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).

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Petone Community Board

Meeting to be held in the Petone Library Meeting Room, 7 Britannia Street, Petone on

Monday 11 June 2018 commencing at 6.30pm.

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

a) Presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (18/828)

Verbal presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council

b) Presentation by Jackson Street Programme (18/829)

Verbal presentation by Ms Leonie Dobbs, Chair

c) Presentation on Neighbourhood Support Groups (18/832)

Verbal presentation by Lesley Davies, Safe Hutt Valley Co-ordinator

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

5. Minutes

Meeting minutes Petone Community Board, 4 April 2018 9

6. Smokefree Jackson Street, Petone (18/932)

Report No. PCB2018/3/82 by the Settings Coordinator - Healthy Families 17

7. Representation Review - Options Consultation (18/935)

Report No. PCB2018/3/83 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 20

8. Community Engagement Fund 2017-2018 (18/904)

Report No. PCB2018/3/50 by the Community Advisor - Funding and Community Contracts 40

9. Reports referred for Committee input before being considered by Standing Committee of Council

a) Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/942)

Report No. PCB2018/3/162 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 45

b) Randwick Road - Proposed Mobility & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone Restrictions (18/954)

Report No. PCB2018/3/163 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 49

10. Committee Advisor's Report (18/830)

Report No. PCB2018/3/15 by the Committee Advisor 55

11. Proposed New Street Names: Subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu Decision (18/671)

Memorandum dated 27 April 2018 by the Committee Advisor 58

12. Petone Community Board's Submission to Hutt City Council's Long Term Plan (18/675)

Memorandum dated 29 May 2018 by the Committee Advisor 63

13. Ecology and Landscapes Consultation - Update (18/1006)

Memorandum dated 6 June 2018 by the Divisional Manager District Plan 70

14. Chairperson's Report (18/831)

Report No. PCB2018/3/84 by the Chair, Petone Community Board 72

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.

Donna Male

COMMITTEE ADVISOR

11 4 April 2018

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Petone Community Board

Minutes of a meeting held in the Petone Library Meeting Room, 7 Britannia Street, Petone on

Wednesday 4 April 2018 commencing at 6.30pm

PRESENT: Ms P Hanna (Chair) Mr M Branch

Mr B Dyer Mr M Fisher (Deputy Chair)

Ms K Yung Cr T Lewis

Cr M Lulich

APOLOGIES: There were apologies from Mr Foaese.

IN ATTENDANCE: Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager (part meeting)

Mr Z Moodie, Traffic Engineer Network Operations (part meeting)

Ms D Male, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Hanna/Cr Yung) Minute No. PCB 18201

“That the apology received from Mr Foaese be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. Presentations

Presentation by Moera Community House (18/347)

Ms Lorraine Dick, Community House Coordinator advised the following:

· the Christmas Event on 9 December 2017, which was supported by the community engagement fund, had been great on a very hot summer’s day;

· generous donations had been made for goodie bags at the event and also hand knitted bags for raffle prizes;

· the community house had worked together with the community to collaborate on the event;

· the highlights of the event included two performances, one from the LDC Dance Team, a hip hop dance group made up of local 8-10 year olds, and a Ukulele group, both groups had only practised for 10 weeks prior to the event;

· some learning points had been identified from the event and debriefing meetings held, which would improve future events;

· this year’s event was planned for 8 December 2018.

In response to a question from members, Ms Dick confirmed that a submission would be put in Council’s Long Term Plan for a water fountain, for future events.

Ms Yung acknowledged the effort of Ms Dick and the community house to reach the community and to bring so many different groups together.

Presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (18/332)

Cr Prue Lamason from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) advised the following:

· The Cross Valley Link would be vital for Lower Hutt, in particular for the growth of Petone. After visiting transmission gully today, she thought it would be an amazing piece of construction, with scenic views, which would get a lot of use, as many people currently used SH58.

· Much community work had been done to clean the Te Mome stream. It was not on the radar for GWRC, as unfortunately there were more contaminated streams than the Te Mome Stream.

· Wellington Harbour and Hutt Valley Whaitua Group was to be established by August to help with decisions on local land and water management. Applications for membership of the Group would be publicised via social media and on the GWRC’s web page.

· A transport meeting would be held on Thursday 12 April at 7pm at the Petone Rugby Club. The Airport 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. The other bus services in this category were listed, which included most school buses. NZ Bus could decide to remove services if they were not deemed commercially viable.

Presentation by Jackson Street Programme (18/338)

Ms Leonie Dobbs, Jackson Street Programme (JSP) advised the following:

· An update was provided on the work to the facades, approximately 80% had been completed. There had been a six month extension to the process, JSP was working with one building owner to meet the deadline.

· JSP would be putting in a submission to Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) to suggest installing LED lighting along Jackson Street, as the Britannia Street crossing was still very dark.

· As trucks were again travelling along Jackson Street, she believed transport and traffic needed to be reviewed as a whole. Roadworks were planned next week along part of Jackson Street, which would cause a traffic issue.

