Islands representative on the Public Art Advisory Group going forward.
	In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning advised that the terms of reference were reported to the Arts and Culture Subcommittee for information only. Officers had been asked to delay the work until the art audit had been undertaken, which had been completed. MOVED: (Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett) That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) approves the draft Public Art Policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (ii) notes the proposed membership of the Public Art Advisory Group and the draft Terms of Reference for that Group will be reported at the next meeting; (iii) notes that work is continuing on the Public Art Policy Guidelines; (iv) notes that an ongoing Council budget allocation for Public Art (maintenance and acquisition) will be considered as part of the next round of Long Term Plan deliberations; and (v) requests that the Community Plan Committee considers this budget allocation for 2018/19. The motion was declared lost on a show of hands with three votes in favour and six against. moved: (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs) That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) approves the draft Public Art Policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (ii) approves the proposed membership of the Public Art Advisory Group, attached as Appendix 2 to the report and the draft Terms of Reference for that Group, attached as Appendix 3 to the report; (iii) notes that work is continuing on the Public Art Policy Guidelines; (iv) notes that an ongoing Council budget allocation for Public Art (maintenance and acquisition) will be considered as part of the next round of Long Term Plan deliberations; and (v) requests that the Community Plan Committee considers this budget allocation for 2018/19.
	RECOMMENDED: (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs) Minute No. PRC 17510(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) approves the draft Public Art Policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (ii) approves the proposed membership of the Public Art Advisory Group, attached as Appendix 2to the report and the draft Terms of Reference for that Group, attached as Appendix 3 to the report; (iii) notes that work is continuing on the Public Art Policy Guidelines; (iv) notes that an ongoing Council budget allocation for Public Art (maintenance and acquisition) will be considered as part of the next round of Long Term Plan deliberations; and (v) requests that the Community Plan Committee considers this budget allocation for 2018/19.”
i)		Development Contributions Policy Review for 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (17/1699)
		The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.
		In response to questions from members, the Chief Executive explained that development contributions could be quite complicated and needed thorough planning due to Council not being able to charge a new developer for remediation of current issues. He noted that Asset Management Plans were key, a focus would be on the CBD, for example with waste water, if increased pressure due to a rise in developments charges would be considered.
		Cr Barry left the meeting at 7.08pm.
		RECOMMENDED: (Cr Milne/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PRC 17511(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the issues to be addressed and the changes that will be made to the Development Contributions Policy for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan; (ii) notes this information about the changes will be made publicly available via the Long Term Plan; (iii) recommends to the Community Plan Committee that the Development Contributions Policy be consulted on as part of the Long Term Plan consultation; and (iv) notes that any changes to the information provided in the report (and its attachments) resulting from consultation in 2018 will be considered by Council for final approval, before a new Policy is released by 30 June 2018.”

	j)		Significance and Engagement Policy 2018 (17/1704)
			RECOMMENDED: (Cr Bridson/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. PRC 17512(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that nothing major has occurred or changed to warrant a review of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy; and (ii) agrees that the Significance and Engagement Policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, adopted as part of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan, continues to represent how Council will go about assessing the importance of matters and how and when the community can expect to be consulted on both.”
5.			Strategy and Planning Activity Report (17/1698) Report No. PRC2017/5/5 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning
			The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report. Cr Barry re-joined the meeting at 7.12pm.
			Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs) Minute No. PRC 17513(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes the information contained in this report; (ii) notes that this review also meets the intent of section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002; and (iii) agrees that a full section 17A review should not be undertaken at present.”
6.		New Reserves, Leases and Licences for 2018 (17/1365) Report No. PRC2017/4/224 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens
		Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Barry) Minute No. PRC 17514(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes that in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 Council has publicly notified its intention to issue new leases and licences to the clubs and organisations listed in the schedule, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, with no submissions received; and (ii) agrees to issue a new lease or licence to each of the clubs/organisations listed in Appendix 1 to the report for the terms proposed in the schedule.”

General Manager's Report (17/1643)

Report No. PRC2017/5/294 by the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents and the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

The General Manager, City Transformation elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. PRC 17515(2)

“That the Committee notes the contents of this report.”

8. Information Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (17/1639)

Report No. PRC2017/5/21 by the Committee Advisor

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. PRC 17516(2)

“That the Committee notes and receives the report.”

9. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

10. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

Resolved: (Cr Barry/Cr Bridson) Minute No. PRC 17517(2)

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

11. Proposed Amendment to Local Alcohol Policy. (17/1621)

(A)	(B)	(C)

General subject of the matter to be considered.	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.	Ground under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution.

Proposed Amendment to Local Alcohol Policy..	The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege (s7(2)(g)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (s7(2)(i)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.22pm and the non-public portion of the meeting closed at 7.28pm.

Cr MJ Cousins

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of December 2017

Attachment 2

Parking policy - P&R 27 November 2017

Hutt City Council – parking policy

14 November 2017

Executive Summary

Successful cities depend on a safe and efficient transport system. Parking is a key resource in this system and facilitates access to activities and attractions in the city, such as employment, shopping, and social opportunities. The management of parking influences people’s decision to drive or to use other transport modes, and also affects safety and congestion on the roads.

Hutt City Council’s parking policy provides the strategic direction and framework for the supply and management of Council regulated public parking in the city. Parking in the city is also provided by private parking companies, large retail business, as well as Greater Wellington Regional Council which provided park & ride facilities at Petone and Waterloo stations. Council’s approach to parking contributes to its long-term strategies in terms of:

· safe and efficient movement of people and goods;

· supporting economic performance – ensuring parking is well-used and also regularly available;

· contributing to environmental sustainability and the resilience of our infrastructure;

· shifting transport choices;

· supporting Council’s work to enhance walkability and a cycle-friendly environment; and

· delivering high-quality customer service.

1. Introduction

Effective parking management is critical to a safe and efficient transport system providing access to destinations and activities in the city and also strategically important to shaping Hutt City for the future.

Hutt City Council has a central role in the supply and management of parking. Council is responsible for on-street parking across the city and has off-street parking in locations such as the Riverbank carpark and in areas around the Civic Centre in Laings Road. Council’s Parking Services Team enforces compliance with parking restrictions in order to ensure good access to the city.

Council’s focus is on more effectively managing the city’s parking resources rather than creating more supply.

Both the approach to transport planning and people’s expectations in relation to transport and the infrastructure that supports it are changing. While the transport system is currently dominated by provision for private vehicular transport, research recognises that factors such as limited network capacity, demographic change, a focus on resilience and urban intensification, the emergence of driverless vehicles and growing use of transport as a service, will radically change the way people travel, influence vehicle ownership, and affect parking requirements. Council is responding to these challenges by developing an integrated approach to the city’s transport system that includes improving the road network and active transport connections and infrastructure, as well as more effective parking management.

The availability, cost, and any restrictions placed on parking influence decisions regarding the mode of transport used which in turn affects the level of congestion in an area and travel time to destinations. Parking management facilitates safe and efficient access to destinations and activities and therefore to creating a thriving liveable city for residents and visitors, reducing car travel, supporting greater use of public transport, and enhancing experience of the built environment in the city.

Using mechanisms such as pricing or time restrictions where required, Council will ensure that parking is available and enables access to employment, retail and leisure opportunities. Similarly, our approach to parking management will support and enable our work to improve the use of active and other modes of transport.

2. Objectives for the supply and management of parking

The policy seeks to ensure that people are able to access the city and interact with its activities effectively using a variety of modes of transport, and enables Council to take a consistent approach across the city. Hutt City Council’s objectives for the supply and management of parking are:

1. A safe city – prioritising the safe movement of people, while enabling efficient movement of goods and services.

2. A liveable and thriving city – supporting place-making, amenity, and economic growth.

3. A city that is environmentally resilient – reflecting Council’s work in leading environmental stewardship and resilience.

4. A city that has equity of access – supporting Council’s work to create a walkable and people-friendly city accessible to all.

5. A high level of customer service – delivering a quality experience for residents and visitors.

3. Road space hierarchy

The road corridor is a key public space that is managed by Council. This space is limited and using it effectively is crucial to achieving social, economic and environmental, success. There are many competing demands for road-space and while provision for parking vehicles is important it is not the only use of this space.

Council uses the hierarchy shown below to help manage the demand for and use of the city’s road-space according to the policy objectives in section 2 and the needs of particular areas. The hierarchy is a guide to assist Council in making consistent decisions and ensure that parking serves the main purposes and land-use of areas in the city. Without effectively managing demands for on-street spaces parking resources become saturated and their usefulness diminishes.

The hierarchy adopts the land use types from New Zealand Standard 4404: 2010 – Land development and subdivision infrastructure, rather than using Hutt City’s District Plan Activity Areas (also commonly known as zones). Groups of users and movements are then given priority within the land-use areas identified. The District Plan Activity Areas have clearly defined boundaries and are used to define and control the activities permitted in those areas. Adoption of the NZS4404 land uses is also appropriate as new roads are required to meet this engineering standard under Chapter 14A (Transport) of the District Plan (under Plan Change 39). By using the more generalised land uses adopted in NZS4404 when considering the use of road-space, Council will be better able to consider areas with mixed land use types, such as where shops are located within residential areas, or apartments are located within commercial areas.

Applying the hierarchy will still require officer judgement due to the numerous combinations of land use and parking demand. The city has many different land-uses in close proximity to each other as well as historic precincts with limited off-street parking and areas which, although primarily residential, also include educational institutions, retail, or commercial interests. The pressures that these different land-uses place on road-space will be considered when using the hierarchy.

Users with lower priority may still have access to on-street parking, however their access may be limited and restrictions may be implemented to ensure that space is attractive and available for users and uses with higher priority.

The main priority for all areas is safety e.g. through no stopping zones. There are also several other common priorities across the hierarchy, which are ensuring existing property access, mobility parking, and space for public transport and developing infrastructure for active modes. An adequate supply of mobility parking is crucial in providing good access to the city for people with impaired mobility. Similarly, prioritising road space for improving connections to the city by public or active transport will assist with transport choices and help manage parking demand.

In Live and Play areas on-street parking spaces are important to support resident parking where none can be provided off-street. However, parking for residents also needs to be balanced against the needs of short-term customer parking for local shops, services, community facilities, schools and educational institutions. Parking for local employees and, to some extent commuters, can also be accommodated in these areas if possible.

In Shop and Trade, and Work and Learn areas on-street parking is a key resource to support access for customers to shops, restaurants, and social opportunities. It is also important to provide good access to public and active transport provision, suitable mobility parking spaces close to key destinations, and that pick-up and drop-off spaces and loading zones are available to service the areas. For example, in shopping areas short-term parking for shoppers receives high priority in order to contribute to the performance of businesses in the area. Commuters and employees may still be able to find spaces in these areas however restrictions on the parking, in terms of time-limits or pricing, could reduce the usefulness of these spaces to such users. Those users looking for longer-stay parking may need to park in areas further away from centres or in off-street parking areas.

