community boards – functions and delegations

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

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

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

These delegations are based on the following principles:

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

· Efficient decision-making should be paramount;

· Conflicts of interest should be avoided and risks minimised;

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

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

These delegations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DELEGATIONS

Decide:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider and make recommendations to Council on:

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Provide their local community’s input on:

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

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

· Changes or variations to the District Plan.

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

· The disposal or acquisition of significant assets.

· Road safety including road safety education within its area.

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

· Review Local Community Plans as required.

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

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

Co-ordinate with Council staff:

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

Maintain:

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

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

Develop:

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

Grant:

· Local community awards.

Promote:

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

· Arts and crafts in its area.

Appoint:

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

Endorse:

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

EASTBOURNE

A STATEMENT OF BASIC PRINCIPLES

The Eastbourne Community Board, representing the people of Eastbourne;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further:

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

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Eastbourne Community Board

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

Tuesday 12 June 2018 commencing at 7.15pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

3. Presentations

Presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council (18/817)

A verbal update by Cr Prue Lamason from Greater Wellington Regional Council.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

5. Minutes

Meeting minutes Eastbourne Community Board, 3 April 2018 13

6. Reports referred for BOARD input before being considered by SUBCommittee of Council

Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018 (18/968)

Report No. ECB2018/3/164 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 21

7. Chair's Report (18/808)

Report No. ECB2018/3/88 by the Chair 29

8. Representation Review - Options Consultation (18/955)

Report No. ECB2018/3/87 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 32

9. Ecology and Landscapes Consultation - Update (18/1002)

Memorandum dated 6 June 2018 by the Divisional Manager District Plan 52

10. Greater Wellington Regional Council Bus Shelter Renewal Programme (18/843)

Memorandum dated 21 May 2018 by the Member 54

11. Eastbourne Community Board's Submission to Hutt City Council's Long Term Plan (18/953)

Memorandum dated 31 May 2018 by the Committee Advisor 61

12. Committee Advisor's Report (18/658)

Report No. ECB2018/3/16 by the Committee Advisor 66

13. Information Item

Proposed Building Development in York Bay (18/960)

An update from Ms Sutherland on a proposed subdivision in York Bay.

14. Reports from representatives on local organisations

a) Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust (18/776)

Verbal update by Mr Gibbons

b) Vibrant Village (18/777)

Verbal update by Mr Gibbons

c) Okiwi Trust (18/778)

Verbal update by Ms Sutherland

d) Educating Residents Around Trapping (ERAT) Steering Group (18/779)

Verbal update by Ms Sutherland

e) Days Bay Wharf Steering Group (18/780)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Mr Ashe.

f) Community Response Group (18/781)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks or Ms Knight.

g) Plastic Free Eastbourne (18/783)

Verbal updated by Ms Horrocks or Mr Ashe.

h) Eastbourne Youth Workers' Trust (18/784)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

i) Eastbourne Childcare Community Group (18/785)

Verbal update by Ms Knight.

j) Keep Hutt City Beautiful (18/787)

Verbal update by Ms Horrocks

15. 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.

Judy Randall

COMMITTEE ADVISOR

20 12 June 2018

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Eastbourne Community Board

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

Tuesday 3 April 2018 commencing at 7.15pm

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

APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Ms V Horrocks.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services

Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager (part meeting)

Ms J Randall, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Members noted the apology from Ms V Horrocks.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. Presentation

Presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council (18/363)

Ms Lamason clarified that the Ecology and Landscapes consultation, which included Significant Natural Areas (SNAs), was a Hutt City Council initiative rather than an initiative of Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC).

The Chair advised a local group of residents had been formed and they had resolved to continue communication with Council regarding SNAs. The General Manager Corporate Services, explained that the Ecology and Landscapes consultation had been enacted in response to rules established by GWRC and Central Government.

Ms Lamason advised that Whaitua Committees were to be established by August to help with decisions on local land and water management. Applications for membership of the Committees would be publicised via social media and the GWRC web page.

Ms Lamason advised that the Airport Flyer (the Flyer) Hutt Valley service was an exempt service in terms of the NZ Bus contract with GWRC. It required no subsidy and had not been assessed as integral to the network of services because it duplicated other bus or train services. Ms Lamason listed a number of other bus services in this category including most school buses. She was clear that NZ Bus was within its rights to terminate services that were not profitable.

In response to questions from members, Ms Lamason advised that statistics on bus patronage were only kept for transport services that received subsidies. She said subsidising the Flyer service would require expenditure to be re-prioritised and added that any decision to prioritise public good over profit would require an increase in rates. Ms Lamason believed there would be sufficient room for passengers on trains if the Flyer service was to be discontinued but acknowledged train patronage was increasing.

Ms Lamason advised the GWRC Long Term Plan was open for consultation. She encouraged submissions from the community.

In response to questions from members, Ms Lamason invited the Chair to contact her to request information on proposed changes to the Eastbourne Bays’ bus shelters. She suggested a GWRC representative might be able to attend a Board meeting to further update members on plans for the bus shelters.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

5. Minutes

Resolved: (Mr Gibbons/Ms Knight) Minute No. ECB 18206

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Eastbourne Community Board held on Tuesday, 13 February 2018, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Report referred for board input before being considered by subCommittee of Council

	Kaitawa Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/408) Report No. ECB2018/2/77 by the Senior Traffic Engineer
	Speaking under public comment Ms S Connell, a York Bay resident, expressed concern about road safety in Kaitawa Road. She lived near the junction of Kaitawa and Waitohu Roads and was aware of dangerous driving situations caused by the narrowness of the road. She advised the T bar junction of Kaitawa and Waitohu Roads was blind and unsafe and advocated for no parking spaces to improve visibility and allow vehicles to stay on the correct side of the road as they turned. In response to questions from members, Ms Connell advised she had surveyed residents in the immediate area and they agreed with the proposed safety improvements. She did not believe speeds would increase as a consequence of the changes, because parked cars on the street would help to control speed. Speaking under public comment Ms F Rashbrooke, a long time York Bay resident, supported the extension of no parking lines on Kaitawa Road. She said this would help mitigate traffic problems in the road. She noted there was sufficient parking for cars on other sections of Kaitawa and Waitohu Roads. Speaking under public comment, Ms Connell presented letters from three residents of Kaitawa and Waitohu Roads. The letters expressed support for extending the no parking lines on Kaitawa Road. The residents suggested the no parking lines be extended to a distance that made it safe for vehicles to pass parked cars and still be on the correct side of the road before the junction with Waitohu Road. They noted that increasing levels of brisk moving traffic on the road had exacerbated the problem. One resident expressed concern that parking may become more of an issue on Waitohu Road as a result of the changes, and asked Council to reassess parking throughout York Bay. The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report. He said the proposed changes were in an area that was very narrow for cars to pass and close to a tight corner. He advised the proposed changes would improve safety in an area of road that had steep topography and limited visibility. He estimated the changes would improve sight distance by up to 33 metres. In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that only two or three parking spaces would be removed as a result of the changes and he considered that safety issues were a higher priority than parking.
	Resolved: (Mr Gibbons/Ms Sutherland) Minute No. ECB 18207 “That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”
7.	Election of the Deputy Chair (17/1872) Memorandum dated 21 March 2018 by the Committee Advisor
	Resolved: (Mr Gibbons/Ms Sutherland) Minute No. ECB 18208 “That the Board: (i) notes that the selection of a Deputy Chair in the 2016-2019 triennium be on a rotational basis; and (ii) agrees that Mr R Ashe be elected to the position of Deputy Chair from 4 April 2018 until after the Eastbourne Community Board’s first meeting in 2019.”

Chair's Report (18/362)

Report No. ECB2018/2/38 by the Chair

The Chair commended Ms Horrocks’ letter to Council highlighting issues with consultation on SNAs. Cr Lewis said the letter underlined the important work of the Board in connecting community and Council.

Mr Ashe noted some of the actions logged for the Walkaround were not supported by the Board. He advised that he would contact Ms Horrocks for clarification. The General Manager Corporate Services explained that any member of the public was able to log a RAP (Report a Problem) with Council.

Resolved: (Mr Gibbons/Cr Lewis) Minute No. ECB 18209

“That the Board:

(i) notes the report; and

(ii) urges Council to ensure the informal consultation period on Significant Natural Areas is extended until all individual property owners who wish to consult with officers have been able to do so.”

Committee Advisor's Report (18/364)

Report No. ECB2018/2/13 by the Committee Advisor

Mr Ashe thanked officers for information they had provided on road closures and road maintenance around the bays. He noted Council had spent relatively little on cleaning up storm damage in recent years and indications were that storms had not been increasing. He envisaged this might change with the progression of climate change.