· Along with submitting to Council’s LTP, JSP and Petone 2040 needed to also review external sources of funding. The main thing was to work together to say that Petone was the gateway to Hutt Valley, it was important for its heritage and needed to be a priority in Council’s Long Term Plan.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

5. Minutes

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Fisher) Minute No. PCB 18202

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Petone Community Board held on Wednesday, 7 February 2018, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Reports referred for Committee input before being considered by Standing Committee of Council

Memorial Park (off Bracken Street) - P180 Parking Restrictions (18/429)

Report No. PCB2018/2/79 by the Traffic Engineer

The Traffic Engineer - Network Operations elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that parking wardens had noticed the error on the signs, so were unable to enforce any traffic violations without a resolution from Council.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Dyer) Minute No. PCB 18203

“That the Petone Community Board endorses the recommendation within the report.”

The Esplanade - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/436)

Report No. PCB2018/2/80 by the Traffic Engineer

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report. He added that the site distances at the access points to the café and boating club were often obstructed. He also advised that the Heretaunga Boating Club had requested that the dashed lines, for no stopping at all times restrictions, to the east of the club not be installed.

The Chair had received further feedback from the Heretaunga Boating Club that it be recorded at the meeting it’s appreciation of the super light bollards.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Ms Yung) Minute No. PCB 18204

“That the Petone Community Board endorses the recommendations within the report and supports that the dashed lines at the East side of the Boating Club will not be immediately installed.”

7.	Proposed New Street Names: Subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu (17/1892) Report No. PCB2018/2/81 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations
	The Traffic Engineer – Network Operation elaborated on the report. He advised that two submissions from the public had been made, one attached as Appendix 4 to the report, of using the name Ron Deal within the street name. The other had been circulated to the Board via email earlier that afternoon, the names suggested were Ruru Road and Kathy Cross Road. Kathy Cross being the name of a living person, which could only be used in exceptional circumstance, in line with Council’s Naming Policy.
	The Board had been informed that Iwi was in the process of reviewing the history of the area this week, with a submission to be made early next week.
	Resolved: (Cr Lewis/Ms Yung) Minute No. PCB 18205 “That the Board agrees to delay the decision to approve new street names for the new Public and Private road off 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, until Iwi have made a submission.”
	The Board discussed making the decision through a small working group, with the final decision to be circulated to all Board members via email and the decision endorsed at its next meeting.
	Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Dyer) Minute No. PCB 18206 “That the Board agrees set up a working group to review the names for the subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, with membership as follows: (i) Cr Lewis; (ii) Ms Hanna; (iii) Mr Foaese; and (iv) Mr Dyer.”

Committee Advisor's Report (18/340)

Report No. PCB2018/2/14 by the Committee Advisor

In response to a question from a member, the Chair advised there was a meeting arranged soon for Korokoro residents effected by the ecology and landscapes consultation.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Branch) Minute No. PCB 18207

“That the Board receives and notes the report.”

Petone Community Board Awards - A Proposal for Annual Awards (18/455)

Report No. PCB2018/2/42 by the Chair, Petone Community Board

The Chair elaborated on the report. Members were asked to consider a shorter or more catchy names for the awards to be referred to, similar to how Eastbourne Community Board had the Eastbournes.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Ms Yung) Minute No. PCB 18208

“That the Petone Community Board:

(i) receives and notes the report;

(ii) agrees to establish annual Petone Community Board Awards to award up to three people a year from the areas covered by the Petone Community Board, who have made noteworthy achievements in the current year, or have made a significant contribution to Petone over a period of years;

(iii) agrees to advertise the awards in May, June and July and to present the first awards at its 3 September 2018 meeting. The advertisement will seek nominations from the public for awardees and Community Board Members will also be able to make nominations;

(iv) agrees that award citations will be researched and written by Community Board Members; and

(v) agrees that recipients will receive a framed certificate and their photos and citations will be displayed in public spaces, such as the Petone and Moera Libraries and the Petone and Moera Community Houses, as well as on the Petone Community Board Facebook page.”

10.

Submission to District Plan Change 43: Residential and Suburban Mixed Use (18/344)

Memorandum dated 12 March 2018 by the Committee Advisor

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Fisher) Minute No. PCB 18209

“That the Board:

(i) notes that a submission in respect of Plan Change 43 residential and suburban mixed use requires the Board’s retrospective endorsement; and

(ii) endorses its submission attached as Appendix 1 and 2 to the report.”

11.

Wellington Water Ltd - Community Water Stations Update (18/371)

Report No. PCB2018/2/43 by Wellington Water Limited

The Chair elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Cr Lulich) Minute No. PCB 18210

“That the report be noted and received.”

12.

Chairperson's Report (18/341)

Report No. PCB2018/2/44 by the Chair, Petone Community Board

The Chair elaborated on the report. The public meeting on Council’s Long Term Plan arranged for 11 April would now be held on the evening of 19 April 2018 at the Salvation Army meeting room.

The Chair advised that a mail drop had been undertaken in some areas of Petone, requesting contact details, in relation to Neighbourhood Support Groups. Lesley Davies, Council’s Neighbourhood Support Coordinator would attend the June Board meeting to discuss her role and the groups further.

The Chair highlighted that the Community Engagement Fund applications were open, the Chair and Mr Branch would work on a video to promote the fund.

It was noted that Mr Fisher provided an update on preparation with ANZAC Day. He noted that the programme was to be finalised and Mr Branch would bring the flag for the Petone Railway Station and also liaise with the Petone Football Club.

Members noted that the next coffe club gathering would be held on 28 April at Café Dandelion.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PCB 18211

“That the Board notes and receives the report.”

13. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

The Chair and all Board Members finished the meeting with a whakatauki, may the calm continue to be widespread.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.40pm.