Similarly, research indicates that in some instances reallocating road-space from parking to improve amenity, create people-friendly spaces and encourage travel by other transport modes contributes to economic performance, and priority is given to such use of space. This could be the case for example in terms of developing outdoor dining areas, contribute to RiverLink, and to enable the provision of infrastructure to improve access to destinations by cycling or walking.

In Make, Grow and Move areas on-street space is important to enable effective movement of goods in and out, as well as links and access to the areas by public and active transport. Some priority is also given to short-term parking for clients or customers as well as to local employee parking in these areas to avoid some of the overspill of longer-term parking to adjacent areas.

Attachment 2

Parking policy - P&R 27 November 2017

4. Mobility parking

Mobility parking that is well-located, accessible and safe is crucial to enabling people with disabilities to easily access areas and destinations in the city. Hutt City Council provides a number of mobility spaces in Shop & Trade and Work & Learn areas in the city. A valid mobility parking permit must be displayed whilst parked in these spaces. Hutt City Council’s Parking Services Team proactively enforces restrictions with regard to mobility parking.

Council will not generally provide mobility parking spaces in residential areas. However, officers will assess situations on a case by case basis.

Reflecting that people with disabilities will often require more time to get around and conduct their business and activities, those with valid mobility parking permits are allowed to park for double the time in spaces which are otherwise restricted to 30 or 60 minutes.

Parking space	Concession
Spaces specifically designated as disabled parking spaces	People with a mobility parking permit can park for the time shown only. The default time for these spaces will be 120 minutes.
P30 time-limited	People with a mobility parking permit can park for 1 hour
P60 time-limited	People with a mobility parking permit can park for 2 hours
Paid parking areas of up to 1 hour	People with a mobility parking permit who pay for the time period shown can park for double the time period allowed. P30 – mobility parking permit holders can park for 1 hour. P60 – mobility permit holders can park for 2 hours.
P5, P10, P15, P120, P180, P240	There are no concessions for mobility permit holders in spaces with these restrictions.

Hutt City Council will regularly review mobility parking to ensure that there is sufficient supply, that spaces meet design standards, and that spaces are located appropriately.

5. Intervention

The hierarchy identifies the priorities for use of road-space and, in some instances, ensuring that the space is available and used in-line with the priorities will mean implementing restrictions such as time-limits or pricing or amending current restrictions. Interventions could also include removing parking so that the space can be put to a different use.

The parking policy sets out the rationale and framework used by Council to both proactively ensure that the use of road space is contributing to its objectives and to respond to requests from other parties in relation to use of road-space and parking. Assessments will explore situations on a case by case basis, including the character and land-use of the particular area and nearby areas using the road-space hierarchy, data on parking use, as well as the potential effects of any interventions on adjacent areas. Council will continue to conduct public consultation with regard to any changes that are proposed.

Council will seek to achieve the peak time occupancy rate of 85% for on-street parking. This occupancy rate means that parking is well used and people can still find spaces. Occupancy which is regularly above this level results in a poor level of service for users, and means that the parking is not servicing the needs of the particular area. If occupancy is identified as being regularly above 85%, Council may recommend changes to the management of parking in the area.

Pricing and time restriction

Mechanisms to directly manage parking include the introduction of parking fees, changing existing fees, introducing or changing time restrictions, and establishing permit areas e.g. in residential areas. Council will consider using these mechanisms, alongside promoting active transport and the use of public transport, to ensure that parking resources contribute to our objectives and long-term strategies.

Pricing is an effective tool for managing parking in areas of higher demand. A reasonable price does not deter people from visiting an area where there are activities and attractions and is effective in ensuring that a number of spaces are regularly available in busy parking areas.

Time restrictions can work well in areas which have low to medium parking demand. As demand increases it is possible to reduce the time-limit in an area or parts of it to better manage the parking available. If demand for parking is high, setting a reasonable cost for the parking is the most effective tool for ensuring turnover of spaces. In some areas of the city time restricted parking is currently misused e.g. employees of local business, who move their cars several times a day to exploit time restricted free parking.

Parking in residential areas

Busy on-street parking in primarily residential areas can cause access and safety problems for residents, visitors, and other road users, particularly in areas around commercial centres, the central business district and transport hubs, where on-street parking is used by employees/commuters during the working day. Lower Hutt currently has few areas where there is need to create resident parking schemes. As the city changes both in terms of its population and residential profile it is important that we have an approach to effectively manage any parking issues.

Intervention to address parking pressures in residential areas will be designed for the particular local situation and could include:

· time-limits for part of the area to deter commuter parking;

· residential parking schemes that exempt resident from time restricted parking.

Implementing time-restrictions to parking, with exemptions for residents, can relieve parking pressures. Time restrictions could apply to all or sections of the street/area.

As each area in the city has different pressures local situations will be assessed on a case by case basis. Initially, Council will assess the use of parking in the area. If on-street parking occupancy is regularly above 85% we will explore implementing parking restrictions. In areas where on-street parking use is high assessments will include whether properties:

· have off-street parking at all on the property;

· there is space on the property that could be converted to off-street parking; and

· the availability of on-street parking within a reasonable i.e. 400 meter, walking distance.

Consideration will also be given to whether land use changes have had a detrimental effect on parking availability in the area and any other factors that are relevant to the specific situation being assessed.

Council will charge an administration fee for issuing permits and operating permit schemes. Residential schemes do not guarantee people a parking space.

New developments in resident parking scheme areas

If a residential parking scheme is created in an area, any new-build developments in that area may not be eligible for a parking permit. With any new developments both developers and potential renters/buyers are responsible for arranging sufficient off-street parking to meet their needs. This approach ensures that the cost of providing parking is not passed on to ratepayers.

Residential intensification in Central Business District or Petone commercial areas

Hutt City Council is aiming to increase the population of commercial areas such as the Central Business District (CBD) and Petone through enabling residential intensification. City centre living is often aimed at households who want the convenience of living near attractions, shops, and public transport provision where, for the most part, owning a vehicle is not necessary.

Changes proposed to Hutt City Council’s District Plan in 2017 allow developers to build dwellings in these areas without on-site parking. New developments built in these areas after the District Plan change will not be eligible for resident parking permits or exemptions to time restricted parking. There are parking restrictions – either time-limits or pricing and time-limits – in much of the CBD and Petone areas and residential parking is not a high-priority compared to other uses for on-street space.

Hutt City Council will work with developers to ensure that they and occupants have clear information regarding parking.

Miscellaneous permits/exemptions

Hutt City Council currently allocates permits that temporarily exempt specific users from time-limits or paying for parking for special events and some construction work. In some instances users are required to pay for such exemptions and in some instances they are not. Council will establish a formal system and fee structure for allocating exemptions to parking restrictions.

6. Enforcement

Council’s Parking Services Team has an integral role in ensuring that the city’s transport system works safely and efficiently. Effective enforcement contributes to safe roads, encourages turnover of parking spaces, and helps keep traffic moving efficiently. The Parking Services Team:

· monitors compliance with parking rules – and tickets offenders;

· monitors vehicle and public safety by checking for a valid Warrant of Fitness, vehicle registration, and condition of tyres; and

· delivers an important service to the public in terms of advice on parking, directions, and other matters.

Council’s ability to provide enforcement of parking restrictions across the city, and respond to requests for more effective enforcement in some areas, is currently limited. Hutt City Council is investigating the implementation of new technology to provide an integrated approach to parking in the city, improve the efficiency of enforcement, provide in-depth data to inform future interventions, and improve customer service. Technology could enable Council to improve the efficiency of parking enforcement through more targeting and better coverage, and therefore contributes to increasing road safety, flow of traffic in busy areas, and more effectively ensuring turnover and availability of parking spaces. Council will:

· implement technology to offer additional customer payment methods;

· improve the information to customers in relation to parking location and availability; and

· investigate technology, including licence-plate recognition and sensor based systems.

7. Encouraging access via other modes of transport

Parking management is a key aspect of the city’s overall transport system being both essential to providing access to destinations and a factor that influences people’s choice of transport. Managing parking more efficiently with the aim of reducing vehicle travel will contribute to improving access to other modes and the overall environment for those modes.

Implementation of the parking policy intersects with Council’s focus on active transport infrastructure and levels of service in order to improve walkability and cycle–friendly access to the city. The focus on improving transport connections by active modes is reflected in the priority given to this activity within Council’s road space/parking hierarchy. Council’s work on active transport also includes improving the links between active transport routes and transport hubs such as train stations in the city.

Council’s road space hierarchy gives priority to encouraging access by public transport and we will work with Greater Wellington Regional Council to improve public transport provision and the effectiveness of their park and ride facilities at Petone and Waterloo stations.

8. Best use of existing parking resources

In addition to Council’s parking resources there is also a supply of private parking across the city. Where possible, Council will work with providers of private off-street parking to make more effective use of this resource. For example, exploring:

· the use of private parking resources during the evening for events;

· whether parking that is under-utilised during the week can provide parking for commuters in some areas; and

· whether some on-street parking in front of businesses which are closed at the weekend can be made available.

Council will also investigate ways to improve the use of the Riverbank carpark as an area close to the city centre that can provide affordable all-day parking for employees and commuters.

Attachment 4

Proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw August 2017.

PROPOSED HUTT CITY COUNCIL
PARKS AND RESERVES
BYLAW 2017

August 2017

Contents

1. Interpretation. 3

2. Hours of opening. 4

3. Closing of reserves. 4

4. Leased or licensed premises in reserves. 4

5. No entry into restricted areas or places in reserves. 4

6. Interference with reserves. 5

7. Vehicles in reserves. 5

8. Animals in reserves (other than dogs and horses) 6

9. Dogs in reserves. 6

10. Horses in reserves. 6

11. Camping in a reserve. 6

12. Fires in reserves. 7

13. Obstructing another person’s enjoyment of a reserve. 7

14. Safety in reserves. 7

15. Buying, selling or advertising in reserves. 7

16. Dangerous weapons in reserves. 7

17. Organised sports and games in reserves. 8

18. Organised events in reserves. 8

19. Offences. 9

20. Exemptions. 9

1. Interpretation

“Animal” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Reserves Act 1977.

“Bylaw” means this Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

“Council” means the Hutt City Council.

“Custodian” means a person for the time being lawfully appointed by the Council to control or supervise a reserve or any part of a reserve.

“Emergency services” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

“Dangerous weapon” includes any firearm, bow and arrow, catapult or shanghai.