Ms Sutherland noted there were funds available for Board training and suggested members look at opportunities for training before the end of the financial year.

Resolved: (Mr Gibbons/Cr Lulich) Minute No. ECB 18210

“That the Board receives and notes the report.”

10. Information Items

a)	Wellington Water Ltd - Community Water Stations Update (18/374) Report No. ECB2018/2/39 by Wellington Water Limited.
	Members noted the report.
b)	Central Districts Pest Control Ltd - Update on the TBfree New Zealand Programme (18/396) Report No. ECB2018/2/40 by the Committee Advisor
	Members noted the report.

Ecology and Landscapes Consultation Update (18/407)

Memorandum dated 19 March 2018 by the Environmental Policy Analyst

Members noted the report.

Mr Ashe provided background to the consultation. He said the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement required all identified landscapes to be protected and retained. He highlighted that even scrub covered areas framing harbours might be classified as needing protection. He added that SNA classifications might increase land values by attracting residents because of the bush clad landscape.

In response to a question from a member, the General Manager Corporate Services, advised that every site identified as a SNA would be visited if requested by residents.

11. Reports from representatives on local organisations

Eastbourne and Bays Community Trust (18/350)

Mr Gibbons said that 13 of the 16 Heritage Trail signs had been completed and the sign on Eastbourne Wharf would be installed once the wharf had been upgraded. He had received favourable feedback from the local community about the Trail.

Mr Gibbons requested that approximately $600.00 be allocated to sponsoring both the HW Shortt display on the Heritage Trail and a sign at the Days Bay Ferry Terminal to direct passengers to the trail.

Resolved: (Mr Gibbons/Cr Lulich) Minute No. ECB 182111

“That the Board approves expenditure from its miscellaneous administration budget for the Heritage Trail for:

(a) a display sign at HW Shortt Park; and

(b) a sign at the Days Bay Ferry Terminal;

totalling approximately $600.00.”

b)	Vibrant Village (18/351)
	Mr Gibbons advised there was nothing to report.
c)	Okiwi Trust (18/359)
	Ms Sutherland advised there was nothing to report.
d)	Educating Residents Around Trapping (ERAT) Steering Group (18/352)
	Ms Sutherland advised there was now a second run of monitor lines. She added that a heat map had been released to monitor the traps. She noted trap line operators were having difficulty selling their traps.
e)	Days Bay Wharf Steering Group (18/353)
	Mr Ashe advised there had been no meeting.
f)	Community Response Group (18/354)
	Ms Knight advised they had attended the Battle of the Bays event and had trialled emergency response activities. They intended doing the same at Muritai School to coincide with the Wahine memorial event.
g)	Keep Hutt City Beautiful (18/355) Report No. ECB2018/2/41 by the Chair
	Cr Lewis advised that Council’s free text or phone tag line service for graffiti removal was very effective and graffiti would be painted over within 24 hours of notification.
h)	Plastic Free Eastbourne (18/356)
	Mr Ashe advised the Plastic Free Eastbourne bag launch event had been postponed to Saturday 7 April. He said that 500 bags had been completed, not the 300 reported in the previous minutes. He added that higher priced supporters bags could also be purchased to maintain the initiative. Mr Ashe would let members know more details about the launch.
i)	Eastbourne Youth Workers' Trust (18/357)
	Ms Knight advised there was nothing to report.
j)	Eastbourne Childcare Community Group (18/358)
	Ms Knight advised the current Chair of the Group was relocating and a new Chair would be required.

12. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.11 pm.

Mr M Gibbons

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of June 2018

25 12 June 2018

Eastbourne Community Board

01 June 2018

File: (18/968)

Report no: ECB2018/3/164

Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of three School Zone 40km/h Variable Speed Limits for Muritai Road, outside Muritai Primary School; Knights Road, outside St Peter & Pauls School; Dowse Drive, outside Maungaraki School - as shown attached as Appendices 1 to 3 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the specified parts of

(a) Knights Road, Myrtle Street and Bloomfield Terrace (for St Peter & Pauls School);

(b) Muritai Road (for Muritai Primary School);

meet the New Zealand Transport Agency warrant conditions for 40km/h Variable Speed Limits in School Zones;

(ii) resolves that Variable Speed Limits in School Zones, that 40km/h variable speed limits be set from 1 August 2018 for areas around the following schools:

(a) St Peter & Pauls School, attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(b) Muritai Primary School, attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(iii) requests officers to undertake all necessary actions to give effect to these resolutions under the provisions of the Rule.

For the reasons:

· To reduce the likelihood and consequences of crashes involving children arriving at or leaving school.

· To provide a safer road environment outside schools and reinforce driver expectations of the likely presence of children.

Background

2. School Zone 40km/h variable speed limits are an approved New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) safety measure to reduce the likelihood and consequences of crashes involving children arriving at or leaving school. They provide a safer road environment outside schools and reinforce driver expectations of the likely presence of children.

Discussion

Warrant for School Zone 40km/h Variable Speed Limits

3. A road controlling authority may only set a 40km/h variable speed limit in a school zone under the following conditions:

a. There is a high level of school-related activity on the road outside the school with at least 50 children crossing the road or entering or leaving vehicles at the roadside; and

b. The traffic on the road outside the school meets at least one of the following conditions:

i. The mean speed of free-running vehicles is greater than 45km/h;

ii. The 85^th percentile speed of free-running vehicles is greater than 50 km/h;

iii. There have been speed related crashes in the previous five years; or

iv. The school-related activity in condition (a) occurs on a main traffic route.

Periods of Operation

4. National and international use of school zone variable speed limits show that they are effective in reducing speeds but have the support of drivers only if there are children present when the speed limit is operating. Therefore, the times the variable speed limit is activated must be tightly controlled to match, as closely as possible, the times children are crossing the road or are gathered on the road side. These times vary from school to school and from time to time.

5. The maximum periods of operation on school days are:

a. 35 minutes before the start of school until the start of school

b. 20 minutes at the end of school, beginning no earlier than 5 minutes before the end of school; and

c. 10 minutes at any other time when at least 50 children cross the road or enter or leave vehicles at the roadside.

6. The variable speed limit is controlled by electronically operated signs on main roads and fixed signs on adjoining low volume roads. The school year timetable is pre-programmed in advance and the electronic signs are automatically turned on and off, at the start and end of school. In addition the Principal can manually introduce the variable speed limit for those periods covered in 5c. above, but the system will automatically turn the signs off after the stipulated 10 minutes.

Provisions concerning the setting of speed limits

7. The Subcommittee must ensure that it applies the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (“the Rule”) when it recommends a speed limit to Council.

8. The Rule provides that:

a. The Council must consider the safe and appropriate speed limit for a road with regard to the function, nature and use of the road, its environment, land use patterns and whether the road is in an urban traffic area or rural area;

b. Council must set or review speed limits in accordance with the Rule (section 2.2 of the Rule); and

c. Section 2.7(1) of the Rule allows Council to set a variable speed limit under its Speed Limits Bylaw subject to approval by NZTA.

9. The school zones generally meet the warrant conditions set by NZTA in paragraph 3 above.

Options

10. The options are:

a. to leave the area as it is without any changes and accept the current safety concern will remain;

b. improve the safety for children and traffic in the vicinity of the schools by installing the proposed changes attached as Appendices 1 to 3 to the report; or

c. propose an alternative solution to improve the current level of service.

Consultation

11. Before setting a speed limit, Council must consult with affected persons and organisations in accordance with s2.5 of the Rule. When deciding to set the speed limit Council must take account of submissions received during consultation (s2.6(2) of the Rule).

12. Consultation letters and plans were delivered to all households and businesses within the specified parts of the roads.

13. Consultation letters and plans were also sent to organisations affected by the proposed speed limit changes (being New Zealand Police, New Zealand Fire Service, Wellington Free Ambulance, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Automobile Association, Valley Flyer (NZ Bus) (Tranzit) and the Lower North Island Region – Road Transport Association New Zealand).

14. The results of the consultation are summarised below.

15. The proposal is supported by all three schools: Muritai Primary School; St Peter & Pauls School and Maungaraki School.

16. For the Muritai Primary 40km/h Variable Speed Limit, 35 consultation letters were delivered to local residents and 13 replies were received all in support of the proposal.