P Hanna

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 11th day of June 2018

Petone Community Board

28 May 2018

File: (18/932)

Report no: PCB2018/3/82

Smokefree Jackson Street, Petone

Purpose of Report

1. To engage with the Petone Community Board on the process of designating areas of Jackson Street as smokefree areas.

Recommendations

That the Petone Community Board:

(i) notes the work to designate areas of Jackson Street as smokefree areas; and

(ii) advises and supports officers on an engagement process with businesses and the community on options for smokefree areas in and around Jackson Street.

Background

2. In May 2016 Council adopted a comprehensive Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy (The Policy). The goal of the Policy is to support smokers to quit while raising a smokefree generation. The objectives of the Policy are to:

· further de-normalise smoking for children and young people by reducing its visibility in public places; and

· contribute to improved health and wellbeing by reducing smoking and the impacts of second-hand smoke.

3. Since 1 July 2016, the Policy includes:

a. Playgrounds;

b. Outdoor swimming pool complexes;

c. Parks and sports grounds, including skate parks;

d. Bus shelters;

e. Train stations;

f. Beaches;

g. Outdoor public areas around Council buildings and facilities;

h. Smokefree Council run and funded events;

i. Outdoor pavement dining areas; and

j. Explore designating areas in town centres as smokefree areas.

4. The Policy does not have enforcement and is being be implemented through signage and promotion in order to enable citizens to take ownership of the Policy. Healthy Families Lower Hutt is leading implementation of the Policy through the Smokefree Lower Hutt Action Plan 2016 - 2019.

Smokefree town centres engagement to date

5. In early 2017, Wainuiomata and Stokes Valley were identified as initial communities to engage with regarding clause ‘j’- ‘explore designating areas in town centres as smokefree areas’. Scott Court in Stokes Valley was designated a smokefree area in October 2017 and the Wainuiomata Community Board is considering a recommendation to designate Queen Street smokefree at its June meeting.

6. Lower Hutt CBD, Petone, Naenae, Taita and Moera are the next identified communities with regards to smokefree shopping centres. These shopping centres have been prioritised as they either have high foot traffic or high rates of smoking. Officers have undertaken to engage in these communities and report to the Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting with recommendations in September 2018.

7. In Wainuiomata, Healthy Families Lower Hutt engaged with the Wainuiomata Community Board and local stakeholders to develop a local engagement and consultation process which included a survey of residents.

8. In Stokes Valley, the Community Services Projects and Relationship Team focused on engaging with retailers in order to create a smokefree Scott Court to coincide with the opening of the Community Hub in October 2017. They visited all shops and businesses in and around Scott Court to discuss their views on designating Scott Court smokefree.

Smokefree outdoor pavement dining and drinking areas

9. Engagement in Petone to date has focused on businesses that offer outdoor pavement dining and drinking areas. This has included:

· direct communication offering information, resources, signage and the offer of further conversation; and

· communication through the Jackson Street Programme.

10. Implementation of this aspect of the Policy has been difficult with slow uptake of the request to display signage and remove ashtrays.

Discussion

11. There is strong citizen support for smokefree outdoor public places in Lower Hutt. Key results from the 2016 Smokefree Lower Hutt Citizen’s Panel Survey included:

· 90% support for Lower Hutt becoming increasingly smokefree;

· 86% think smoking should be banned in areas where children are likely to be;

· 81% were frustrated when people smoked near them when they were dining outside at a restaurant; and

· 71% supported outdoor public areas in town centres becoming smokefree.

12. The 2017 Smokefree Lower Hutt Citizens Panel Survey results reported:

· Strong support for outdoor areas in the Lower Hutt CBD, Jackson Street Petone and suburban shopping centres being smokefree (over 80% for each).

· Strong support for Lower Hutt becoming increasingly smokefree (90%) including a smoking ban in all public places where children are likely to go (89%).

13. There was an overall increase in those that indicated ‘strongly agree’ to particular questions between the smokefree surveys of 2016 and 2017:

Question	Strongly Agree
Question	2016	2017
I support Lower Hutt becoming increasingly smokefree	65%	68%
It frustrates me when people smoke near me when I'm dining outside at a restaurant	59%	66%
Smoking should be banned in all public places where children are likely to go	64%	71%
It frustrates me when I'm sitting outside and someone starts to smoke near me	56%	64%

14. All local and national surveys indicate strong support for smokefree areas, including town centres, and further surveys may not be necessary. A better use of resource may be to identify issues that can be resolved or mitigated, particularly for businesses, and get some agreement on the area to be designated smokefree.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Barry Gall

Settings Coordinator - Healthy Families

Reviewed By: John Pritchard

Principal Research and Policy Advisor

Approved By: Hayley Goodin

Healthy Families Manager

32 4 April 2018

Petone Community Board

28 May 2018

File: (18/935)

Report no: PCB2018/3/83

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 web site 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 is 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	23
2 ⇩	Boards and Panels responsibilities	33
3 ⇩	Representation Review Engagement Plan 2018	34

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

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

Our Reference 18/904

TO: Chair and Members

Petone Community Board

FROM: Debbie Hunter

DATE: 24 May 2018

SUBJECT: Community Engagement Fund 2017-2018

Recommendations

That the Petone Community Board:

(i) notes that the Community Engagement Fund closed on 4 May 2018 and two applications had been received;

(ii) agrees that the applications were considered according to the merits of the application criteria and priorities of the fund. An Information Sheet is attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(iii) agrees to the recommended allocations for the Petone Community Engagement Fund 2017/2018; and

(iv) agrees that the organisations granted funding will be required to attend a meeting of the Board once the project has been completed.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. For the Board to assess and determine the funding to be granted to the eligible Community Engagement Fund applications.