“Firearm” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Arms Act 1983.

“Reserve” means any open space, plantation, park, garden or grounds set apart for public recreation or enjoyment that is under the management or control of the Council and includes all land administered by the Council under the Reserves Act 1977, but does not include any land administered by the Greater Wellington Regional Council.

“Structure” includes any building, fence, gate, seat, playground equipment, memorial, artwork, fountain, wharf, jetty, platform, goal posts, rubbish bins and rafts.

“Vehicle” means:

(a) a contrivance equipped with wheels, tracks, or revolving runners on which it moves or is moved; and

(b) includes a hovercraft, land yacht, boat, surf ski, skateboard, in-line skates, roller skates, and the shell or hulk of a vehicle; but

(i) a perambulator or pushchair:

(ii) a shopping or sporting trundler not propelled by mechanical power:

(iii) a wheelbarrow or hand-trolley:

(v) a pedestrian-controlled lawnmower:

(vi) a pedestrian-controlled agricultural machine not propelled by mechanical power:

(vii) an article of furniture:

(viii) a wheel-chair not propelled by mechanical power.

PART 1 – Access to Reserves

2. Hours of opening

2.1 Subject to the provisions of this Bylaw and the Reserves Act 1977, all reserves will be open to the public daily and free of charge.

3. Closing of reserves

3.1 The Council may determine the times during which a reserve, or any part of a reserve, will be closed to the public.

3.2 No person, other than a Custodian, may enter or remain in a reserve, or any part of a reserve, while it is closed to the public.

4. Leased or licensed premises in reserves

4.1 The Council may lease premises in a reserve to any organisation or member of the public, or license any organisation or member of the public to use premises in a reserve, upon any conditions the Council considers appropriate.

4.2 No person may enter or use any premises in a reserve that are subject to a lease or a licence other than the Custodian or any other person in accordance with a lease or licence.

5. No entry into restricted areas or places in reserves

5.1 The Council may specify any area or place in a reserve to be a restricted area or place.

5.2 No person, other than a Custodian, may enter a restricted area or place without the prior written permission of the Council.

5.3 Any person doing an activity under clause 5.2 must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

PART 2 – PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES IN Reserves

6. Interference with reserves

6.1 No person may:

(a) remove, destroy, damage, deface, obstruct, disturb, or otherwise interfere with any thing, or any part of any thing, in or enclosing a reserve, including any:

(i) structure;

(ii) sign, notice, label, inscription, billboard, or placard;

(iii) path, track, lawn, step, gravel, sand, soil, or border;

(iv) tree, shrub, or plant of any kind, including hedges, flowers, or flowerbeds;

(v) area prepared for any sport or game;

(b) remove, destroy, injure, disturb, shoot, snare, trap, or otherwise interfere with any animal in a reserve, unless using a firearm in accordance with a permission granted under clause 16.2 of this Bylaw;

(c) plant any tree, shrub, or plant of any kind, or sow or scatter the seed of any tree, shrub, or plant of any kind, in a reserve;

(d) pollute or render unfit for any purpose any water in a reserve;

(e) swim, wade or wash in any ornamental water in a reserve;

(f) erect, construct, make, or place in a reserve, without the prior written permission of the Council, any structure, walking track, cycling track or other cycling facility, dam, tree-fort, sign, notice, label, inscription, billboard, or placard.

(g) Scatter ashes of a deceased person in any reserve.

6.2 Any person to whom the Council grants permission under clause 6.1(f) must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

7. Vehicles in reserves

7.1 No person may:

(a) drive, ride or otherwise bring any vehicle into a reserve, except on any part of the reserve set aside by the Council for vehicular traffic; or

(b) park any vehicle in or adjacent to a reserve except in a place set aside by the Council for the parking of vehicles, and unless the person in control of the vehicle intends to remain in the reserve while the vehicle is parked; or

8. Animals in reserves (other than dogs and horses)

8.1 No person may take, ride or drive any animal (other than a dog or a horse) into or in a reserve, or allow any animal (other than a dog or a horse) in the person’s custody or charge or under the person’s control to be in a reserve, without the prior written permission of the Council.

8.2 Any person doing an activity under clause 8.1 must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

9. Dogs in reserves

9.1 No person may take any dog into a reserve, or allow any dog in the person’s custody or charge or under the person’s control to be in a reserve, unless in accordance with the Council’s Dog Control Bylaw.

10. Horses in reserves

10.1 No person may take or ride any horse into or on a reserve, or allow any horse in the person’s custody or charge or under the person’s control to be in a reserve, unless the horse is:

(a) under the continuous control of the person or otherwise properly secured; and

(b) in a reserve, or part of a reserve, specified by the Council as an area where a person may take or ride a horse; and

(c) at a time specified by the Council as a time when a person may take or ride a horse into or in that reserve, or that part of a reserve.

10.2 The Council may specify:

(a) a reserve, or any part of a reserve, as an area where a person may take or ride a horse; and

(b) the time or times when a person may take or ride a horse into or in a reserve, or part of a reserve, specified by the Council as an area where a person may take or ride a horse.

10.3 No person shall leave in a reserve any waste produced by a horse, unless placed in a rubbish bin provided by the Council.

11. Camping in a reserve

11.1 No person may camp or stay in a reserve overnight other than in huts, or on sites, set aside by the Council for the purpose of camping or staying in a reserve overnight.

11.2 The Council may set aside huts and sites in reserves for the purpose of camping or staying in a reserve overnight.

12. Fires in reserves

12.1 No person may light any fire (including fireworks) in a reserve, other than a gas barbecue, without prior written permission from the Council.

12.2 Any person doing an activity under clause 12.1 must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

13. Obstructing another person’s enjoyment of a reserve

13.1 No person shall intentionally obstruct, disturb or interfere with another person’s enjoyment of the reserve, including by:

(a) directing foul, abusive, indecent, or obscene language toward another person in a threatening manner; or

(b) being intoxicated, noisy or riotous.

14. Safety in reserves

14.1 No person may act in any way in a reserve that the person knows, or reasonably ought to have known, will endanger the safety of him or herself or any other person.

15. Buying, selling or advertising in reserves

15.1 No person may buy, sell or advertise any goods or services, or carry on a trade, in a reserve, without the prior written permission of the Council.

15.2 Any person doing an activity under clause 15.1 must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

16. Dangerous weapons in reserves

16.1 No person may carry or use any dangerous weapon, other than a firearm, in a reserve.

16.2 No person may carry or use any firearm in a reserve without the prior written permission of the Council.

16.3 Any person doing an activity under clause 16.2 must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

PART 3 – ORGANISED EVENTS IN RESERVES

17. Organised sports and games in reserves

17.1 No person may play any organised sport or game in any reserve, or any part of a reserve, that is not set aside for that purpose.

17.2 The Council may set aside any reserve, or any part of a reserve, for the purpose of playing any organised sport or game.

17.3 For the purposes of this clause 17, “organised sport or game” includes playing or practising golf, whether by one person or by one or more persons in a group.

18. Organised events in reserves

18.1 No person may attend or take part in any organised event held in a reserve, or in any part of a reserve, whether a one-off event or a repeatedly scheduled event, unless the event is being held with the prior written permission of the Council.

18.2 A person may apply to the Council for permission to hold an organised event in a reserve, or in any part of a reserve, using a Council approved form.

18.3 The Council may grant permission to hold an organised event on such conditions as the Council considers appropriate, and in doing so, may specify whether the person:

(a) may charge an entry fee for the event;

(b) has the exclusive use of a reserve, or any part of a reserve, for the duration of the event.

18.4 Any person to whom the Council grants permission to hold an organised event, and any person who attends or takes part in an organised event, must comply with any conditions imposed by the Council on its written permission.

18.5 A Custodian may require any person to leave a reserve, or any part of a reserve:

(a) if the person is attending or taking part in the organised event without paying the required entry fee; or

(b) if the person is not attending or taking part in the organised event, but is in part of a reserve that has been set aside for exclusive use for an organised event -

where the Council specified as part of its permission to hold an organised event that an entry fee could be charged, or that the reserve, or any part of the reserve, could be used exclusively for the organised event.

18.6 For the purposes of this clause 18, “organised event” includes an organised sport or game under clause 17.

PART 4 – OTHER MATTERS

19. Offences

19.1 Every person committing any breach of the provisions of this Bylaw must, upon request by a Custodian, immediately leave the reserve.

20. Exemptions

20.1 This Bylaw does not apply to any person who commits an act that was done:

(a) in accordance with a valid contract for services with the Council; or

(b) by a member of the emergency services in the course of carrying out his or her duties as a member of the emergency services; or

(d) in accordance with, or pursuant to, any enactment.

Attachment 1

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY 2018-2028

Significance and Engagement policy

The Significance and Engagement Policy:

§ sets out the general approach Council will take to determining the significance of proposals and decisions relating to issues, assets or other matters; and

§ provides clarity about how and when communities can expect to be engaged in decisions about different matters depending on the degree of significance the council and its communities attach to those matters.

1. Objective

All decisions Council makes must be made in accordance with the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (set out in sections 76AA-81). Council must also ensure that the community gets every opportunity to engage with the decision making process particularly in cases where the decision being made is significant and may be a material departure from existing policy.

Council must make a judgement about how to comply with the Act in a way:

§ that reflects the significance or materiality of the matter under consideration; and

§ enhances the community’s ability to engage.

This policy explains Council’s approach to determining the significance or materiality of a decision and lists the thresholds, criteria and procedures that Council and its community will use in the assessment.

2. Introduction

The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) sets out the framework for Council’s consultation and decision-making processes. Significance is a key concept in this framework. The term significance, as used in the Act, is defined in Section 5 of the Act.

A decision about issues, assets and other matters is significant if it will mean a material departure from existing policy. A difference or variation is material if it could, itself or in combination with other differences, influence the decisions or assessments of those reading or responding to the engagement document.

The type of decisions a Council and its community must make can range from those that are trivial in nature to those that are of major importance. The Council must decide where in the range of trivial to very important a decision sits and what level of analysis and engagement is appropriate every time a decision is made.

The significance (materiality) range has a threshold at which point decisions are deemed to be ‘significant’. If an issue requiring decision is determined to be ‘significant’ the council will:

1. Undertake community engagement responding to community preferences for engagement and clearly identifying why, how and when the community can expect to be engaged with using the Special Consultative Procedure (see Section 83 of the Act).

2. Ensure that every decision complies with the decision-making requirements set out in Sections 76AA - 81 of the Act.).

3. Take into account the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions, if any of the options involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water Section 77 of the Act).