17. Additional comments included:

- “I Think the zone should be extended to include us (Barnardos Kidstart 199 Muritai Rd) & to cover the intersection of Makaro St/Muritai Rd. this is a busy intersection, Many School Children cross Makaro Rd on bikes/scooters. also the only crossing is near 167A Muritai so lots of our families cross from us at 199 to the opposite side of the road (to School side)”

o Officers’ response:

The current proposed location of the 40km/h variable speed sign is best situated for visibility and power supply. Alternative locations on the east side of Makaro Street were investigated however these compromised visibility and/or power supply to the sign.

- “It is a bit silly to have on either end of the speed restriction zone a piece which has one lane at 40km/h and another at 50km/h both restriction lanes must start and finish at the same spot”. (In reference to the staggered section)

o Officers’ response:

The proposed locations are best situated to make use of existing infrastructure, suitable location, provide necessary visibility to the sign and to not destabilise from existing signs.

18. For the St Peter & Pauls School 40km/h Variable Speed Limit, 60 consultation letters were delivered to local residents/Businesses all in support of the proposal.

19. Additional comments included:

- To be updated for Traffic Subcommittee

20. For the Maungaraki School 40km/h Variable Speed Limit, 80 consultation letters were delivered to local residents/Businesses all in support of the proposal.

21. Additional comments included:

- To be updated for Traffic Subcommittee

22. Of the consultation letters sent to the organizations, NZTA, Automobile Association and Road Transport Association responded to the proposal in support. There were no other responses received from any of the other organisations by the due date for this report. Any responses subsequently received will be tabled at the meeting.

- To be updated for Traffic Subcommittee

23. The Eastbourne Community Board will consider the recommendation in relation to Muritai Road outside Muritai Primary School, at its meeting on 12 June 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 18 June 2018.

Legal Considerations

24. The process for the determination, setting and approving of speed limit is set out in Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 Rule 54001 and the Hutt City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2015.

25. Following review and consultation, Council must set a new speed limit if it decides that the existing speed limit is not the safe and appropriate speed limit for that particular road (s2.7 of the Rule).

26. Under The Rule, the NZTA is empowered to audit Council for compliance with the Rule and issue directions to review or change the speed limit, or any of its procedures to set speed limits.

Financial Considerations

27. The cost of supplying and installing the signage can be funded by existing budget for new School Speed Zones.

Other Considerations

28. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides a safe speed limit in school zones to improve safety for all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it meets current NZTA conditions for variable school zone speed limits and uses the latest technology in electronic signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	St Peter & Pauls School 40kmh Plan June 2018	26
2 ⇩	Muritai Primary School 40Kmh consultation Plan June 2018	27
3 ⇩	Maungaraki School Dowse Dr 40kmh Plan June 2018	28

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

Attachment 1

Chair's Report June 2018

Eastbourne Community Board Chair’s Report June 2018

Eastern Shared Path

The Project Team has progressed both the Detailed Design and the Assessment of Environment Effects which took considerably longer than expected due to the technical complexity of the project.

Alongside this process the team also undertook additional discussions with some individual bays and residents on several items of local importance which have been absorbed into the design where necessary.

These plans will be shared with Residents’ Assns for distribution and available for viewing on the HCC website.

The design team appreciate some people may still have some feedback or comments on the design after looking at the updated plans, however to avoid any further delays on lodgement they have been asked to make these during the formal submission process.

Representation Review

Council has directed officers to develop a package of options for community consultation and report back to the Policy and Regulatory Committee on 2 July 2018 with a draft representation proposal based on the results of that consultation.

This preliminary consultation will be used in the development of representation options

to be consulted on later in the year. Details are in the officer’s report later in the agenda which says that information will be available in the Hutt News and on the council website and hard copies will be available at libraries in the community.

At the time of writing this report ( June 6^th ) one week into the “consultation” period, there has been no publicity or information available either on the Hutt City website or in the libraries. There was nothing in the May 29^th Hutt News, just as the consultation period was meant to begin, and we can only hope it will be in tomorrow’s Hutt News. The Board has background information for this meeting but at this stage is unable to direct residents to a site where they can access information or make submissions. This is not acceptable as genuine consultation.

Wharves

The refurbishment of the wharves will be reviewed after the condition of the piles under Rona Bay Wharf were found to be much worse than first thought and officers expect to find similar conditions when Days Bay and Petone wharves are inspected further and additional work is likely to be significant. It is not unusual for the full situation to only become clear once work has started and the cost of Rona Bay wharf alone is likely to double. The cost and new timeframes will not be available until further analysis has been done.

Significant Natural Areas

Discussion and negotiation between residents and Council are on-going. The ECB believes that Eastbourne residents value our environment and hope landowners’ concerns can be resolved.

The officers’ report later in the agenda outlines the latest developments.

Planning Issues

Residents have raised concerns with ECB members about the lack of notification of building consents by the HCC planning department. Anna Sutherland will report on the proposed subdivision in York Bay.

Skate ramp and basketball court at San Antonio

Drawings for the skate ramp at San Antonio are in the final stages and work is likely to begin in the next few months. Once the design is complete the likely process will be to remove the concrete where necessary and put in top soil, then install the ramp and finally plant the perimeter.

Basketball hoops are to be installed and a court marked between the ramp and the tennis courts for casual play. Organized hoop club will remain at Wellesley where more than 90 primary and intermediate age youngsters have coaching on Saturday afternoons. The court at San Antonio will give young players somewhere to practise and play informal games and will provide an alternative activity for non-skate boarders and those who are waiting their turn on the ramp.

34 12 June 2018

Eastbourne Community Board

31 May 2018

File: (18/955)

Report no: ECB2018/3/87

Representation Review - Options Consultation

1. On 22 May 2018, Council agreed to consult the community on possible options for a draft proposal for the city’s representation arrangements.

2. This paper provides the Board with information regarding:

a. The options for consultation

b. The consultation approach and timing

c. Background information that will provided to each Board and also to the community to support community consultation

Recommendation

That the information in the report be noted and received.

3. A survey was conducted from 3 April 2018 to 15 April 2018 on Council’s representation arrangements. This survey was the first step Council took to prepare for the development of a draft representation proposal which must be consulted on and approved prior to the 2019 local government elections. The survey was sent to all ‘Hutt City Views’ panel members.

4. That survey provided Council with information on which to develop a set of options for representation which will be tested via survey (both telephone and Citizen’s Panel) over the period 31 May to 2 July 2018.

5. At the same time Council will be publicising the consultation on these options via its web site (a page that will be devoted to information about the Representation Review is being prepared), Hutt Views (in Hutt News), working with Boards and Community Panels to assist them with any engagement they would like to undertake and providing background information on both the website and having hard copies of that information at libraries in the community. A copy of the background information, information about Boards and Panels and the draft engagement plan are attached as Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

6. The options for Council are:

a. Status quo – elected by wards

b. Mixed – 6 ward Councillors and 6 at large

c. At large only

7. The options for second tier representation are:

a. Status quo – Community Boards in Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata and Community Panels in the Northern, Eastern, Western and Central wards

b. Community Panels across the city

c. Community Boards across the city

d. No second tier representation

8. People will be asked if they want second tier representation and if yes, what form that representation should take.

Final Draft Proposal

9. Feedback on the options available for representation will inform the development of Council’s final draft proposal for representation arrangements. Public notice of the final draft proposal will then be given and the community consulted. The likely timeline is as follows:

Date	Action
31 May to 2 July	Public consultation on options available for representation (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above)
2 July to 24 July	· Public feedback considered · Draft proposal for representation prepared for Council’s consideration and resolution
6 August to 9 September	Public consultation on draft proposal for representation
10 September onwards	· Where there are submissions - consider submissions, make any amendments · No submissions – final proposal
24 September	Results of public consultation and final representation proposal to Policy and Regulatory Committee for approval
17 October	· Council resolution on final representation proposal · Public notice given
25 October to 22 November	Appeal period
23 November	· If no appeals – final public notice · Appeals and objections – forwarded to Local Government Commission. Commission has until 10 April 2019 to consider appeals/objections and make a determination
11 April 2019	Appeals to High Court (if any lodged)
12 October 2019	Local government elections

10. Officers will be available to assist Boards and Panels with engagement with their communities and/or providing information as required.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Representation Review background information and options analysis	35
2 ⇩	Boards and Panels responsibilities	45
3 ⇩	Representation Review Engagement Plan 2018	46

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

Representation Review background information and options analysis

REPRESENTATION REVIEW – Background Information and Options Analysis

Introduction

The overriding principles that have to be considered when looking at representation are:

· Fair and equal representation

· Equal opportunity to vote and to stand as a candidate and

· Public confidence in and understanding of the local electoral processes^{^[3]}

Local authorities must take these principles into account when making decisions the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Representation – what does it mean?