Background

Community Engagement Fund

2. Hutt City Council agreed through the 2017/2018 Annual Plan to contribute $48,850 for the Community Board/Panel Community Engagement Fund.

3. This is for local activities/events that directly benefit the communities concerned.

4. In November 2017 the Board allocated $4,158.00 of the engagement fund, leaving a balance of $2,092.00 to be available in a second round of funding.

5. The fund was promoted through Hutt City Council’s grants system and through contacts/networks via members of the Community Boards/Panels.

6. Two applications were received under the Petone Engagement Fund requesting a total of $2,092.00. They are as follows:

No.	Organisation	Description	$Eligible Request
1	Moera Community House Vision is to improve the quality of life of it's members through the use of the House in the provision of and for educational, training, social and cultural programs.	Purchase of a new Brother A4/A3 inkjet multi-function printer to replace the current six year old Cannon Prixma A4 printer.	$540.00
2	TS Tamatoa Petone Sea Cadets A sea cadet unit based on the Petone foreshore and who are primarily active in enhancing the lives of children aged 10 - 18.	Purchase of an outboard motor for 2^nd safety boat used as guard for 10-12 year cadets (Dolphins) when youngsters are using kayaking and sailboats off Petone foreshore.	$1,522.00
		TOTAL REQUESTS	$2,062.00

7. The Board has $2,092.00 available to be allocated. The funds need to be allocated by end of June 2018.

8. Any organisations granted funding will be required to attend a meeting of the Board once the project has been completed.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Information Sheet - Community Engagement Fund 2017-2018	42

Author: Debbie Hunter

Community Advisor - Funding and Community Contracts

Approved By: Melanie Laban

Divisional Manager, Community Projects and Relationships

BACKGROUND

Hutt City Council made budgetary provisions in 2017/2018 of $48,850.00 per annum for the Community Engagement Fund.

Purpose

To support community development or community events in the local community with the objective of strengthening and building a community.

The Community Board (CB)/Community Panel (CP) may allocate all available funding in the first round or may decide to only allocate some and have a second round of funding. The second round of funding is normally held in May.

Who is Eligible?

Your organisation must be either an Incorporated Society or a Charitable Trust. The event/activity must take place within Lower Hutt.

Ineligible Purposes

Funding will not be granted for the following:

§ purchase of land or buildings or alterations to buildings, including building maintenance, loans and mortgages

§ organisations or groups providing services that are considered to be the responsibility of central or local government or some other funding body (such as health, education or the provision of utilities)

§ retrospective costs for activities which have already taken place or been completed (ie. costs incurred before the CB/CC meeting date to consider the application)

§ organisations or groups which seek to redistribute funds to other recipients at their own discretion

§ fundraising costs and legal costs

§ debt repayment or refinancing of existing loans

§ capital investment or trust funds

§ prize monies

§ ongoing operating costs of community groups or organisations such as rent and salaries

Accountability and Acknowledgement

Successful applicants are required to complete an accountability form (with receipts and photographs if applicable) within six weeks of the completion date.

Application Tips

Applicant groups are strongly recommended to:

§ show realistic project/activity costs

§ show they have an identified need for the project/activity and that they have planned carefully

§ have tried other sources of funding

§ provide letters of support or other proof of wider community support

§ be available to attend and speak to the application at the CB/CC meeting

How to Apply

You will need to make an application online through Hutt City Council’s online grants management system. Your organisation will need to register on the site if they are not already registered. You can access the site via http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/Services/Funding/ under the Community Engagement Fund.

Or you can choose to meet with the Community Advisor: Funding/Contracts who will help you through the process.

Application Closing Dates

You will be able to edit your application until the closing date of the fund - 6 October 2017 at 5pm.

When will the decisions be made

CBs/CPs will consider applications in their area at their November meeting dates:

For more details about these meeting dates please visit infocouncil.huttcity.govt.nz/

All applications are assessed in terms of how well they meet the purpose of the fund, as outlined above, and other criteria agreed by Council and the CBs/CCs.

Applicants are advised via the online grants system and will be required to send through a signed copy of the agreement as well as a valid invoice.

Help and Support

The Community Advisor: Funding/Contracts is available to meet with you to help you complete your application through the online system. You may contact her on 570 6955 or email her funding@huttcity.govt.nz.

There is also a Know How document on making an application to the Community Engagement Fund. You may download this from our Funding Resources page or you may request a copy by emailing the Community Advisor: Funding/Contracts.

Previous Allocations

§ Xmas in Da Hood – equipment hire

§ Tumeke Taita – purchase of consumables

§ Naenae Festival – equipment hire

Flowchart on Process

§ Has a project or an activity they would like funding for. There is no limit on what you can apply.

§ Checks that they are eligible

§ Your organisation will need to register on the Hutt City Council’s grants management system huttcitycouncilgrants.force.com/

§ Make the application

§ Get quotes from your suppliers. Attach these to your application.

§ Once the application closes the Community Funding Advisor will follow up on anything that is missing.

§ You may be contacted by a CB/CC member to discuss your application.