The Significance and Engagement Policy and the supporting information contained in Council’s Community Engagement Strategy, gives Council guidance on what consultation processes should be followed in relation to a particular decision. The Council’s ‘Guide to Good Decision Making’ provides further assistance as to what analysis is appropriate given the significance and nature of a decision. Even where Council thinks that a particular decision does not reach the ‘significant’ threshold, they may still choose to adopt the Special Consultative Procedure.

3. Approach to decision-making and significance

Determining significance

A significant decision is one that has a high degree of significance in terms of its impact on

§ the wellbeing of Hutt City and/or

§ persons likely to be affected by or with an interest in that decision and/or

§ the costs to or the capacity of the Hutt City Council to provide for the wellbeing of the city.

When considering the significance of a proposal, decision or other matter, the Council will use the following threshold and criteria: (Note: it is the cumulative effect of all these criteria that determines the overall significance of a matter).

§ The extent to which the matter flows logically and consequentially from a significant decision already made or from a decision in the LTP or the Annual Plan.

Matter has been signalled in the LTP,Matter has not been signalled in the LTP or is contrary to a position taken in the LTP

§ The extent of the matter in terms of its net cost to the Council. Where a decision has not been highlighted through the LTP or Annual Plan, a decision involving a change in spending of more than 10% of the planned capital expenditure for capital items or 5% of the planned operating expenditure for operating decisions will be considered significant.

Low $ amount,High $ amount

§ The transfer of ownership or control, or the disposal or abandonment of a Strategic Asset as a whole as defined by the LGA or listed in section 5 of this policy will be considered to be significant. The degree to which transfer of ownership or control, or the disposal or abandonment of a part of a Strategic Asset undermines the integrity/functioning of the asset as a whole or restricts the networking utility of the asset will also be considered.

Discrete component – no impact on integrity of whole strategic asset

,Undermines ability of strategic asset to deliver service

§ The matter includes consideration of a large increase in user fee or the introduction of a user fee for a service that has previously been provided free of charge.

§ The matter includes consideration of an alteration to the intended level of service provision for any core Council activity, including a decision to commence or cease any such activity.

Small service level alteration,Large service level alteration or decision to commence or cease activity especially where this will affect vulnerable residents

§ Reversibility and Intergenerational equity. The more irreversible the effects of a decision the more significance it has - particularly where the decision involves the unsustainable use of resources and so reduces the right of future citizens to inherit the same diversity of natural and societal resources enjoyed by current citizens. This includes the cumulative effects of previous decisions and their impact on irreversibility and intergenerational equity.

Effects of the decision are reversible

Effects of the decision are irreversible

§ Practicality. The Act provides for Council to take into account the circumstances under which a decision is taken and what opportunity there is to consider a range of options and the views and preferences of other people. In circumstances in which failure to make a decision urgently would result in the loss of opportunities which are assessed as able to contribute to achieving the community outcomes, then Council will tailor its decision making processes to allow as much evaluation and engagement as is practicable while working within the required timeline.

Matter requires that a decision is made urgently. ,No particular urgency is required.

§ The extent to which the matter under consideration is of public interest or controversial within the community.

Low degree of public interest and controversy,High degree of public interest and controversy

Procedure

All reports to Council will include an assessment of the significance of the report’s recommendations and the level and type of engagement required to ensure that the community gets every opportunity to engage with the decision making process particularly in cases where the decision being made is significant and may be a material departure from existing policy. A statement showing how the Council has (or will) appropriately observe(d) the Act, with regard to the appropriate degree and form of engagement and analysis, will also be included.

If the recommendations are considered to be above the ‘significant’ threshold, an external peer review will be sought to confirm that the decision-making process undertaken is in accordance with the decision-making requirements set out in ss76AA to 81of the Act.

4. Engagement

In 2011 Council consulted on its Community Engagement Strategy (CES) and received positive feedback on the proposed approach. The CES was subsequently approved by Council as part of the 2011 Annual Plan.

The CES covers:

Interaction between Hutt City Council and the community undertaken for democratic decision making

Ongoing engagement with the community in the spirit of partnership.

It outlines Councils community engagement philosophy and commitment to the community and summarises:

§ Our community engagement goals

§ The main types of community engagement Council undertakes

§ How community engagement relates to the decision-making process and how Council considers how to involve the public in decision-making

§ Our approach to community partnerships

§ Our commitment to engaging Maori as a Treaty partner

§ Key opportunities for improving our community engagement

Community engagement is much broader than consultation, although consultation is encompassed within it. Community engagement includes the full range of community participation in decision-making- from being provided with information only right through to Council supporting community initiatives. The different degrees of community engagement relate to the extent that decision-making powers (and implementation) are devolved to the community, or conversely, held with Council.

At a high level, there are five main types of community engagement that Hutt City Council undertakes with the community. These are summarised here. Although each type of community engagement has its place in Council, this strategy does not prescribe the type of community engagement that must be employed in specified circumstances. The range of Hutt City Council activities and types of decision is too varied for such an approach. However, the section on decision-making does outline some of the high-level factors Council takes into account when considering what type of community engagement is suitable for a specific proposal or issue.

Information – Supports all types of community engagement and keeps people informed about such things as decisions, services and local events.

Consultation – Can be used when there is a decision to make about something or when there are a number of choices about the details. Most of the proposals Hutt City Council considers involve consultation.

Deciding together – Local people are involved in deciding which option to choose, but it is Hutt City Council that will act on the decision. A good example of this is the Walter Nash Park playground in Taita. Locals helped design the playground that Council built.

Acting together – Decisions and implementation are made in partnerships between local people or agencies and Hutt City Council. The intended beautification around the Waiwhetu Stream is a good example of this in action. Locals have not only contributed to the development of the vision but are also to be involved in actively developing the area.

Supporting community initiatives – Independent groups are empowered to develop and carry out their own plans. Council’s role is primarily supportive or facilitative. A lot of the work of Hutt City Council’s community support staff involves supporting community initiatives.

Decision making

Hutt City Council is involved in a wide range of activities, from setting policies on gaming in the city, developing and enforcing local regulations and promoting tourism right through to the delivery of services and infrastructure like libraries and roads. In most of these activities, the kinds of decision range from setting longer-term strategy to minor operational matters.

In general terms, these decisions usually involve the first three types of community engagement – information, consultation and deciding together. In many cases, the same decision or issue may involve different types of community engagement at different steps in the decision-making process. It is important that the community and Hutt City Council have a common understanding of the decision-making process and how Hutt City Council decides when and how much to engage the community.

Hutt City Council’s general decision-making process is illustrated in its Community Engagement Strategy (CEG). The CEG also outlines the key factors Council generally takes into account when developing a community engagement plan for a specific proposal or decision.

Council has also developed internal guidance – the Community Engagement Guidelines – to assist staff when they are deciding on the best approach to community engagement for a particular matter, proposal or decision. Council has trained community engagement mentors who are also available to assist colleagues design and implement an engagement strategy that is appropriate to the circumstances.

The CES can be accessed at http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/Documents/a-z/Community%20engagement%20strategy%202011.pdf.

It is also attached as Appendix II.

Spoken/sign language interaction

Council will make sure that those who require spoken/sign language interaction have this service available through liaising with the Sub Regional Disability Forum and non-government organisations that provide sign/spoken language services.

5. Strategic Assets

The Act defines a Strategic Asset as:

“an asset or group of assets that the local authority needs to retain if the local authority is to maintain the local authority’s capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that the local authority determines to be important to the current or future wellbeing of the community; and includes—

(a) any asset or group of assets listed in accordance with section 76AA (3) by the local authority; and

(b) any land or building owned by the local authority and required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing as part of its social policy; and

(c) any equity securities held by the local authority in—

(i) a port company within the meaning of the Port Companies Act 1988:

(ii) an airport company within the meaning of the Airport Authorities Act 1966”

In accordance with section 76AA (3) of the Local Government Act 2002 Hutt City Council considers the following assets to be strategic:

· Roading Network

· Wastewater Network and Treatment

· Stormwater Network

· Water Supply Network

· Landfills

· Network of parks and reserves

· Dowse and Settlers Collections

· Library Network

123

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

City Development Committee

Report of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,

Lower Hutt on

Tuesday 28 November 2017 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor D Bassett (Chair) Cr G Barratt

Cr MJ Cousins Cr S Edwards

Cr T Lewis Cr M Lulich

Cr G McDonald Cr L Sutton (Deputy Chair)

APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Mayor WR Wallace and Crs Barry and Milne.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

Mr B Sherlock, Strategic Projects Director

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services

Mr B Hodgins, Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Mr G Craig, Divisional Manager, City Growth

Mr P Maaka, Urban Design Manager (part meeting)

Mrs H Clegg, Minute Taker

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CDC 17501

“That the apologies received from Mayor Wallace, Cr Barry and Cr Milne be accepted and leaves of absence be granted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Recommendations to Council - 12 December 2017

a)	Wharves Update (17/1736) Report No. CDC2017/5/305 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens
	Speaking under public comment, Ms P Hanna, representing the Petone Community Board, reiterated the overwhelming community support, which included a community petition for the refurbishment of Petone Wharf and support for the officers’ recommendations contained within the report. She stated the organiser of the community petition was appreciative of the officers support. Ms Hanna added that Petone Wharf featured on the new Wellington version of the board game Monopoly and the community wished to see Petone Wharf opened for this summer. Speaking under public comment, Ms B Scott, Ms M Drayton and Ms A Patterson-Spice supported the retention and refurbishment of the entire Petone Wharf, as it was part of Petone’s history. They explained their family regularly used the wharf and requested it be opened for this summer.
	The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report. He highlighted that work was starting immediately to make Rona Bay Wharf safe, with work on Days Bay Wharf to commence in 2018. He further advised that a report would be prepared comparing the costs involved in retaining and refurbishing both part and all of Petone Wharf. It was hoped to have Petone Wharf open to the public by the end of the week, following temporary repairs.
	In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens confirmed the upcoming report on Petone Wharf would include all associated matters concerning the retention or otherwise of the full wharf, including financial, user information and historical information. The details concerning disposal of any of the worm infested piles had yet to be determined. Consultants were investigating wrapping the piles to seal them. In general discussion, members commended officers for the level of detail of the work undertaken to date, and for actively listening to the public. The members requested officers to take a precautionary approach.
	RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CDC 17502 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the geotechnical report from Tonkin + Taylor on the Waiwhetu Aquifer, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, which concludes that work on the piles at Days Bay, Rona Bay and Petone Wharves are unlikely to have any impact on the aquifer; (ii) notes that officers have commissioned further investigations in respect of the Point Howard Wharf, following advice that some of the piles are likely to have penetrated into the aquifer at a point which is above the transition zone of the aquifer and covering aquitard as it adjoins the greywacke bedrock along the eastern side of the harbour; (iii) notes that officers will report back on future options for the Point Howard Wharf once this information is known; (iv) notes that a full underwater condition assessment of piles at Days Bay, Rona Bay and Petone, have been completed which show that Rona Bay Wharf is in the poorest condition; (v) notes that officers have contracted GK Shaw to undertake the upgrade works at Rona Bay Wharf following the recent completion of essential repairs to Petone and Days Bay Wharves and that these works are expected to take up to a year to complete at an estimated cost of $1.4M; (vi) notes that Council has received a petition signed by approximately 2200 people who urge Council to reconsider its decision to remove part of Petone Wharf and instead retain and refurbish the wharf in full; and (vii) requests officers to provide a detailed financial analysis of the two options (retain and refurbish full wharf or partly demolish wharf head and refurbish the balance of the wharf), to assist it in making a final decision on the future of Petone Wharf as part of its resource consent application and in finalising next year’s Long Term Plan.”