Representation means an action or speech on behalf of a person, group, business house, state, or the like by an agent, deputy, or representative. A person does not need to be elected to represent other people. A good local example of this is Resident’s Associations many of whom make regular submissions to Council on matters of local interest. People do not stand for election as a member of a Citizen’s Action Groups for example however this does not mean that they cannot and/or do not represent people who live in the area which the Resident’s Association works in.

Effective Representation

Effective representation means representation that reflects “significant characteristics of the electorate such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, locality and age” and “encourages close links and accountability between individual elected members and their constituents”.^{^[4]} This needs to take account of the nature and locality of those communities of interest and the size, nature and diversity of the district or region as a whole.^{^[5]} One submission to Lower Hutt’s 2001 Representation Review sums this up: “effective representation is achieved by having Councillors elected locally with who[m] residents can identify and can have a reasonable chance of knowing and judging their abilities.”^{^[6]}

Fair representation

Fair representation relates to the number of persons represented per member. The ratio of persons per member in each ward or constituency is required to be within +/-10% of the ratio for the district or region as a whole. This is designed to ensure approximate equality in representation i.e. votes of equal value.^{^[7]}

Communities of Interest

In 2007, the Local Government Commission’s view, as outlined in their guidelines to local authorities on the representative review process, was a little more expansive. They suggested that:

A community of interest is the area to which one feels a sense of belonging and to which one looks for social, service and economic support. Geographic features and the roading network can affect the sense of belonging to an area. The community of interest can often be identified by access to the goods and services needed for ordinary everyday existence. Another community of interest factor could be rohe or takiwa area of tangata whenua.^{^[8]}

So common features of a community of interest are geography and social, economic and cultural connections, all of which contribute to the development of a shared identity.

In their more recent 2017 Guidelines for Representation Reviews the Commission says:

One definition^{^[9]} of ‘community of interest’ describes it as a three-dimensional concept:

· perceptual – a sense of belonging to a clearly defined area or locality

· functional – the ability to meet with reasonable economy the community’s requirements for comprehensive physical and human services

· political – the ability of the elected body to represent the interests and reconcile the conflicts of all its members.^{^[10]}

The following criteria should be used when considering fair representation of communities within a larger community.

Distinctiveness: a community board might be considered appropriate to provide effective representation for distinct communities of interest, which may or may not be isolated, and which have a strong sense of identity, distinct from the city as a whole

Representation: a community board might be considered where a distinct community of interest is unlikely to be directly represented on the territorial authority. Such a lack of effective representation might be caused by low population within the community, low councillor numbers, large wards or an absence of wards. A community board might also be considered where a distinct community of interest is deemed to be under-represented and unlikely to have its issues and concerns fully considered by the territorial authority

Access: physical proximity to the territorial authority offices, staff and elected members may be an important consideration. The decision will also be influenced by the presence or absence of mechanisms to gather a community’s views e.g. ward committees, community or residents associations, councillor clinics or regular local authority-organised fora in those communities.

Effective governance: local authorities may wish to consider establishing community boards where more devolved forms of decision-making are seen as desirable in order to provide effective governance. This may occur in local authorities with large populations and be designed to bring local government closer to the people and where devolving neighbourhood-based issues to community boards has the effect of freeing up the time of councillors to focus on metropolitan or district-wide issues.

Options for Council elections

· Status quo – councillors elected by ward. There will be two Councillors per ward as there is now

· Mix of ward and at large – one Councillor per ward, six elected at large

· Council elected at large only – no ward Councillors

Considerations:

Pros

· allows equal geographical representation

· local councillors understand local needs/wants and local issues are advocated for

· gives all legitimate groups, especially those with a geographic base, a better chance of being represented on the city council

· ward Councillors are more attuned to the unique problems of their constituents, such as crime levels, small lot development, trash pick-up, potholes, and recreation programs

· ward elections may improve citizen participation because councilmembers who represent a specific district may be more responsive to their constituency

· wards enable Councillors to stay in touch with community grass roots

· ward system makes standing for a local area more accessible for the average person

· allows for diverse opinion from all areas of the town to be considered

· reduces the possibility of special interest groups and large campaign contributors influencing city government

· greater accountability to the residents of each ward

Cons

· Ward system may encourage parochial decision^{^[11]} making i.e. ward Councillors not considering the entire city when making their decisions

· Ward system means that means people only have a vote for 2 out of 12 councillors i.e. all Councillors vote on issues that are local and specific to other wards yet people in those specific wards do not get to vote for all Councillors

· Those areas with Community Boards have greater level of elected representation – ward Councillors and a Community Board

· Lack of diversity of candidates

· vote trading between Councillors on different decisions to ensure they get decisions favourable to their ward

Mix of ward Councillors (six) and Councillors elected at large (six)

Pros

· Can help to facilitate a balance of viewpoints – a ward perspective and a city wide perspective

· Has potential to increase diversity of candidates standing

· Council members will be advocates for the ward in which they live

· Reduces potential for parochial decision making and could encourage Councillors to think more about the good of the entire community and less about the interests of their ward and of their own re-election prospects

Cons

· Has potential to create “A and B grade” candidates – at large candidates might be viewed as better than ward councillors as they are elected by the whole city, this could affect the culture of council and how councillors relate to each other;

· Multiple representatives can be elected from the same geographical area and/or economic group

· May increase the likelihood of political tickets

At large only

Pros

· More practical in cities with a population that isn’t diverse or as large – Lower Hutt has a very diverse population and areas of high deprivation

· Council members are responsible for representing the needs and wishes of all of the people in the city

· Moving away from wards would encourage Councillors to think more about the good of the entire community, and less about the narrow interests of their ward and of their own re-election prospects

· Place the emphasis on population across the board and equity of representation

Cons

· Costs to stand far greater as candidates have to cover the whole city. This may mean that some potential candidates won’t be able to stand at all and reduce the diversity of candidates

· Can weaken representation of minority groups and restrict diversity of candidates particularly from candidates from high deprivation areas of the city

· Greater potential for special interest groups and large campaign contributors influencing city government

· Multiple representatives can be elected from the same geographical area

· Difficult for at large council members to be fully aware of and respond to issues

Options for second tier

· Status quo – a mix of Community Boards (in Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata) and Community Panels (Northern, Eastern, Western and Central wards)

· Community Panels only across city – appointed representatives

· Community Boards only across city – elected representatives

· No second tier representation

Considerations for having second tier representation in the city

General

· Does the city need Councillors as well as Boards and/or Panels? Cities of comparable size do not have second tier representation. Councillors are elected to Council to govern the affairs of the City and the interests of all the city’s residents. It must make itself aware of and have regard to the views of all its communities.

· Is there a greater need for second tier representation if Councillors are elected in at large or mixed (at large and wards) rather than having ward Councillors?

· Would individual geographic areas “miss out” on representation without Boards and/or Panels?

· Should there be consistency in approach to second tier representation or is “representation” sufficient whether by a Board or a Panel?

Specific

· Enables greater level of involvement in democratic process at community level providing

· Second tier representatives are more accessible and more opportunities for community involvement in local projects

· Councillors’ current access to information and links with those working at community level may be assisted

· Adds a “local voice” to the debate –second tier representatives represent the resident communities and business communities of their specific community.

Community Boards

Community Boards were established as part of local government reform in 1989 which disestablished the old Boroughs of Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata. Boards are elected every three years along with all other elected members. Board members serve three year terms and then must stand again for election. These groups meet every six weeks: all the meetings are open to the public, except for items considered under ‘public excluded’ business. At the start of each meeting time is made for public comment; anyone can speak for three minutes on any item that is in the order papers.

The following link will take you to the Terms of Reference for current Community Boards - http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=3&Uri=3688711

Community Boards are elected to represent the views of the local community and are delegated certain roles and responsibilities by Council. Lower Hutt’s current Community Boards are:

· Eastbourne

· Petone

· Wainuiomata

These communities were Borough Councils prior to the 1989 amalgamation of councils. Eastbourne and Petone are represented by two ward Councillors – Wainuiomata also has two ward Councillors.

Community Board members are remunerated per annum as follows:

Per Triennium	TOTAL	Chair	Members
Eastbourne	$39,070	$13,070	$6.535
Petone	$$54,315	$15,560	$7,780
Wainuiomata	$57,211	$16,390	$8,195

Other funding per annum

	Eastbourne	Petone	Wainuiomata
Engagement Fund	$2366	$6250	$8607
Miscellaneous	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000
Training/Professional Development	$3000	$3000	$3000

Community Panels

Council established four community panels in the Central, Eastern, Northern and Western ward communities in July 2017. Each panel consists of up to five appointed community representatives along with two ward councillors. Representatives are appointed through an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process with appointment decisions made by the Mayor and relevant ward councillors. Through the EOI process applicants need to:

· Demonstrate a real commitment and passion to local community

· Demonstrated ability to work proactively and constructively with a team

· Clear evidence of a connection and strong networks with local community groups and residents

· Live in the local community

· An interest in local body matters and/or including an interest in standing for Council in the future

· Demonstrated ability to represent their community – in the community and in formal public settings, including Council

Also considered are:

· Professional skills

· Existing membership to community groups – e.g. Residents Associations, Marae, School Boards etc.