§ The CB/CC will make a decision at the next public meeting

§ The Community Funding Advisor will update the grants system and you will receive a generated funding agreement by email advising you of the outcome of your application. This is the email that you are using through the grants management system.

§ You will need to get the agreement signed by authorised members of your Trust. You will be required to send through an invoice for the total amount you have been granted.

§ You will need a valid Tax Invoice. If your organisation is GST registered, please add GST to the amount granted.

§ Remember to include the bank details on the invoice so payment can be made. Send the Invoice and Signed Agreement to the Community Funding Advisor who will then ensure the funds are paid. Normally monthly.

§ Once you have completed your project and spent the funds you will need to complete an Accountability Form. This can be done through the grants system.

Make sure you remember to acknowledge Hutt City Council and ensure that the grant allocated is set out in your financial accounts as a separate line item.

Also, please make sure you contact the Community Funding Advisor by on 570 695 or funding@huttcity.govt.nz. The Advisor will be more than happy to talk to you about your application.

Other Resources Available:

§ Funding Guide

§ HCC Funding Calendar

§ FAQ on the grants management system

§ Know How document on making an application for the Community Engagement Fund

§ Meet with the Community Funding Advisor on to one or invite her to attend a meeting to discuss all of her funding knowledge.

Petone Community Board

29 May 2018

File: (18/942)

Report no: PCB2018/3/162

Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Maungaraki Road, as shown attaches as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Maungaraki Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve safety within the street for the benefit of all road users and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve road safety on Maungaraki Road by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines).

3. Maungaraki Road is a relatively narrow, winding, road where sight distances can be restricted in places by the road’s horizontal curvature and steep road side embankments.

4. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked on the inside of these bends reduce the effective carriageway width and force motorists to cross the centreline, increasing the risk of vehicle conflict.

5. The safety concern is exacerbated when larger vehicles, such as buses and waste collection trucks, are transiting the street.

Discussion

6. The installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions as proposed would reduce sight distance obstructions and ensure the full carriageway width is available for motorists, reducing the risk of vehicle conflict.

7. These parking restrictions would also allow for larger vehicles (buses and trucks) to transit the street more safely.

8. The proposed restrictions would remove approximately 12 on street parking spaces, however at least ten of these spaces are not permitted by the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, which states that

“a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on any part of a roadway so close to any corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection as to obstruct or be likely to obstruct other traffic or any view of the roadway to the driver of a vehicle approaching that corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection unless the stopping, standing, or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority”.

9. The proposed restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Options

10. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is without any parking restrictions and accept the current level of service for road safety; or

ii. improve the road safety level of service by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions to prevent parked vehicles from obstructing sight distance and reducing the effective carriageway width.

Consultation

11. Consultation documents were delivered to 16 directly-affected residences at Nºs 36, 38 – 47, and A-B/51 Maungaraki Road.

12. Seven questionnaires were returned; six (86%) in favour of the proposal and one (14%) against it.

13. Comments from supporting residents include:

- “I wish to request that the status of the ‘footpath’ area directly in front of our property at 40A Maungaraki Road is changed to a single vehicle parking space (…) Over the years, car have been ticketed occasionally for parking here, and frankly residents are sick of this occurring. The area is simply not usable as a footpath. If we were to park ‘legally’ on the road side it would create exactly the kind of problem that the proposed no stopping zone seeks to address.”

Officer’s response: Because of the geometry of the road and the sharp angle of the driveway at Nº 38 Maungaraki Road, a single car parking space in front of 40A Maungaraki Road would restrict access to properties.

Comments from the opposing resident include:

- “We have lived at 47 Maungaraki Road since 2009 and we have never seen a vehicle parked on the inside of either bend shown on the plan attached to your letter, and therefore feel it is unnecessary. The problem is not because of parked vehicles, but with speeding drivers who cross the center lines to cut the corners, and buses too big for the narrow road.”

Officer’s response: Although the demand for on street parking is relatively low (most homes have sufficient off street parking), the anecdotal evidence from other residents is that vehicles have occasionally parked in these areas.

14. The Petone Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 11 June 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 18 June 2018.

Legal Considerations

15. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

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

Other Considerations

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

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	48

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

Petone Community Board

31 May 2018

File: (18/954)

Report no: PCB2018/3/163

Randwick Road - Proposed Mobility & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. To recommend that Council approved the installation of a Mobility Park Restriction, P15 Parking Restrictions and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Randwick Road, outside Randwick Primary School, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approve the installation of a Mobility Park Restriction outside Randwick Primary School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) approve the installation of four P15 Parking Restrictions, from 8.15-9.15am and 2.30-3.30pm on school days only, outside Randwick Primary School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(iii) approve the installation of No Stopping at all Times Restrictions outside Randwick Primary School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions will improve the road safety and accessibility level of service in the vicinity of the school.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Office Manager of Randwick Primary School to improve accessibility and parking availability for parents during the school starting and finishing times.

3. After receiving complaints of near misses in the School’s off street staff car park, the School’s Board of Trustees agreed that it had become too dangerous to allow students to be dropped off and picked up in this area.

4. Officers have been advised that there has been an increased amount of families using the off street car park to drop off and pick up their children. The car park area is not large and the available spaces are usually fully occupied by staff members. This makes vehicle manoeuvring difficult and creates a significant safety hazard for students in the area.