b)	Jackson Street Streetscape Design (17/1680) Report No. CDC2017/5/8 by the Urban Design Manager
	Speaking under public comment, Ms P Hanna, representing the Petone Community Board and the Petone 2040 Community Group and Mr T Benyon, also representing the Petone 2040 Community Group, advised both the Petone Community Board and Petone 2040 Community Group supported the officers’ recommendations. Ms Hanna added they envisaged Petone 2040 Community Group would work closely with officers in the future in time for the Long Term Plan considerations. In response to a question from a member, Mr Benyon advised Jackson Street was under both heritage and traffic pressure and the report was a good step in managing these pressures moving forward.
	Deputy Mayor Bassett advised that Harbour Ward councillors had met with the consulting group and spent time talking about the issues. He believed their concerns had been addressed within the officers’ report.
	Speaking under public comment, Ms L Dobbs, representing the Jackson Street Programme, requested clarification regarding investigating options for protection and enhancements of heritage buildings in Jackson Street. She asked if there would be further chances to comment on these options. She requested further clarification on the new street furniture being sourced and installed. Ms Dobbs requested that Jackson Street be retained as an example of early New Zealand heritage and any street furniture or art works should reflect New Zealand heritage, rather than overseas heritage. She added the Jackson Street Programme agreed with Mr Ian Bowman, Heritage Advisor, that there were several historical periods represented throughout the street, which should flow throughout the street and not one period should dominate.
	The Urban Design Manager elaborated on the report. He explained that while streetscape was important, the emerging most important element for Jackson Street was retention of the heritage buildings, all of which were in private ownership. The Urban Design Manager explained the extensive public consultation had been undertaken in a short time frame, since June 2017 and he believed the resulting work was reflective of the community’s wishes. He acknowledged the high cost of completion of all the proposals and stressed the design principles should be adopted for the future, rather than being a contract document.
	In response to a questions from members, the Urban Design Manager explained the Heritage Review of 2008/2009 listed the heritage buildings along Jackson Street. He advised that further work on that document had not occurred as Council had agreed it was not the correct time to progress that work. The Urban Design Manager listed a range of options available to aid in the retention and enhancement of heritage buildings. Many of which could also be applied to heritage buildings across the city. Members commended officers for their work and it was suggested a workshop on this matter be held in 2018.
	RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CDC 17503 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) endorses the Jackson Street Streetscape Design (JSSD) report as Council’s long term master plan for Jackson Street, attached as Appendix 1 to (Link to full JSSD Report); (ii) endorses that heritage buildings are the economic ‘heroes’ of the Jackson Street retail precinct and combined with the pedestrian environment these are the top priority for Council protection, further work, and funding; (iii) notes that officers will investigate options for protection and enhancements of these heritage buildings and report back to this Committee at the next meeting; (iv) endorses that any new street furniture shall be sourced and installed in Jackson Street in accordance with the JSSD; (v) endorses that any public art shall be sourced and installed in Jackson Street in accordance with the JSSD; and (vi) notes that staffing and funding will need to be considered to implement further work on the JSSD.”

Activity Report: Local Urban Environment (17/1679)

Report No. CDC2017/5/8 by the Urban Design Manager

The Urban Design Manager elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CDC 17504

“That the Committee:

(i) notes the information contained in this report;

(ii) notes that this review also meets the intent of section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

(iii) agrees that a full section 17A review should not be undertaken at present for the reasons outlined in the report, at clause number 21.”

6.	General Managers' Report (17/1306) Report No. CDC2017/4/235 by the General Manager, City Transformation
	In response to questions from members, the Strategic Projects Director advised the officers were not actively considering installing carparking technology to monitor how long a car was parked and who was parking in each carpark. He added technology for monitoring of carparking was rapidly advancing with many options available at a cost. The Strategic Projects Director updated members that an acceptable tender had been received for works to continue at Avalon Park; the Riddifords Garden project was continuing as expected; and the Town Hall and Events Centre Project was progressing, with a final completion date of May 2018. He advised that when constructed, all Council buildings met the relevant earthquake strength requirements for their use. The Strategic Projects Director further advised the completion date for the Town Hall and Events Centre Project had been pushed back due to the complexities of the work involved, which often occurred with refurbishment works rather than new developments.
	The General Manager, City and Community Services highlighted that a new health initiative “Turning the Tide” had recently been launched, which involved organisations pledging to change the health statistics of the community. The General Manager, City and Community Services advised the new Huia Pool upgrade had exceeded all expectations, with the opening hours for the new hydro-therapy pool being extended due to high demand and the Learn to Swim programme was also over-subscribed. In response to a request for clarification from a member regarding the numbers of new businesses within the CBD, the General Manager, City Transformation advised there was a combination of new businesses and existing businesses moving to new premises. The Divisional Manager City Growth added that retail activity was slowly growing as the city recovered from the effects of the November 2016 earthquake.
	In response to a quesiton from a member, the Divisional Manager City Growth advised a building consent had been lodged for the foundation works for the proposed hotel, and that it was being processed as expected. The General Manager, City Transformation advised the Tech Shop initiative was no longer occurring, as there was no funding forthcoming. In response to a question from a member, the Divisional Manager City Growth advised officers were working closely with a number of retailers and groups to promote the CBD for retailing. He added that it was a difficult task, as those retailers who were part of a national or international chain operation, were reluctant to spend any money for local advertising material. He further advised that there had been a concerted effort five years ago to put in place a CBD programme similar to the Jackson Street Programme, but that it was not well supported.

	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CDC 17505 “That the Committee notes the updates contained in the report.”
7.	Temporary Road Closure Subcommittee minutes - 10 October 2017 (17/1681) Report No. CDC2017/5/150 by the Senior Committee Advisor
	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CDC 17506 “That the Temporary Road Closure Subcommittee minutes dated 10 October 2017 be received.”

8. Information Items

a)	6-Monthly report back on International Relations Work Programme (17/1707) Memorandum dated 7 November 2017 by the International Relations and Project Manager
	The Divisional Manager City Growth elaborated on the report and explained that the expected invitation to Taizhou may be an opportunity to add that city onto the planned 2018 visit to the USA and Japan sister cities. In response to a question from a member, the Divisional Manager City Growth explained the intent was to expand the numbers of international students in the primary and intermediate school sectors. He added the secondary schools and tertiary establishments already had good programmes in place for international student recruitment. He further advised that Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency (WREDA) had been engaged to act on behalf of the International Relations Division and that the opportunities for international students within Lower Hutt were advertised on WREDA’s website.
	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr McDonald) Minute No. CDC 17507 “That the information is received.”
b)	City Development Committee Work Programme (17/1683) Report No. CDC2017/5/151 by the Senior Committee Advisor
	Deputy Mayor Bassett advised he had asked officers to undertake a review of Council‘s Archives and report back. He noted the report would include details on the adequacy of storage space and the logistics of the public display of some of the archive material on a six month rotation basis.
	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CDC 17508 “That the Committee: (i) receives the work programme; and (ii) requests officers to undertake a review of the Council archives.”

9. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.56pm.

Deputy Mayor D Bassett

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of December 2017

Attachment 1

PC 48 - Draft Proposed Plan Change incl. Appendices

393

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Finance and Performance Committee

Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers,

2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Wednesday 29 November 2017 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Cr G Barratt (from 6.01pm) Cr C Barry

Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr M Cousins Cr S Edwards Cr M Lulich Cr C Milne (Chair) Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: Apologies were received from Mayor WR Wallace and
Cr J Briggs. An apology for lateness was received from
Cr G Barratt

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer

Mr L Allott, Chief Information Officer (part meeting)

Ms W Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning (part meeting)

Ms E Davids, Risk and Assurance Manager (part meeting)

Ms J Askin, Corporate Planner (part meeting)

Ms J Stevens, Business Analyst (part meeting)

Mrs A Doornebosch, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Cr Lulich) Minute No. FPC 17501(2)

"That the apologies received from Mayor Wallace and Cr Briggs be accepted and leave of absence be granted and the apology for lateness from Cr Barratt be accepted."

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4a)

Recommendations to Council - 12 December 2017

Long Term Plan 2018-2028 (17/1552)

The General Manager, Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report. He noted this was the first report to consider planning around the Long Term Plan (LTP) for 2018-2028. He highlighted the high level budget assumptions, risks, and rate assumptions. He noted that Council’s Human Resources Division had indicated Council may need to provide for a 3% wage increase to align with midpoint rates in the market and provide a more consistent Remuneration Policy.

The Corporate Planner highlighted the timeline, consultation process and process structure. She noted the LTP would follow a similar structure to 2015, and was focussed around the four key strategies of Infrastructure, Urban Growth, Environmental Sustainability and Leisure and Wellbeing. She advised officers were aware of groups within the community who were not always well represented, and a Project Team had been formed to focus on these groups.

In response to a question from a member, the General Manager Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer advised the increase in user charges revenue for infringements for 2017/18 was a reflection of the resumption to normal parking from the one hour free parking initiative.

The Chair noted his additional recommendation would enable members of the public to link in via the livestream network during the LTP submission process.

recommended: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17502(2)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the high level budget assumptions outlined in the report;

(ii) notes the key budget risk areas;

(iii) provides any further direction required in respect of the 2018-19 budget;

(iv) notes the process and timeframe for the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-2028;

(v) provides any further direction in respect of the consultation to be undertaken on the Long Term Plan; and

(vi) approves an amendment to Council’s Standing Orders to enable online public participation during the upcoming Long Term Plan deliberations, specifically live online verbal submissions from the public.”

Revenue and Financing Policy Review for 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (17/1700)

The Divisional Manager Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report. She noted the recent workshop, outlining the rationale and importance of the Revenue and Financing Policy. She highlighted the policy defined the basis for Council fees and charges, and rate levels for the residential and business sectors. She advised a detailed review was undertaken in 2014 of all Council activities, and there were no changes since that review except the recommended items. She noted Council would also need to consider the 10 year differential transition for rates, and that a report on this would be reported to the Committee in February 2018.