The role of the panels is to represent and act as an advocate for the interests of their communities. The purpose of the panels is outlined in the general functions outlined below:

· Discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting

· Allocate and manage a Local Community Projects Fund

· Allocate and manage the local Community Engagement Fund for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Western wards to assist and support local community events and initiatives.

The community panels meet as needed. The following link will take you to the Terms of Reference for current Community Panels - http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=3&Uri=4642155

Funding each year

Per Triennium	TOTAL	Central	Western Hills	North	East
Honorariums	$53,731	$13,433 (less tax)	$13,433 (less tax)	$13,433 (less tax)	$13,433 (less tax)
Engagement Fund (no change)	$31,626	$9,320	$6,201	$7,644	$8,461
Admin Budget	$12,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000
Training/Professional Development	$24,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000
Community Projects Fund	$114,250 per annum or $457,000 for three years	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)

Community Panels can choose whether to use all the Community Fund Projects money in one year or split the fund over the 3 years of the triennium.

Attachment 3

Representation Review Engagement Plan 2018

representation review Engagement plan

Project lead: Wendy Moore, Divisional Manager Strategy and Planning

Timing: 30 April 2018 – 2 July 2018

Engagement OBJECTIVES

Primary objective

what are your primary engagement objectives?

1. To obtain community feedback on proposed packages for Lower Hutt’s representation arrangements:

i. Status quo (Council elected by ward), and

a. no second tier representation, or

b. Community Panels, or

c. Community Boards, or

d. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

ii. Council elected as a mix of ward and at large, and

a. no second tier representation, or

b. Community Panels, or

c. Community Boards, or

d. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

iii. Council elected at large, and

a. no second tier representation, or

b. Community Panels, or

c. Community Boards, or

d. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

2. Obtain Community feedback regarding their preferred package for Lower Hutt’s representation arrangements 21^st May 2018-8 June 2018

Secondary objective/s

what are your secondary engagement objectives?

1. Community understands the options for electing Council – ward, mixed (ward/at large) and at large and can make an informed choice

2. Community understands the difference between Community Boards and Community Panels and can make an informed choice regarding second tier representation

3. Community understands the meaning of representation being: a person or organisation that speaks, acts, or is present officially for someone else; the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented. There is no need for that representative to be elected

· Community Panels - Representation means discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting, assist and support local community events and initiatives, manage local community projects fund, manage community engagement fund

· Community Boards - represent and act as an advocate for the interests of the community this includes providing feedback on services, Annual Plan working with community interest groups, undertake delegated responsibilities

RISK MANAGEMENT

Risks	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
Low response from general public	Medium	High	Publicising the survey through rates demands if possible, separate flyer, Hutt Views, HCC web site, digital notice boards in libraries, administration building, community hubs
People do not understand the difference between community panels and Community Boards	Medium/High	High	· Ensure material accompanying the survey clearly explains the options available · Have information on HCC website · Have person that can be directly contacted by members of the public who need further explanation of the options
Low response from Citizen's Panel members	Medium	High	Ensure that panel members are suitably incentivised to respond to survey on the representation package options
Councillors are concerned about the accuracy of community feedback	Medium	High	Ensure that Councillors are comfortable with the consultation plan

Stakeholders

Identify and describe your primary (most affected) and secondary stakeholder groups. Remember to include your internal stakeholders. Complete Stakeholder Log

sTAKEHOLDERs (PRimary)	interest	notes
Council	· Community representation · Community satisfaction with that representation	· Councillors will want to ensure that representation arrangements across the city is compatible with and/or reflects the needs of the community
Community Boards and Community Panels	Community representation	These communities will want representation that ensure their interests are addressed by Council when necessary
Ex-Community Committee members	Want to know what is going to happen with representation for their area	Will be concerned that they have not been asked to be on a Community Panel
Ward councillors North, East, West and Central	· Community representation · Community satisfaction with that representation	· Councillors will want to ensure that their wards’ interests receive a similar level of representation as those areas of the city that have Community Boards · Councillor’s will want to ensure that funding requests from their wards receive appropriate consideration at community and Council level

sTAKEHOLDERs (secondary)	interest	notes
Iwi	Representation	· Will need to be kept informed about the process

APPROACH

Describe what you are planning to do and most important, why? What’s the reasoning behind certain tools, a particular style? How will you ensure they are effective? Are there any timing, seasonal or regional considerations?

Community Representation

· Hutt views – ensure debate across wider city and that people understand they can make their views known via the Citizen's Panel or directly by e mail, hard copy

· Rates demand insert if possible

· Citizen's Panel survey on options and telephone survey

key messages for Communications – community representation

cORE PROPOSITION	Proposing options for consideration for representation arrangements in the city.
primary messages	This is an opportunity to have your say on how representation is arranged in the city – both Council and second tier representation
Call to action	Have your say – should there be a change and of the options presented which option most closely represents your ideal for representation arrangements

Tasks/Key DAtes

date	task	person responsible	status
31 May 2018	Set up Citizen's Panel survey	Wendy Moore	Started
31 May 2018	Discuss communications approach	Wendy Moore Jon Hoyle	In final stages of approval at 29 May 2018
2 July 2018	Draft paper completed on preferred option for representation :	Wendy Moore
24 July 2018	Council decision made on draft representation proposal for final community consultation	Council
6 August 2018	Draft representation proposal for final community consultation

Evaluation

hOW WILLYOU KNOW YOUR ENGAGEMENT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL? hOW WILL YOU MEASURE THIS?

· Response rate to Citizen's Panel survey

· High level of understanding of proposal in community

· Involvement of Community Boards and Community Panels

· Final draft proposal isn’t appealed or objected to

Engagement tools / channels

Internal

· Our Space

External

· Hutt Views

· Citizen's Panel

· Rates demands

· Digital notice boards

· HCC web site

· HCC Face Book

Distribution

How will you distribute your communication materials? See above.

Sign-off

Signed	Wendy Moore
Date	21 May 2018

MEMORANDUM 53 12 June 2018

Our Reference 18/1002

TO: Chair and Members

Eastbourne Community Board

FROM: Andrew Cumming

DATE: 06 June 2018

SUBJECT: Ecology and Landscapes Consultation - Update

Recommendation

That the Board receives and notes the memorandum.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. To update the Board on the Ecology and Landscapes Consultation.

Background

2. Council is continuing its preliminary consultation with landowners on identifying and protecting sites of significant ecology, landscapes, and coastal natural character.

3. Since Council wrote to landowners earlier this year, a large number of people have been in contact by telephone, email, and in-person meetings. The views of landowners on this project have been diverse with some opposed, some in support, and many simply seeking more information and clarity.

4. Some landowners have indicated inaccuracies in the initial identification of sites and have requested to have the area identified removed or reduced.

5. As the initial identification of sites of significance was based on aerial photos and existing documents, a key aim of the consultation has been to verify the accuracy of the areas identified. As a result of these discussions, a number of draft Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) have had areas reduced or removed. On request by landowners, Council is also carrying out site visits with ecologists to further verify the significance of the identified areas. So far there are around 100 requests for site visits to re-assess the area of significance identified, or to provide landowners with more information on the ecology on their site.

6. In addition, Council has developed further grounds for reducing or removing SNA boundaries. These include:

· excluding an area of five metres around legally established buildings with a footprint greater than 10m2;

· excluding areas that have regenerated or been planted within the last 23 years, as evidenced by 1995 aerial photography; and

· removing river beds including that of the Wainuiomata and Orongorongo rivers.

Next Steps

7. The site visits requested by some landowners are being carried out and will be completed over the coming months.

8. We are looking to set up a collaborative working group made up of representatives from all interests including landowners, iwi, community associations and conservation organisations.

9. The working group will be challenged to develop a package of District Plan regulations and non-regulatory incentives and support measures that will achieve native biodiversity protection goals and satisfy legislative requirements. Council staff will assist with information and advice as required but will not influence the working group’s recommendations to Council. The working group sessions will be run by an independent facilitator.