Discussion

5. Due to the high traffic volumes on Randwick Road (an Arterial route), and the commercial nature of surrounding buildings (and associated truck volumes), the School feels there would be significant benefit in having a designated on-road facility for students to be dropped off and picked up. In particular, special needs students would benefit from having such a facility in close proximity to the school entrance.

6. Officers consider it is appropriate to install P15 Parking Restrictions (Pick up and Drop Zone) to allow parents easy access to the school’s main entrance.

7. The P15 Parking Restrictions would only apply between the times of 8.15 - 9.15am and 2.30 - 3.30pm on school days only. At all other times, these car parks will remain unrestricted.

8. Officers also consider it is appropriate to install a separate Mobility Park Restriction to improve accessibility for families with special-needs students.

9. Associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) would be installed as shown in Appendix 1, to prevent vehicles parking too close to the school and business driveways, and the school’s pedestrian crossing facility.

10. In the interests of clarity, Officers are also incorporating the existing broken yellow lines on the eastern side of Randwick Road (as shown in Appendix 1) in this resolution so that the legality of all the restrictions in the area are on record.

11. Council’s Parking Policy (2017) includes a road-space hierarchy to assist officers to prioritise competing demands for on road parking spaces. For work and learn land use the hierarchy shows that mobility parking and school drop off/pick up zones have a high priority.

12. The proposed measures therefore support Council’s Parking Policy.

13. The extent of the broken yellow lines to the south of the driveway to 39 Randwick Road (Steel and Tube), were marginally lengthened following consultation (the original proposal is shown in Appendix 2). This modification was made to improve accessibility for the heavy commercial vehicles that use the driveway.

Options

14. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the current level of service for accessibility and safety;

ii. improve the level of service for accessibility and parking turnover by installing P15 Parking Restrictions, a Mobility Parking Restriction and No Stopping At All Times restrictions to allow appropriate, short-term, accessible parking in the vicinity of the school; and

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

Consultation

15. Consultation documents were delivered to the school, local businesses and local residents.

16. All responses received were in support of the proposal.

17. Additional Comments:

- “All Hutt valley citizens should be able to have easy access to their local school”

- “The mobility park should have a time restriction, to stop all day parking”

- “Extend the BYL’s past the Steel&tubes access for safer use by large Trucks”

18. As a result of the consultation feedback, the original proposal (Appendix 2) has been modified in order to allow easier access into the Steel & Tube Property, as shown in Appendix 1.

19. It is unclear whether a time restriction on the mobility park would be of wider benefit. Officers propose initially installing the park without a time restriction and then reviewing if feedback suggests a time restriction would be of benefit.

20. The Petone Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 11 June 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 18 June 2018.

Legal Considerations

21. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

22. These changes can be funded from existing 2017/2018 road budget.

Other Considerations

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

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 Randwick Rd School Mobility Park & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone	53
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 Randwick Rd School Mobility Park & P15 Pick up Drop off Consultation	54

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

56 11 June 2018

Petone Community Board

18 May 2018

File: (18/830)

Report no: PCB2018/3/15

Committee Advisor's Report

Purpose of Report

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

Recommendations

That the Board receives and notes the report.

Follow up from last Board meeting

2. Traffic reports considered by Board

At its meeting on 4 April 2018, the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendations in the following traffic reports:

· Memorial Park (off Bracken Street) – P180 Parking Restrictions; and

· The Esplanade – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions, the Board also added its support that dashed lines at the East side of the Boating Club would not be immediately installed. This was included within the recommendation from Traffic Subcommittee to Council.

3. At its meeting on 22 May 2018, Council resolved to approve the recommendations contained in the reports, including the additional recommendation from the Board and the Traffic Subcommittee, as above relating to The Esplanade.

4. At its meeting on 4 April 2018, the Petone Community Board considered a report on the Proposed New Street Names: Subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu. This is covered under a separate item at this meeting.

Council’s current consultation

5. Please see below a list of current proposals Council is consulting on. These can be viewed on the Council website

http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/Your-Council/Have-your-say/Consulting-on/

Ecology and Landscapes Consultation
Walter Mildenhall Park Reserve Classification	15 June 2018
Priority Routes and Earthquake Prone Buildings	29 June 2018

2017/2018 Miscellaneous Administration and Training Budgets

6. The following is the Board’s expenditure as at 23 May 2018

	Miscellaneous Administration	Training
Budget	$5,0000.00	$3,000.00
Expenditure at 23.05.2018	$818.18	$903.26
BALANCE	$4,181.82	$2,096.74

7. A spreadsheet detailing expenditure is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Petone Community Board Actual Expenditure 2017 2018 Financial Year	57

Author: Donna Male

Committee Advisor

Approved By: Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

Attachment 1

Working Group Proposed New Street Names: Subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu

Proposed New Street Names: Subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu

Resolved WG0201

“That the working group:

(i) notes that at the meeting of the Petone Community Board held on 4 April 2018 a working group was established to:

(a) review the names for the subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, attached as Appendix 1;

(b) recommend the preferred names to the Petone Community Board members; and

(aa) Wi Hape Pakau Place, for the public road name;

(bb) Kauamo Close, for the private road name; and

(cc) Kauamo Lane, for the private road name, as a preferred second name option; and

(ii) notes that the Petone Community Board will endorse it’s decision at its meeting on 11 June 2018.”

Background

1. The development of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu will create one new public road, one new private road and 18 residential properties. The roads require new street names. The subdivision cannot proceed to completion without a legal street address.