The General Manager, Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer said officers had requested managers revisit and identify any changes from 2014, which were reflected in the recommended items. He noted that Council may have already achieved the target percentage set in 2011/12, so officers may need to consider what the current year’s percentage target should be based on. He advised if there were any changes to the Rates Differential Policy, Council would need to consult with the community through the Long Term Plan consultation process.

Recommended: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17503(2)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the proposed amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy for consultation as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 including:

a. Environmental Health – this will be separated from Environmental Consents but only for assessment of public/other (including private) benefit. It will not be a separate activity; and

b. District Plan – the hearing fee will be changed to ensure Council recovers its costs as currently this is not the case; and

(ii) notes further analysis is required on the continuation or changes to the current 10 year differential transition.”

	c)	Equipment in Council Chambers (17/1244)
		The Chief Information Officer elaborated on the report. He noted the options which had been considered in terms of cost and the options outlined in the report. He highlighted the recommendation to replace the current livestream camera with a permanent solution, additional microphones and battery chargers, and also the ability for members to provide their presentations on the live screens. He advised Skype for Business (SFB) for 2018 in Council Chambers would cost approximately $10k to initiate, and was currently in the testing environment. In response to questions from members, the Chief Information Officer noted officers had reviewed equipment used by Wellington City Council, who had more than one camera in its Chambers. He said this would require a technical person to be present in meetings to provide support. He highlighted SFB had many uses outside of Council meetings, and could be integrated into Council’s email and calendar systems. He said SFB would enable officers to distribute a meeting invite with a link to allow people to interact with Council, both internally and externally. He noted SFB would be required to allow the public to lodge online submissions to the Long Term Plan. He advised officers could investigate if live streaming could be linked to Facebook. He said he would consider the provision of a Technical Assistant at future meetings, and permanent charger cables for speakers on the Council Chambers table could also be considered. Cr Barratt joined the meeting at 6.01pm.
		Recommended: (Cr Milne/Cr Sutton) Minute No. FPC 17504(2) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that Council has been live-streaming meetings held in the Council Chambers during 2017; (ii) notes the statistics provided in Appendix 1 attached to the report on the viewing of meetings; (iii) notes the options to upgrade the live-streaming equipment outlined in the report; (iv) notes that $25,000 was allocated in 2017/18 to upgrade the live-streaming equipment in the Council Chambers; (v) agrees with the proposed allocation of this funding to cover integration of the live-stream with the current control system, one replacement camera, four additional microphones and a battery charger; and (vi) asks that Skype for Business be implemented into Council Chambers in time for the Long Term Plan this coming year.” For the reason that this is the most cost effective method of improving the quality of the live-stream for viewers of these meetings.

		Resolved: (Cr Barry/Cr Milne) Minute No. FPC 17505(2) “That the Committee asks officers to further investigate if Council meetings can be livestreamed to Facebook and report back to the Committee in February 2018.”
5.	Activity Report - Information Services (17/1332) Report No. FPC2017/5/7 by the Business Analyst
	The Chief Information Officer elaborated on the report. He noted Information Services (IS) activities aligned to the IS Strategy and guidelines for these activities would be published across Council in the future. He highlighted the Cloud environment was now being utilised by many organisations and over the next 2-5 years Council would require a significant investment to move into this technology. He said Cloud software provided access to disaster technology, remote use and provided a secure environment. In response to questions from members, the Chief Information Officer noted Council used Technology One suite which was an enterprise suite of software for property, ratings, and finance IS services. He said to have a fully integrated system across Council an enterprise suite would be the preferred option. He advised a future focus would be a public information portal to allow the public to interact with Council over various platforms. He noted officers were currently working on the next budget round for the Long Term Plan and additional investment requirements for new developments would be included in those calculations.
	Resolved: (Cr Milne/Cr Edwards) Minute No. FPC 17506(2) “That the Committee: (i) notes the information contained in this report; (ii) notes that this review also meets the intent of section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002; and (iii) agrees that a full section 17A review should not be undertaken at present for the reasons outlined in the report.”
	Precedence of Business
	Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17507(2) “That, in terms of Standing Order 10.4, precedence be accorded to item 7, Insurance Update.”

This item is recorded in the order in which it is listed on the order paper.

Risk and Assurance Update and Strategic Risk Register (17/1633)

Report No. FPC2017/5/299 by the Risk and Assurance Manager

The Risk and Assurance Manager elaborated on the report. She noted this was an update to members on the internal controls framework and strategic risk profile. She advised treatments and actions had been updated for 2017. She highlighted an increased uncertainty around the Urban Growth Strategy, specifically housing intensification, which may impact on Councils plans and powers. She noted the uncertainties while the new organisational structure was embedded. She advised some treatments were still underway under the natural hazards risks since the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake.

In response to questions from members, the Chief Executive noted at the recent City Development Committee meeting, an update was provided on the Wharves Project. This highlighted that research had identified that any work on the Point Howard Wharf piles may damage the Waiwhetu Acquifer. He noted this was a risk, but the likelihood of such an incident was low. He said risks included in the Risk and Assurance report usually included high level issues that could affect initiatives being successful. He agreed Council needed to mitigate risks relating to the Wharves Project, but considered this would be considered and managed at project level.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17508(2)

“That the Committee:

(i) notes the information in this report; and

(ii) notes the Strategic Risk Profile 2017 as approved by the Strategic Leadership Team, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

7.	Insurance Update (17/1734) Report No. FPC2017/5/304 by the GM Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer
	The General Manager Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report. He highlighted that due to the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake New Zealand insurers and some overseas insurers had incurred losses, which had resulted in substantial increases in premiums. He noted an error in his report relating to the Material Damage and Business Interruption Policy. The percentage should be 60%, not 50%. He advised the premiums in the Policy Premiums Changes Table were gross premiums. He said budgets for 2018/19 would need to be increased to accommodate the overall insurance premium increase. In response to questions from members, the General Manager Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer advised a review of excess levels had not been considered in this budget round. He said this could be considered for the next insurance renewal round – noting higher risk factors associated with higher excesses. He highlighted over the last 2-3 years Council had had an increase in fleet vehicle insurance claims. He advised GPS systems were installed in all fleet vehicles which also monitored speed rates, and usage was assessed on a periodic basis as part of Council’s Sustainability Policy. He noted the guidelines for the Motor Vehicle Policy included an expected level of utilisation of a vehicle to maintain its retention. He advised pool vehicles were utilised at high levels, while other fleet vehicles assigned to specific work areas did not have the same usage level. He said he would advise further on the motor vehicle accident rate levels.
	Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17509(2) “That the Committee notes the report.”
8.	Finance Update (17/1732) Report No. FPC2017/5/298 by the Budgeting and Reporting Manager
	The General Manager Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report. He noted all aspects of the Treasury Management Policy had been complied with. In response to questions from members, the General Manager Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer advised officers had provided for $1M in asset sales from the potential sale of Bell Park. He advised proceeds from the sale of Mitchell Park were likely to occur in July 2018. He considered the average staff leave balance of 16.5 days was reasonable, and noted current Leave Policy allowed generous carryover balances of accrued leave. He said Divisional Managers worked with staff to manage leave balances and ensure plans were in place to mitigate high leave balances. He advised there was provision in the Leave Policy for employees to cash up up to 5 days leave, as long as this was done in conjunction with taking 2 weeks of leave. He considered wellbeing was a key consideration in providing leave for staff, and 2 weeks of unterrupted leave was encouraged each year. He noted any staff wanting to work over the Christmas break needed approval from their Manager, but a minimum number of staff would be required to perform essential services and tasks.
	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Milne) Minute No. FPC 17510(2) “That the Committee notes the financial performance results.”

9. Information Item

Finance and Performance Work Programme 2018 (17/1529)

Report No. FPC2017/5/148 by the Committee Advisor

The General Manager, Corporate Services/Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 17511(2)

“That the programme be noted and received.”

10. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.59 pm.

Cr C Milne

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of December 2017

401

STATISTICS ON LIVE-STREAMING OF MEETINGS

STATISTICS ON LIVE-STREAMING OF MEETINGS

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Community Services Committee

Report of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on

Thursday 30 November 2017 commencing at 6.00pm

PRESENT: Cr G Barratt (Chair)

Cr L Bridson Cr J Briggs (Deputy Chair)

Cr S Edwards Cr M Lulich

Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: Mayor WR Wallace and Cr G McDonald

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr C Barry

Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services

Ms C Johnston, Director, Museums

Ms D Hunter, Community Advisor, Funding and Community Contracts

Mr M Sherwood, Divisional Manager, Leisure Active
Ms S Mann, Divisional Manager, Libraries

Ms W Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning (part meeting)

Mr S Keatley, Huia Pool and Fitness Manager

Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager, Community Hubs

Ms M Laban, Divisional Manager, Community Projects and Relationships

Ms E Jackman, Youth Council

Ms J Randall, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Sutton/Cr Briggs) Minute No. CSC 17501

“That the apologies from received from Mayor WR Wallace and Cr G McDonald be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

Precedence of Business

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Bridson) Minute No. CSC 17502

“That, in terms of Standing Order 10.4, precedence be accorded to item 5 dealing with Community Development Fund Recommended Allocations.”

The item is recorded in the order in which it is listed on the order paper.