10. The working group’s recommendations will formally go to Council’s District Plan Committee for consideration. The recommendations will influence the makeup of any District Plan provisions plus the incentives and support measures that Council will provide.

11. The timing of any formal District Plan change will depend on the progress of the working group and the nature of its recommendations. Realistically, any District Plan change would be unlikely before 2019.

12. Leading up to the formation of the collaborative working group, Council proposes to run 3 briefing workshops:

· one for representatives of landowners;

· one for representatives of conservation and ecological interest groups; and

· one for representatives of community associations. An invitation to the Community Board will be sent in due course.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Andrew Cumming

Divisional Manager District Plan

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

MEMORANDUM 55 12 June 2018

Our Reference 18/843

TO: Chair and Members

Eastbourne Community Board

FROM: Murray Gibbons

DATE: 21 May 2018

SUBJECT: Greater Wellington Regional Council Bus Shelter Renewal Programme

Recommendation

That the Board notes and receives the report.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. To update the Board on the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) bus shelter renewal programme.

Background

2. At the Eastbourne Community Board meeting held on 3 April, a question was raised about GWRC’s plan to renew bus stops across the region. Concern was expressed about the possible removal of some of Eastbourne’s character bus stops and their murals.

3. Mr Gibbons made contact with the Metlink Manager Bus and Ferry – Networks, Infrastructure and Customer Transition, and received the following response:

Thank you for getting in touch regarding the renewal of bus shelters in Eastbourne. Councillor Lamason passed your emails through to me and asked me to respond on her behalf.

It’s great to hear you take great pride in your local community.

I thought I would provide you with a bit of a background to our bus shelter renewal programme. Over time, as assets come to the end of their useful life, we need to renew/replace assets. We replace assets when an asset fails to meet the required level of service, where it is no longer cost-effective to continue repairing it or where the risk of failure and associated environmental, public health, financial or social impact justifies proactive action. Again, this is like replacing your car when it gets to the point where it’s just too expensive to maintain any longer. The second picture attached to this email shows a shelter in Eastbourne where the wood is starting to rot away, this was taken just the other day by one of our staff. While this is still able to be maintained, it won’t be long before larger areas of the wood in the shelter also begins to rot, and the shelter will need to be replaced.

In order to support us in our forward work programme each year, we undertake condition assessments where we rate each asset on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘very good’ and 5 being ‘very poor’ (this is in line with international best practice asset management). Each year we then go about replacing the poorest performing assets first. We are also working our way through the ‘concrete bunker’ bus shelters as in a large earthquake event we feel that this design of shelter is at the most risk of failure. Another aspect we take into account is ensuring our passengers are safe when using the bus shelters. We call this CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) where we try to ensure there are no enclosed spaces where someone is able to be trapped. Many of these older shelters do not meet these design standards.

In Eastbourne, we have one more shelter in the pipeline to renew this financial year. This is located at bus stop 8857 ‘Muritai Road at Tawa Street (near 446)’ as is shown in the first attached photo. We have no other shelters in Eastbourne on our list to replace within the next year. However over time, and as the assets continue to deteriorate, we will need to replace shelters in Eastbourne.

With regards to the bus shelters with murals – we totally agree that these look great (I especially love those birds in suits!) unfortunately these will eventually need to be replaced too. However in other areas around Wellington when we have replaced similar shelters, we’ve been able to keep a little of the old with the new. The third attachment shows an image where our signage contractor has taken an image of the mural and had it placed on the laminates that we put over the glass to reduce graffiti and vandalism.

When we install a new shelter the black skirting around the bottom of the shelters is the last step in the process of the installation. The skirts are only measured up once the shelter has been installed to ensure that the skirts are the perfect size/shape to fill the gap – I certainly don’t want cold ankles when waiting for the bus! If there are any new shelters without the skirting in Eastbourne, these should be on the way very soon.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Eastbourne Bus Shelters	56

Author: Murray Gibbons

Member

MEMORANDUM 60 12 June 2018

Photo 1: Eastbourne Bus Garage shelter

Photo 2: Tawa street shelter

IMG_1757,IMG_1758

Photo 3: Shelter cnr Makaro Street and Muritai Road

Photo 3B: Shelter cnr Makaro Street and Muritai Road

Photo 4A Mahina Bay shelter

Photo 4B Mahina Bay shelter

Photo 5: York Bay shelter

Photo 6: Lowry Bay shelter

Photo 7: Point Howard shelter

Attachment 1

Submission - Eastbourne Community Board

Submission on HCC Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028

April 2018

Appreciation

The Eastbourne Community Board (ECB) supports the long-term vision of Council to revitalize Hutt City, in particular the focus on housing.

The Eastbourne community appreciates two major projects: the refurbishment of Rona and Days Bay wharves and the Eastern Shared Path. The refurbishment of Rona wharf is progressing well and the final plans for the Eastern Shared Path are very close to being ready for submission for resource consent. These projects are expected to benefit Hutt City as a whole and the Wellington region as well as residents of Eastbourne.

Eastbourne is also working well with Council’s emergency response team and welcomes the provisions in the operating grant towards a permanent facility. The quality of material produced recently by WREMO and the support from the current local WREMO / HCC officers is excellent.

The installation of community water stations at Lowry Bay and Days Bay are particularly welcome. Wellington Water, Hutt City Council’s Parks team and local residents combined to determine the best placement for these.

Locals were also involved in deciding the locations for the Eastbourne and Bays tsunami blue lines.

The Eastbourne Community Board supports

· The introduction of a rates postponement scheme for residential ratepayers aged 65 years and over. Some of our elderly home owners do not qualify for the income assessed support but find it difficult to pay their rates. A rates postponement scheme would enable those residents to stay in their homes and remain part of their community.

· The increase of the rates remission from 50% to 100% for charitable organizations used for sporting, recreation or community purposes that do not hold a liquor licence. We view this increase as important for smaller, local organisations which are struggling to remain viable and dependent on local volunteers but not necessary for organizations that have an income from the sale of alcohol.

Climate change

In our 2015 submission on the 2015-2025 Long Term plan we welcomed the inclusion of climate change as one of the four key issues that will affect our infrastructure over the next 30 years. We also welcome the recent appointment of a Sustainability and Resilience Manager to the city management team.

Our 2015 submission also noted Council’s intent to prepare by 2022 a programme of works that will be needed to increase the city’s ability to manage climate change we stressed that a great deal more would need to be budgeted for these projects than the budgeted amount of $10 million to be spent between 2026 and 2045.

The new long term plan ( Consultation Document p. 15 ) has a very fine paragraph on the importance of playing an active role in the regional response to sea level rise and climate change and says “It is vital that we understand the impact this will have on our city and infrastructure, and develop responses to meet this challenge” and the Hutt City “plans to work collaboratively via the framework of the Natural Hazards Management Strategy and the Wellington Region Climate Change Working Group”.

However, the $10 million proposed from 2026 has vanished from the 2018-28 LTP. Page 12 of the consultation document states “We have made provision ($30M) in 2038-48 for future projects responding to climate change.” The proposed amount has increased to $30million but the starting date has been pushed out by 12 years.

This time frame is mind boggling. How serious is Hutt City about action on climate change?

It is also difficult to reconcile this LTP consultation document with Council’s own policy documents e.g

Policy and Regulatory Committee 22/2/2017

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: To address the issues of climate change and sea level rise we need to mitigate and adapt. As we look for adaptation solutions we will need to ensure that we engage and create partnerships with affected communities to ensure we develop positive solutions. Mitigation activities can start as soon as possible, and we need to ensure they do, but adaptation needs to be a well thought out and inclusive process.

2015-45 Environmental Sustainability and Implementation Plan

Issue: Climate change Over the next 30-40 years, Hutt City will need to make significant adaptations to address climate change impacts. …… Council will need to ensure that a sufficient level of preparation and funding is in place to assess ongoing risks and to take action as necessary

Both these documents clearly outline the challenges facing the Hutt Valley but, despite the bold headline, there is no implementation plan. We ask council to give urgency to the creation of a detailed plan to respond to climate change. This plan should include specific action points, a timeline and the budget to enable this to happen.

We are delighted to see a concrete proposal which we hope will be the beginning of this process.

The Eastbourne Community Board strongly supports the actions and recommendations on sea level rise report received by the Policy and Regulatory Committee on 30^th April. We urge Council to allocate the requested $100,000 for inclusion in the LTP to

(a) acquire and use sea level rise maps to identify threatened places, assets and communities in Lower Hutt and develop specific response options.

This tool would provide data at a granular level that would assist Council plan for adaptation and mitigation for individual assets and households.

(b) Begin engagement with Lower Hutt communities to build a common understanding of the risks faced by the community, particularly the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts associated with climate change.