2. The responsibility for naming both new public and private roads within Hutt City lies with the Community Boards, in this case the Petone Community Board.

3. At its meeting held on 4 April 2018 the Board considered the report on this matter and agreed as follows:

Resolved: (Cr Lewis/Ms Yung) Minute No. PCB 18201

“That the Board agrees to delay the decision to approve new street names for the new Public and Private road off 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, until Iwi have made a submission.”

The Board discussed making the decision through a small working group, with the final decision to be circulated to all Board members via email and the decision endorsed at its next meeting.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Dyer) Minute No. PCB 18202

“That the Board agrees set up a working group to review the names for the subdivision of 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, with membership as follows:

(i) Cr Lewis;

(ii) Ms Hanna;

(iii) Mr Foaese; and

(iv) Mr Dyer.”

4. The working group consisting of Cr Lewis, Ms Hanna, Mr Foaese and Mr Dyer met to consider from the following short listed options:

· Whitewood;

· Tulip;

· Riwaka;

· Takaka;

· Wi Hape Pakau;

· Puhara-keke;

· Kauamo; and

· Ron Deal.

5. The decision made by the working group was circulated via email to all Board members on 26 April 2018. The names agreed were provided by Liz Mellish from Wellington Tenths and Kura Moeahu from Waiwhetu. Wi Hape Pakau Place was agreed for the public road name and Kauamo Close was agreed for the private road name, with Kauamo Lane as a preferred second name option.

6. Wi Hape Pakau Place was Te Ati Awa Chief he belonged to Ngati Te Whiti and Te Matehou hapu of Te Ati Awa.

He was born in 1797 and died 22 April 1897. Wi Hape Pakau is buried at Owhiti urupa, Seaview.

Wi Hape Pākau fought at the defence of Otaka in 1832 against Waikato iwi - leaving Taranaki afterwards to settle with his relatives Wi Tako, Te Puni and Te Wharepouri near Waikanae, moving then onto Te Whanganui-a-Tara after the battle of Haowhenua in 1834. He then went with Ngati Tawhirikura to the Wairarapa returning in 1836 with his cousins where he cultivated for the first time in the Hutt Valley.

Wi Hape participated in the growing European settlement and was one of the loyal Maori who carried mail between Wellington and New Plymouth.

Ref: Nga Tupuna o Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Vol 1 published by WCC 2001

Wi Hape was also a Master Carver. His Tauihu (canoe prow) carving is held at Te Papa. The Tauihu is carved from a single piece of wood, usually by a single master carver. The Collection of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and Puke Ariki, jointly purchased in 2015.

Wi Hape Pakau signed the Henry Williams (Cook Strait) sheet of the Treaty of Waitangi on 26 May 1840 in Manawatū.

7. Kauamo was the wife of Joseph Robinson, who had been in NZ since 1823. Together this couple lived and raised a family in Waiwhetu.

Joe Robinson had a well established ship building business on the Hutt River near the Waiwhetu Pa. It is recorded that William Wakefield was somewhat surprised to find an Englishman already living here when he first arrived on the Tory.

Kauamo was the daughter of Hoani Te Matahiwi and Takuaiterangi. Together this couple Kauamo and Joe Robinson left a legacy, having four children and over 30 grandchildren. Their large family extends throughout NZ and Australia.

Ref: Nga Tupuna o Te Whanganui-a-Tara Vol 3 WCC 2001

Appendix 1

Attachment 1

PCB Submission to the Long Term Plan

Petone Community Board Submission re HCC 2017/2018 Annual Plan

The Petone Community Board has carried out the following consultation:

· A Public meeting on 19 April and regular coffee mornings

· Tour of key parts of Petone by Board members in February and discussion with Council officers and community people and organisations as a result

· Time at meetings of community groups/organisations

· Feedback via our PCB facebook page and email and personal communications

1. Challenges facing the city

With the aging population we would expect an increase in the amount of money spent on footpaths and making the city more accessible for people with decreasing mobility. The unevenness and in some places dangerous state of some footpaths and crossings in Jackson Street e.g. are something that residents bring to board members attention. It is hard to tell how well the ten year infrastructure plan will cater for the needed accessibility improvements for pedestrians but we submit that it should. The board, on behalf of the Petone community, would like to have this clarified.

2. Developing Hutt City for today and the future

a) Petone 2040

The Petone Community Board sees the Petone 2040 spatial planning project as the most important initiative for Petone and Moera and we endorse Council’s adoption of it.

We strongly urge that there be financial support for Petone 2040 of at least $150,000 in the 2018/19 year and $150,000 in the 2019/20 year. Community feedback is that P2040 is aspirational and long term but missing in this Long Term Plan and that it needs money to continue and to be implemented.

We see the enhancement and protection of the Jackson Street Precinct buildings as paramount and submit that the HCC heritage fund needs to be augmented so that there is at least $75,000 for supporting building owners in the aimed for increased enhancement and protection.

The Jackson streetscape design project also needs to be furthered with one or two blocks of the precinct being used as examples of what can be achieved. The board would be happy to work on this as part of a team/group approach with the Jackson Street Programme and the Council’s Urban Design Manager. Another $25,000 should be allowed for any street furniture and plantings involved.