4. Recommendations to Council - 12 December 2017

a)	Free Swimming for under Fives (17/1646)
	The Divisional Manager, Leisure Active, elaborated on the report. He suggested the current entry fee had not been a barrier to pool entry and he had seen little evidence that removing the cost would achieve the desired outcome of improving access to swimming for under-fives. In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Leisure Active advised that children visiting the pools did not pay for entry if they were attending swimming lessons unless they were part of a school visit. He advised lessons had been offered to all schools but that fees varied according to the decile rating of the school. He believed extra funding could help to extend the programme. He agreed cost could be a barrier to swimming lessons although free after-school swimming lessons in Naenae had not had great success. He considered that lessons targeting schools and early childhood centres delivered the best value for money. In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Leisure Active said he would not advise increasing fees for other users since fees were already comparable with other pools and an increase might limit visits from those sectors. He noted fees for children, the elderly and those with a disability were already discounted. He believed a small increase in adult charges to $5.70 to offset free entry to under-fives would not increase usage by children and suggested there were other factors deterring pool use by children. He explained the Christchurch City Council trial of free swimming for pre-schoolers began in September and trial data was not yet available. He agreed that promotion was important but noted that while Auckland had substantively promoted free swimming for under-16s, within two years of introduction numbers had reverted to baseline.
	Crs Briggs and Edwards suggested that officers consider a range of options that might improve access to swimming for children in a targeted way. Members discussed options to adjust charges for children in the next financial year. Councillor Milne left the meeting at 7.33pm The motion was taken in parts. Parts (i) – (iii) were declared CARRIED on the voices and parts (iv) and (v) were declared CARRIED on a show of hands.
	Recommended: (Cr Barratt/Cr Bridson/Cr Briggs) Minute No. CSC 17503 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that Hutt City Council pools are currently well used by residents; (ii) notes that there is no evidence that making swimming free for under-fives produces long term increased usage by this group; (iii) notes that other barriers such as transport and parental support and ability are greater limiting factors to usage than price alone; (iv) agrees to remain within the current charging policy for the 2017-18 financial year; and (v) refers the matter to the Community Plan Committee to consider options for targeted investment for improving access to swimming for children.”
	Councillor Milne re-joined the meeting at 7.34pm
b)	Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Advisory Group Meeting Fees (17/1701) The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.
	In response to questions from a member, the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning advised that if payments were made as reimbursements they would still comply with tax rules. She further advised the cost of seven members attending four meetings per year would be $1,360.00.
	Recommended: (Cr Barratt/Cr Lulich) Minute No. CSC 17504 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) agrees that the meeting fee for members of the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Advisory Group will be classed as reimbursement of reasonable costs associated with attending Advisory Group meetings; and (ii) notes that the meeting fee covers transport costs, meal costs and, where required, the cost of having a care giver to attend the meetings with individual Advisory Group members.”

5.	Community Development Fund Recommended Allocations 2017/2018 (17/1750) Report No. CSC2017/5/312 by the Community Advisor - Funding and Community Contracts
	Speaking under public comment, Ms Kathleen Samuelu representing EMPOWER Young Women explained that the group aimed to counter growing levels of youth suicide, depression and family violence. She had noticed and experienced a big gap in care and support for rangatahi in Lower Hutt, both for girls and for boys. In response to questions from members, Ms Samuelu advised that girls attending the programme worked together over several days. The programme provided a safe place where they could become confident to share their stories. She confirmed the programme needed consistent funding and agreed the group would keep in contact with Council officers for ongoing support. Speaking under public comment, Ms Sisi Tuala-Leafa representing EMPOWER Young Women advised the programme was capped at 25 and targeted girls aged 8 – 17. She emphasised the importance of the programme in engaging and building the self-esteem of young girls, stopping intergenerational issues and helping spread change in the community. She said the programme addressed issues using wananga, with older girls learning facilitator skills and how to care for younger girls. Ms Tuala-Leafa confirmed the programme had received funding that covered the cost of the venue and food for a six month initial pilot and that its success had encouraged them to continue the programme. Speaking under public comment, Ms Donna Amato representing EMPOWER Young Women explained the target of very young girls was due to a high number of youth suicides and provided more successful intervention. She added the programme also taught grandparents how to parent their grandchildren. She had noticed significant progress in the children attending the programme. In response to questions from members, Ms Amato acknowledged help had been received in the form of vans borrowed from Jitterbugs, Naku Tamariki and HCC; some food from local businesses, koha from whanau and visits from locals. She confirmed the venue, Wainuiomata Marae, was well known in the community.
	Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Briggs) Minute No. CSC 17505 “That Standing Order 15.2 be suspended in order to extend the time for public comment.”
	Speaking under public comment, Ms Patria Tamaka representing E Tu Whaau said the Hutt Valley Methamphetamine Drop-In Clinic Project was inspired by a September workshop on methamphetamine addiction at the Walter Nash Centre. She added that she had also visited a walk-in treatment centre for methamphetamine addicts at Waitangirua and found people from the Hutt Valley attending. She recognised the importance of establishing a more accessible support centre for people in Lower Hutt. Ms Tamaka met with a range of health professionals and methamphetamine users to develop the six month pilot programme. In response to questions from members, Ms Tamaka advised funding would be used to provide resources, promotion, advisors and an Alcohol and Drug Counsellor who could short-list methamphetamine users to treatment centres. She advised an existing methamphetamine clinic in Naenae held education sessions but could not offer support or treatment.Speaking under public comment, Ms Dina Awarau representing Hutt Union and Community Health Service Incorporated (HUCHS) and Ms Deb Robinson, representing Ahuru Mowai, agreed this service was overdue in Pomare. They cautioned addiction was a growing issue in the community across society levels. Speaking under public comment, Ms Lacey Whiting, a counsellor representing HUCHS advised that eight to nine of the 10 families she worked with were impacted by methamphetamine. She concluded it was a growing social disease that caused suicide, violence, paranoia and psychosis. In response to a question from a member, Ms Whiting advised the group intended distributing a ‘quick card’ resource to further assist both users and their families. Speaking under public comment, Ms Sally Nicholl representing HUCHS advised there was a three month waiting list for methamphetamine treatment locally but there were no other local support centres for families and methamphetamine users. In response to a question from a member, Ms Nicholl said the group intended partnering with health providers and would like to extend the programme across the valley. The Community Advisor, Funding and Community Contracts, elaborated on the report. She noted it was pleasing to see a number of new initiatives in Lower Hutt that would make a positive difference to the community. She believed that when the new funding model was introduced there would be the opportunity to offer higher levels of funding to initiatives where appropriate. In response to questions from members, the Community Advisor, Funding and Community Contracts said she would be organising workshops in the New Year to advise on how the new funding structure would be implemented. She explained the purpose of the funding for Koha Hospitality Kitchen in Wingate and theTrade Store Coffee House which would be opening in Naenae in February.
	Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Briggs) Minute No. CSC 17506 “That the Committee agrees to the recommended allocations for the Community Development Fund 2017/2018, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

6. 5.

Activity Review - Libraries (17/1738)

Report No. CSC2017/5/6 by the Divisional Manager, Libraries

The Divisional Manager, Libraries elaborated on the report. She noted that the growth in numbers visiting libraries, partnerships formed to deliver programmes and regional collaboration had been positive for sevice delivery.

The General Manager, City and Community Services, acknowledged the positive results from Council’s Libraries Division. He advised Community Hubs was now its own division within Council but recognised the role that libraries had in their success. He further advised the hubs had increased visitors to libraries and also noted that libraries were the third most visited venues in Lower Hutt.

In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Libraries advised that Upper Hutt and Wellington Libraries did not use the Smart Network and were unlikely to join since they already used very different library manangement systems. She agreed the number of loans was slowly reducing, and confirmed there was no data on the type of items borrowed. She noted the libraries had no problem attracting staff, but low pay could be a factor in high turn-over. She advised it was ideal for libraries to stay open the same hours as their hub where possible but acknowledged this might also impact staff hours. She said it would be difficult to assess the qualitative value of libraries on communities but that visitor numbers and feedback from customers and partners were currently the main measures. She did not believe data was held on visitor activity in libraries.

Cr Edwards suggested comparing the opening hours with those of libraries in other regions and whether reducing opening hours might allow Council libraries to save money and improve other areas of its service.

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Bridson) Minute No. CSC 17507

“That the Committee:

(i) notes the information contained in this report;

(ii) notes that this review also meets the intent of section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

(iii) agrees that a full section 17A review should not be undertaken at present.”

7. 6.

General Manager's Report (17/1688)

Report No. CSC2017/5/303 by the Divisional Manager, Libraries

The General Manager, City and Community Services, elaborated on the report. In response to questions from members, the General Manager, City and Community Services said he would make enquiries about the level of support available in Clubhouses to young people who wanted to pursue less conventional career options. He would also make enquiries about data kept on graduates.

The Director, Museums elaborated on the Museums. She advised that Nuku Tewhatewha was an important link to the Kingitanga movement and that the project could have positive outcomes for Lower Hutt.

In response to questions from members, the Director, Museums advised that the project software cost included a three year contract for five devices and training for staff. She said the project’s success would be measured by a survey and by software tracking of visitor numbers. She noted there were also less tangible ways to view success such as cultural competency and links with iwi. She believed the project provided a long term tourism product that would draw significant interest from visitors. She acknowledged that under the current budget the project could not be completed in time for Te Matatini Kapa Haka Festival in February.

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Edwards) Minute No. CSC 17508

“That the Committee:

(i) notes the updates contained in the report; and

(ii) provides officers with feedback and guidance regarding a proposal for the Nuku Tewhatewha pātaka at The Dowse Museum.”

8. Information Item

Community Services Committee Work Programme (17/1684)

Report No. CSC2017/5/149 by the Committee Advisor

The Committee Advisor elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CSC 17509

“That the Committee receives the work programme attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

9. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.23 pm.

Cr G Barratt

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of December 2017

424 12 December 2017

Hutt City Council

01 December 2017

File: (17/1846)

Report no: HCC2017/5/313

Code of Conduct Review

Purpose of Report

1. To provide the results of a review of the Code of Conduct and suggest process amendments.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Council:

(i) amends the Code of Conduct (the Code) to require a complaint under the Code to have the following particulars, before being accepted as a valid complaint;

(a) the nature of the complaint, including the parts of the Code alleged to have been breached; and

(b) how the breach, if proven, would bring a member or Council into disrepute, or, if not addressed, reflect adversely on another member of Council; and

(c) include all information and evidence relied on to substantiate the breach (this requirement also applies to responses to complaints); and

(d) set out what steps the complainant has already taken to resolve the complaint;

(ii) endorses the informal dispute resolution process, previously incorporated into the Code, for complaints not involving the Mayor;

(iii) amends the Code to allow the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), acting jointly, the power to refuse to progress a complaint to the preliminary investigation stage;

(iv) amends the Code to allow a Committee consisting of the current Chairpersons of Council standing committees, who do not have an interest in a complaint, the power to direct the CEO not to progress a complaint involving the Mayor to the preliminary investigation stage;

(v) Amends the Code to provide that the powers in (iii) and (iv) can only be exercised where the decision-makers form the view that the complaint does not have a reasonable prospect of being declared material;

(vi) amends the Code to clarify that complaints and information relating to the resolution of complaints are confidential up to and including the preliminary investigation stage (to allow ‘without prejudice’ discussions, with a view to early resolution of complaints) ;

(vii) amends the Code to clarify the expectations of Council and the CEO of external investigators when conducting a preliminary investigation. Emphasis will be placed on the following requirements:

(a) that the onus is on the complainant and subject of the complaint to provide all the information and evidence relied on, as part of their initial complaint or response;

(b) telephone calls may be made to clarify the information or evidence, but that face-to-face interviews or further investigation of the issues will only be undertaken if the complaint is of a particularly serious nature;

(d) Any other requirement of the CEO;

(viii) amends the Code to include a new category of breach, being a “substantial breach”. A substantial breach is a breach of the Code that does not meet the “material breach” definition but is still more than a minor or technical breach;

(ix) amends the Code to provide that a substantial breach is to be treated the same as a material breach in terms of process;

(x) directs the CEO to appoint a new panel of external investigators, with a preference for investigators willing to work on a low cost or pro bono basis;

(xi) directs the CEO to make enquires and provide a list of names of potential candidates for the Code of Conduct Committee to the Mayor, with a preference for candidates willing to work on a low cost or pro bono basis;

(xii) endorses the existing process where only members or the CEO can make complaints under the Code but clarifies that a member or the CEO can make a complaint based on information and evidence supplied by the public or an organisation. Any such complaint will be a complaint by the CEO or the member who makes it; and

(xiii) clarifies that complaints received by Council staff which concern the Code will be forwarded to the Mayor’s Office. The Mayor will either progress or decline to progress the complaint.