The Eastbourne community would welcome the opportunity to be part of this project.

Virginia Horrocks – Chair Eastbourne Community Board 2/4/2018

The Eastbourne Community Board wishes to speak to this submission.

Attachment 1

Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround 2018 Updated 5 June 2018

Eastbourne Community Board Walkaround 10 March 2018 – updated 5 June 2018

Place	Who	Issues
	ECB Officer - Samantha Whittam, Assistant Contracts Officer - 027 404 9955 Murray Gibbons - 021 236 1099

Place	Who	Issues
Point Howard – bus stop	Allison Gandy
	Allison Gandy	Roads - Pedestrian signage in Point Howard – raised in 2017 - More signs needed to ensure motorists are aware of vulnerable walkers on hill leading to forest park entrance. Notes from 2017 - 1/. Howard Rd at both intersections with Nikau Rd; 2/. Howard Rd above Nikau; 3/. Ngaumatau Rd, 4/. Howard Rd below Nikau Rd. 1 new sign installed after 2017 report. Road conditions should be adhered to, NO to additional signage as littering with signs is no benefit. Question of cost was raised, not a cost issue, more lack of benefit.
	Allison Gandy	Howard Rd BYL’s fading – . Logged #406682. Last carried out Feb 2017, next due on schedule for February 2019 addition Nigel has audited Howard Road for faded BYL's. BYL's are only faded on the chip seal (rather than the asphalt which is flat) from the lower Nikau Rd intersection to the lookout. I have passed the remarking to our contractor for completion in the next month (weather depending).
	Allison Gandy pthowardassn@gmail.com	Allison logged #406111 regarding all areas for trimming – Additional cut already happened this season, to only do more for H&S reason.
	Allison Gandy	15 Howard Road footpath broken up – Logged #404869 Temporary repairs to be carried out and programmed for replacement.
	Allison Gandy	Resealing 23 Howard Road - required on footpath between 23 Howard and 1 Nikau Road as mostly gravel. #406001 – Work has been done here and footpath dug up, unknown timeframe for how long ago, Reinstated 21/03/2018. –Only half done. Nigel chased FH who did not complete as first stated, to return and complete all. Now complete 28/05/18.
	Allison Gandy	5 Howard Road - The front wall at the new build is 1m closer to the road than the previous retaining wall causing a hazard for pedestrians. Logged #406695 with Consents Div. to look into.
	Allison Gandy pthowardassn@gmail.com From 2017 Ongoing	Roads - Noisy Chorus plates – raised in 2017 1. Outside 63 Howard Rd extremely noisy. Has been temporarily fixed on multiple occasions but HCC needs to insist that chorus find a lasting solution. 2. Between 7 -9 Nikau Rd clinks very loudly every time a vehicle goes over. Logged # 405793 Resident at Nikau has liaised with Chorus directly on this issue over the last 12months and best resolution is to report and tighten if comes loose, relocating the plate is not a feasible option. Currently with Chorus to check this out as it seems that the contractors providing fibre to properties are not tightening the lids sufficiently once they have completed their work. Been in touch to reiterate to do so.
	Allison Gandy From 2017 - No specific location/issue given, HCC requested to be logged by RA with full details. Now raised again with details needed.	The seal should be widened on the north side of Ngaumatau Road between number 2 and number 82 (Howard Road). - The width of the road can’t be extended. A large section of the land bordering the north side is private property and existing power poles and drainage would have to be shifted at major expense. Complete.
	Allison Gandy	HSE - Ongoing noise pollution from Seaview – Scrap metal recyclers – McCaulays have improved since better practice has been encouraged, still in talks with SIMS. Noise control has escalated response time to any reports as immediate instead of 30 min callback. Seaview Street Sprints excess noise – Unhappy about no notification of events. – HCC requested to organisers to place signage advertising on Seaview Rd coming up to the event. Any ‘practice’ causing noise before or after the event is not tolerated and needs to be reported as and when happening to noise control to take action with the organisers.
	Allison Gandy pthowardassn@gmail.com	HSE - 200m buoy off Point Howard beach – Request for a buoy to stop jet skiers / boats coming too close to shore at speed. Logged # 406002 to Parks & Gardens Div. Is this HCC responsibility to consider?? Allison emailed advising I have forward her request onto the Wellington Harbour Master as this is under their management.
	Allison Gandy	Graffiti - Ongoing issue with graffiti on the Howard Rd Reservoir tank -. It is cleared when reported but as a deterrent is using it as mural canvas a possibility. – Logged # 406719 to ask the question if having the tank as a mural canvas location for HCC is an option? – With Mel Gardner (Graffiti Eradication Officer) Mel has spoken to an Eastbourne Community Board member about this and agreed to look into doing a mural here in the next financial year. Site visit 4/05/18 not a heavy traffic area for sponsors to sponsor and push as a priority site. Will remain on the list if a local artist wants a site.
Place	Who	Issues
Lowry Bay - bus stop	David Miller dandjmiller.nz@gmail.com 027 484 4258	Speed of traffic through Lowry Bay – suggestion - a speed indicator? Or other measures to slow traffic. - No changes will be made until shared path design is done. Also looking at Traffic Counts for any warranted changes. To install ‘speed feedback’ electronic sign, 1 with the possibility of a 2^nd one.
Place	Who	Issues
York Bay – turnaround point, Kaitawa Road
	Susan Ewart	Parking at the turnaround point of Kaitawa Road –suggestion - some yellow lines to help guide people. – Mentioned on the day about consultation for BYL’s and no docs received by no.4. The BYL’s under consideration are for the intersection of Waitohu/Kaitawa Rd, outside no.2 and would not affect no.4 therefore no need for documents to no.4 residents. Logged # 406893 for consideration of BYL’s further up near no.4 at turnaround. -Put out for consultation.
	Susan Ewart ewartsusan@hotmail.com 04 568 4980 or 027 415 2815	Cracking and subsidence – on the top section of Waitohu Road – Logged # 406901 with photo. To investigate. - This area of pavement has had a number of bandage repairs over the years that have failed. To dig out the cracked pavement area & soft base material & replace on the 3 month programme…
	Anna Sutherland anna@yorkbay.net.nz	Potential traffic issues - where a housing development is to be built on Waitohu Road and road issues with extra traffic. – No consents have been given, still at the application stage. Traffic Assessment Report and Construction Management Plan have been requested prior to any approvals and will be considered thoroughly.
		Blue Tsunami Lines faded – Already reported by another for Rona Street, other areas have been noticed a couple of others as well. To look at all of them next week and then organise a repaint of the faded/washed out ones. Geoff has done the audit, 15 needing repainting, a further 5 will need redoing after winter. The problem with painting now is getting 4 days drying before and 2 days after so I have given the job to Nigel Parking to arrange with the contractors.
Place	Who	Issues
Mahina Bay - bus stop
Place	Who	Issues
Sunshine Bay – petrol station
	Anthony Morsinkhof amorsinkhof@gmail.com 021 0201 7524	Speed limit - Should be lowered to 50km for all of Sunshine Bay. Near accidents on a daily basis. Blind spot when turning North from petrol station. – No changes will be made until shared path design is done.
	Del deljon100@gmail.com	Change placement of 50Km Sign opposite petrol station - Can the 50km sign to be moved back to be seen prior to approaching the petrol station instead of after – Logged # 406923 cannot move the sign due to where speed restrictions start and finish, will look into the possibility of an advanced speed warning sign (although not standard in the Hutt) - It is likely that the posted speed limits along Marine Drive will be reassessed under the new NZTA Speed Management Guide following completion of the Eastern Bays shared path, the final design of which may affect the safe and appropriate speeds in the area.
Place	Who	Issues
Days Bay - Williams Park Pavilion	dbra.eastbourne@gmail.com
	Request from 2017	Williams Park - Mapfinder – from 2017 - Ongoing request for a wayfinder map to direct to Tennis Courts etc. - New design guide now adapted, test in a different area then roll out. Expected completion is in first quarter of 2018.
	Mike Henderson dbra.eastbourne@gmail.com on behalf of Phil Sprey & Pamela Rutherford	Kotari Road: Request for Give way sign at intersection of Kotari Rd and Ferry Road – Logged # 406929 request. Reviewed continuity line marking and tear drop island Wellesley School parking – Need for more BYL’s? – Logged # 406930 to consider BYL’s on one side. The Transport Section designed a solution which would have seen ‘No Stopping At All Times’ marked on the eastern side of the road. The reason for proposing that side of the road was that there is no footpath on the eastern side of the road, and that children would not have to cross the road. This proposal was sent to the properties in Kotari Road. The feedback was that the proposal was not supported by the residents, and the proposal therefore did not proceed.
	Grant Stotter, Hamish Morrison	Kereru Road Parking (GS) – Cars parking on BYL’s, unable to pass. – Needs to be reported when witnessed so parking enforcement can act upon. Using the RAP online system is ideal. Stop sign missing (GS) – request for reinstatement of the stop sign and associated white line at the Kereru Rd exit from Williams Park – Logged # 407016 request. Passed on to get installed Google 2008 shows faded yellow line across the width of the entry/exit of Williams Park at Kereru Rd and an old white 100x100mm post. There is no sign or STOP on the ground. Decide if a Stop should be installed. Road Markings (MH) – No road markings on Kereru Rd exit onto Marine Drive - Consider giveway sign and/or road marking for safety.Only “no parking” markings exist and not “giveway” or centre line exist. Logged # 407017 request. Passed on to have Continuity Line installed of entrance/Tree is in middle of Kereru Rd at intersection with Marine Dr. Kereru Rd is 5m wide except just before Marine Dr & at tree.
	Scot Gilchrist	Macrocarpa trees continual falling branches Kereru Rd - #406267 Tree branch to be removed. We have asked an independant arborist - Arbortech to provide a report on both trees with recommendations.
	Request from 2017	Stopping the incessant sand flow across Marine Drive from Days Bay Beach. Suggest the construction of a small nib wall which would (a) stop the sand drift and keep that precious commodity on the beach and (b) provide welcome seating and security for families visiting the Bay. - Logged # 374794 (2017) - This will be looked at as part of the Shared walkway/cycleway project.
	Mike Henderson, Robin and Scot Gilchrist, Don and Michele Long	Petanque Piste (DL) / Reserve area / Grass Tennis courts – The Petanque Piste is in need of several wheelbarrow loads of fresh crushed chalk. - Logged # 407022 request. Restricted access to the reserve (MH) - Keep restricting vehicle access by way of locked gate to the reserve. Do not let it become a car park. Keep access for people and dogs. Signs (MH) - Consider “pick-up after your dog signs” & Dog bag station would be a great asset at the entrance to the reserve. Also revamp the out of date notice sign on the Moana Road end to read that the "Tennis courts are for tennis only and no other games are to be played on them"and more "dog " notices to be put up . Only one at Moana Road now as others removed (presume by public) and a number of people regularly use this as a dog exercising area Soggy patch on recreation area – Large area of grass near Volleyball court along the back hedgeline, it is very soggy in winter and summer. Could be a breeding ground for Mosquitoes. Drainage seems to be an issue. . - Logged # 407023 as a request for all issues raised above to be considered/looked into. - Justin Arthur responded to requestor with outcomes.
	Steve Newman, Grant Stotter, Mike Henderson	Cleaning around beach area Days Bay – during peak summer Extra bins - Emptying rubbish bins more frequently (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and considering placing even more green bins about to cope with pizza box overflows so common around the wharf/bins. Logged # 407024 Thanks you for your enquiry regarding the litter bins in and around Days Bay. As I am sure you are aware we have experienced an abnormally great summer this year and it has placed a lot of additional use on our litter bins, Hutt City Council has made significant changes to the amount of bins and amount of servicing to try and help with this issue. With these changes we saw a large improvement in the amount of mess and feel it was well worth making the change. HCC is not looking to install further bins in the area for multiple reasons, but we are planning to readdress the programme of temporary bins and servicing of all bins as we roll into summer later this year in hope we don’t have a repeat of this year. Including the bins at tennis courts/reserve area of Williams Park Logged # 407025. Justin Arthur responded to requestor with replies.
	Steve Newman	Williams Park Caretaker House – HCC own this house? No longer part of Pavillion license? Poorly maintained. Suggest demolish to make way for extra car parking. – Logged # 407026 Suggestion. Justin Arthur responded to requestor with replies.
	Delphine Gore	Parking outside 601 to 603 Marine drive - Cars parked on the bend coming out of Days Bay towards Sunshine bay, are parking too close to the white and yellow line, this is dangerous for pedestrians – This needs to be reported to Council (phone / RAP) as and when witnessed for parking enforcement to be able to take action.
	Phil Sprey, Mike Henderson hendos12@gmail.com	Life Guards at the beach –I think paid life guards (by the HCC) on the beach during peak season are the way to go. There are paid life guards at the Eastbourne swimming pool. What is the difference? I’m sure in terms of numbers the beach has more volume and possibly more risk (drowning) attached. They could be based out of the changing shed but would not be responsible for the wharf jumpers and swimmers as I believe that is a separate safety issue that should be addressed as part of the wharf repair and wharf steering group. - Something for HCC to consider next summer. DBRA to discuss options.
	Phil Sprey	Railing on the park side of the pedestrian crossing outside Williams Park. - To stop children running across the road without thinking as they come out of the park to cross to the beach. – Logged # 407320 Quote accepted 10/05/18 to install tactiles on either side of the road..
	Mike Henderson (DBRA) hendos12@gmail.com	Speed humps/traffic calming at crossing on Marine Drive near Moana Rd - a number of near misses from vehicles driving straight through without stopping while pedestrians are on or trying to cross. This is while sitting at the cafes. It appears that drivers are distracted, not concentrating or looking for a parking space. A speed hump or other traffic calming device is needed – to slow down / alert the drivers – Logged # 407322 request. With Alan H Traffic Div..
	John Rainey-Smith jraineysmith@gmail.com	Pitoitoi Rd Zig-zag track requires resealing. It has worn away and tree roots are pushing up the surface. Also gutters get blocked and water spills on to the path when it rains like a riverbed. Can this be looked at? - Logged # 407324 This track is on a regular maintenance list for cleaning. No trip issues, just minor cracks noticed.
	Phil Sprey	Summer time parking issues – People looking for parking causes congestion and that the Williams Park crossing is unmanned, unsually letting past 1-2 cars at busy times. Naturally everyone heading to the beach from outside the area has an expectation there will be a park. Suggest ECB arrange a meeting with the Board/Principal at Wellesley to use the main ground as a parking precinct policed by a community group like Rotary and with a small nominal parking fee which could be shared between the school and the community organisation. They could potentially hold as many as 150 cars and under supervision/ T&C’s easily control this area. Worth a meeting/discussion? – ECB / DBRA would need to discuss with school, private issue not Council.
	Rick Barnes richard.barnes@barnesgroup.co.nz	Persistent flooding of road and foot path at 628 Marine Drive Days Bay due to blocked storm water sump and pipe. Maybe sorted as of 7 March? - Wellington water repaired. Exposed buried manhole that was in the carraigeway, where there is a pipe that leads to the seawall, opened and cleared, all working well since. – Complete.
Place	Issue	Explanation
Bishops Park
	Alan Collins alan.sallycollins@xtra.co.nz	Post at entrance to Bishops Park lying at 45 degrees – One of the posts at the entrance to Bishops Park is on a lean and not holding the chain barrier in place. - Logged # 405370 Issued to contractor for repair. With Downer..
	Nicole Smith - 027 645 022 (not available for Walkaround)	Maire Street car park to south of HW Shortt park. People having to walk/ride bikes behind parked / reversing vehicles. Currently cars park in different places not leaving a clear path for pedestrians and riders. Wants a pedestrian/cycle lane along the grass strip between the sports field and the bollards leading south to the promenade with car parking pushed back a little to accommodate it. – Logged # 404675 Plan of suggested road markings emailed to Nicole, going forward would need usual consultation process.

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

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

[4] Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, Towards a Better Democracy, December 1986, pp. 11 – 12

[5] Representation Arrangements, Code of Good Practice for the management of local authority

elections and polls 2016, SOLGM, p 4

[6] Anne-Marie Beeler, Normandale Residents Association, Submission to the Hutt City Council Review of Membership and Basis of Election for the 2001 Triennial General Election and Proposal to Establish new Communities, 11 September 2000.

[8] Local Government Commission, Guidelines to Assist Local Authorities in undertaking Representation Reviews, 2^nd edition, 2005, p. 10.

[9] The Concept of Community of Interest (1989) prepared by Helen Fulcher for the South Australian Department of Local Government.

[11] In the 2001 Lower Hutt City Representation Reviews a one submitter even pointed out the benefits of parochialism through wards as a way of ensuring that Councillors were intimately aware of local issues, were accessible to residents, and reflected the city’s communities of interest so ensuring a range of views on council

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

Consulting on	Closing date
Ecology and Landscapes
Walter Mildenhall Park Reserve Classification	15 June 2018
Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings	29 June 2018