Background

2. At the start of the current triennium, Council adopted a new code of conduct, based on a template developed by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

3. Through the course of dealing with a number of complaints under the Code of Conduct (the Code) some issues were identified, set out in more detail below.

4. First, under the LGNZ process, the CEO receives all complaints under the Code. The CEO was then obliged to send a complaint to an independent investigator for a preliminary assessment. The issues with this process were:

a. It allows complainants to submit complaints, without providing adequate information or evidence in support. This places a burden on external investigators, who are forced to spend large amounts of time gathering information and evidence (at cost to Council), in order to properly determine the complaint.

b. There was no capacity for the issue to be resolved in-house, through informal means, before being forwarded to an external party.

c. The panel of external investigators was comprised of suitably qualified professionals. Complaints were treated seriously and investigated fully, which resulted in substantial cost to Council.

5. Second, there was some uncertainty around the process where an external organisation or person wished to make a complaint under the Code. Under the previous process, anybody could make a complaint. Under the LGNZ process, one of three major issues identified was “members of the public making complaints about the behavior of individual members for reasons that appear to be more concerned with settling ‘political’ differences,” rather than breaches of a code of conduct. The guidance then goes on to set out:

Who can make a complaint?

The Code is designed to be a self regulatory instrument and as a result complaints can only be made by members themselves and the chief executive. All complaints must be made in writing to the chief executive who is obliged to forward them to an independent investigator for a preliminary assessment [emphasis mine].

6. The final potential issue identified is around the ‘material’ threshold established by the Code. An alleged breach of the Code is only taken further if it is considered material. The definition of material is:

An alleged breach under this Code is material if, in the opinion of the independent investigator, it would, if proven, bring a member or the council into disrepute or, if not addressed, reflect adversely on another member of the council.

The establishment of this threshold by LGNZ was to address a finding of the Office of the Auditor General in its report of Codes of Conduct (OAG 2006) where the Auditor General found that many councils lacked a process for distinguishing between trivial and serious breaches of a code of conduct and consequently spent considerable energy and resources dealing with complaints on what were, in effect, matters of no concern.

Discussion

Form of complaints

7. During consultation on proposed changes to the Code, the CEO and members seemed to be in agreement with the idea that the burden should be placed on a complainant (and respondent) to provide all the information and evidence they are relying on to substantiate a complaint, along with the steps they have already taken to attempt to resolve the issue. To this end, an amendment is recommend the requires a complaint to contain the following minimum information:

a. The nature of the complaint, including the parts of the Code that are alleged to have been breached.

b. How the breach, if proven, would bring a member or Council into disrepute, or, if not addressed, reflect adversely on another member of Council.

c. What steps the complainant has already taken to resolve the complaint.

d. Include all the information and evidence relied on to substantiate the breach.

8. A complaint could be rejected at any stage as incomplete, if it did not contain these details.

9. The requirements to provide all information and evidence relied on would also apply to a member defending a complaint.

Informal resolution of complaints

10. As a ‘stopgap’ measure, Council has already amended the Code process to require all complaints to go to the Mayor in the first instance. The Mayor will then attempt to resolve the complaint through informal dispute resolution.

11. If a complaint cannot be resolved through informal dispute resolution, it is also recommend that the Mayor and CEO, acting jointly, have the power to refuse to progress a complaint to the preliminary investigation stage. The current recommendation is that this power could only be exercised where they are of the view that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of being declared material.

12. Where the Mayor is involved (either as a complainant or as the subject of a complaint), there are two viable options. One is that the complaint goes directly to the preliminary investigation stage.

13. The second option is currently recommended. It involves the complaint being considered by a Committee consisting of the current Chairs of Council standing committees who do not have an interest in the complaint. This Committee would have the power to direct the CEO not to progress a complaint to the preliminary investigation stage. It would be subject to the same provisio that the power could only be exercised where the Committee is of the view that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of being declared material.

14. One final matter under this heading is whether this part of the process (including the complaint) should be considered confidential at this stage. The theme of the Code is that complaints, including the results and any hearing, should be made public, unless there are good reasons to withhold information or close proceedings. However, to encourage informal resolution, it is recommended that Council considers an initial complaint, and any attempts to resolve it informally, to be subject to an obligation of confidence. This would be in the public interest as it would allow ‘without prejudice’ type discussion to occur, with a view to resolving complaints early. The complaint and any further information would then be publically available if the complaint proceeded past the preliminary investigation stage.

Preliminary investigations by external investigators

15. Through the complaints already made and subject to preliminary investigations, benchmarks have been set in terms of the likely outcome of different types of complaint. This has resulted in a better understanding of the Code and how it is applied and should, therefore, lead to fewer complaints in future.

16. The change in process to have informal resolution as the first step should also mean that most complaints can be resolved internally and should not reach this stage of the process.

17. However, where a preliminary investigation is required, it is suggested that the following conditions apply:

a. The brief to external investigators makes it clear that the onus is on the complainant and subject of the complaint to provide all the information and evidence relied on, as part of their initial complaint or defence.

b. The expectation of Council is that telephone calls may be made to clarify the information or evidence, but that face-to-face interviews or further investigation of the issues will only be undertaken if the complaint is of a particularly serious nature.

c. The investigation should be proportionate to the potential harm that might result if the breach is proven.

18. The panel of external investigators will also be reconsidered, with the cost of these services being a primary factor when appointing new panel members.

Complaints by the public or organisations

19. As outlined above, currently only the CEO or a member of Council can make a complaint under the Code. It is suggested that this remain the case, with the understanding that the CEO or a member can make a complaint on the basis of information and evidence provided by a member of the public or an organisation. That complaint will be a complaint from the CEO or member who makes it, not the member of the public or organsiation.

20. Where a complaint is received by staff, the recommended process is that it will be forwarded to the Mayor in the first instance. The Mayor can then assess the complaint (in consultation with staff if necessary) and decide whether to take up the complaint himself or forward it to the CEO or another member for their consideration.

21. If the Mayor does not decide to take up the complaint, he will advise the complainant of this.

The material threshold

22. The threshold for a material complaint has been set out above. It is a reasonably high threshold. The most common scenario for a complaint under the Code has been that breach has occurred but that the breach does not meet the threshold to be considered material. This essentially means the complaint does not advance to be considered by the Code of Conduct Committee.

23. There has been a sense that some councillors are unhappy with the result of a breach being found but the complaint not proceeding because it does not meet the material threshold.

24. To this end, a new category of a “substantial breach” breach is recommended. A substantial breach would be more than just a minor or technical breach and so should come with some consequence. It would not be at the level of a material breach. If this recommendation is adopted then the process can be amended so substantial and material breaches follow the same process. Both would continue to be considered by the Code of Conduct Committee.

Legal Considerations

25. A vote of 75% of the members present is required to amend the Code.

Financial Considerations

26. The aim of the proposed amendments is to reduce the financial impact of complaints under the Code. The amendments are targeted at reducing the number of complaints under the Code and the early resolution of any complaints that are made.

27. Where a complaint does progress, the amendments provide for controls to limit or remove any external cost.

28. A current recommended direction to the CEO is that a panel of external investigators be found who would work on a pro bono basis. This is currently being investigated by staff.

29. Similarly, a suggested course for people appointed to the Code of Conduct Committee is that they might be paid a low “per meeting” fee to cover their cost of travel and incidentals.

Other Considerations

30. 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 deals with a process where members agree to hold themselves to standards of conduct that allow the focus to be on efficient and effective governance.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Bradley Cato

Solicitor

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

Road Hierarchy				Road-space Hierarchy
NZTA One Network Road Classification	NZS4404
National Road				No parking
Regional Road	Major arterial
Arterial	Minor arterial
Primary Collector	Connector/Collector
Secondary Collector	Connector/Collector		Live and Play	Shop and Trade & Work and Learn	Make, Grow, and Move
Access	Local Road		(Residential and Parks)	(Retail and Services & Offices and Schools)	(Agricultural, industrial, and warehouses)
Access (Low Volume)	Lane
		1	No stopping zones	No stopping zones	No stopping zones
			Existing property access	Existing property access	Existing property access
			Public transport stops	Public transport stops	Public transport stops
		= 2	Mobility parking	Mobility parking	Mobility parking
			Active modes – including provision for removing car park spaces for walking and cycling infrastructure	Active modes – including provision for removing car park spaces for walking and cycling infrastructure	Active modes – including provision for removing car park spaces for walking and cycling infrastructure
		3	Drop off/ pick up zones (schools/ rail)	Amenity - inc. landscaping and/or adding street furniture	Drop off/ pick up zones (schools/ rail)
		4	Residential parking	Drop off/ pick up zones (schools/ rail)	Loading Zones
		5	Short-term parking	Loading Zones	Motorcycle/scooter parking
		6	Loading Zones	Short-term parking	Local employee parking
		7	Amenity - inc. landscaping and/or adding street furniture	Motorcycle/scooter parking	Short-term parking
		8	Motorcycle/scooter parking	Residential parking	Amenity - inc. landscaping and/or adding street furniture
		9	Residential visitor parking	Local employee parking	Residential parking
		10	Local employee parking	Residential visitor parking	Residential visitor parking
		11	Commuter car parking	Commuter car parking	Commuter car parking

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Proposed Reclassification of Reserve - 105 Western Hutt Road	415

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Right of Way Mitchell Park	418

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	1 Korimako Road Encroachment	422

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩

Power to (being a power that is not capable of being delegated)[1]:

Decide on:

Policy issues

District Plan

Representation, electoral and governance matters

Delegations and employment of the Chief Executive

Meetings and committees

Operational matters

Appoint:

Mayor W R Wallace (Chair)
Deputy Mayor D Bassett
Cr G Barratt	Cr C Barry
Cr L Bridson	Cr J Briggs
Cr M Cousins	Cr S Edwards
Cr T Lewis	Cr M Lulich
Cr G McDonald	Cr C Milne
Cr L Sutton