The character of other key parts of Petone is the next project that needs to be worked on – probably at a cost of up to $50,000. Comprehensive developments or medium density housing being allowed virtually at will across Petone and Moera flies in the face of the P2040 spatial plan that has been adopted by HCC. We see this next phase of P2040 as urgent.

b) Connecting with the river

We are getting an increasing number of comments now doubting the feasibility of a wind laden promenade. It seems to make sense to have the must do flood protection work to be made use of in wider ways, and collaboration for the greatest results between GWRC, NZTA and HCC also makes sense. We suggest that a relocated Melling Station and associated cycling and pedestrian connections be focussed on initially, with other parts of the project undertaken as further funding becomes available and when there is increased or medium density housing being achieved in and around the Hutt CBD.

c) Investment in STEMM

This section links back to the statement on page 5 about technology trends impacting on the type of jobs, services and facilities that will be needed in the future. However, while STEMM type knowledge may create jobs it is the person to person service work that will be increasingly critical in a futurist society. For example, (as Kaila Colbin explained at a council and board members workshop) a robot might be the best identifier of cancer cells but a human will be best at discussing treatment options and supporting patients and their whanau in their decision making. Caring and care services will be needed even more in the future than they are now as will face to face community involvement and contact on small rather than large scales.

3. Promoting healthy and engaged communities

a) Sportsvilles and Hubs – pages 8 and 20 ($3.67M is labelled as expenditure for Petone Sportsville)

This is the third year of shifting goalposts for what is called Petone Sportsville.

We have had a Petone Sportsville to be developed on the Petone Recreation Ground in 2016. Then in 2017 we had a different proposal involving nearly exclusively North Park. We said then, and we still say, that we support the concept of shared administration and the sharing of knowledge and resources, and that we have still never seen any indication of these happening with Petone Sportsville to date.

As we said last year: “We also see sporting facilities catering for the local community as being more important than a world class facility attracting a majority of those involved from outside Petone.” We wondered then how a seven days a week for ten to twelve hours a day facility might operate in what is a residential area and we suggested that Hutt Park could be a better fit for an indoor sport such as gymsports.

We also submitted that if the cricket club facilities are those most in need of attention we would not be averse to seeing funding of $400,000 going into a replacement facility there – with the rest of the possible involved clubs given more time to talk together and see what might really work best for them all. We understand that Petone Rugby and Bowls withdrew some time ago from Petone Sportsville, that the Hockey club never existed, that the swimming club can’t swim in any new building, and that officers are now working on getting Gymsports housed somewhere else such as at Fraser Park.

There is a $3.67M amount labelled as Petone Sportsville on page 20 of the HCC consultation document. Apparently $2.2M of that is earmarked for a new space for gymsports at Fraser Park. This illustrates the expediency of these arrangements and an ongoing saga of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

We now understand that the cricket pavilion on Petone Rec is a Petone Riverside Cricket Club owned building. The proposal in this long term plan seems to be that HCC ratepayers spend $1.4M on a new or upgraded pavilion for the cricket club and the Harriers to use and that it still be called Petone Sportsville.

We believe that the proposed Sportsville model has not worked to date in Petone and that, therefore, that name needs to be dropped and that ways of CFT or HCC leasing a new pavilion to the cricket club, with subleases possible, needs to be worked on.

The board is not in favour of forcing hubs down communities’ throats. Petone has enough big box developments already. The main parts of Petone are better suited to maintaining a village atmosphere and community feedback is No to a hub in Petone.

People also want to see proper measures of wellbeing and success that are not necessarily because of new buildings and nothing to do with how many people pass through any doors. The suggestion has been that things need to be turned on their head - away from buildings and on to how do we resource and service communities to develop/get solutions to needs. Feedback has also been that a lot of the new buildings to date have been because of a lack of maintenance money having been spent on what was existing – such as Walter Nash. The preference is the community house and separate library model for Moera and Petone rather than any new big buildings that are then meant to cater for all needs and end up being a quasi youth centre without any youth workers involved.

All board members have had the opportunity to participate in numerous community initiatives and activities throughout our communities and we have not heard anyone mention a need for a hub or a sportsville, but have heard many community people express the need for more support to provide the services/support that they offer. We believe that community development has to be led by and centred around people not buildings. Rather than hubs and sportsvilles in our communities we would like to see recognition, support and enhancement of the existing community strengths and assets.

b) Refurbishing the Wharves

The overwhelming feedback is still that the Petone wharf should be refurbished in full. People from Petone and beyond see the Petone wharf as an iconic part of Petone and the Wellington harbour and want to see it retained. It has significant heritage and social values for people of all ages and cultures who want to see its continued use for recreational purposes. It also has heritage status as it is listed in Appendix 2 of the Heritage section of the HCC District Plan. It is one of Petone’s best known and most visited structures.

It is also potentially an important resource in times of disasters such as earthquakes. It has been reported that Petone commuters are now driving to Days Bay to catch the Eastbourne Ferry because they can’t stand the traffic congestion from Petone to Wellington and return day after day. It could be a possible commercially viable ferry terminal in the future with the right timetable.

We urge HCC to agree to spend the money needed to refurbish Petone wharf as a whole or to at least see if there could be a community partnership to help raise the additional funding needed. We also urge that the gates and landward end are definitely kept/reinstated in heritage style.

c) Sustainable community facilities

Petone Library

Last year we commented on $1.5M in the budget to complete necessary works that included mechanical services, fire protection and structural work. We said that taken as read this suggests that work has started that needs additional money to be completed. However there were no figures in the background papers that supported this theory. And fire protection and structural work both suggest necessary maintenance rather than a new project – so we wondered why the delay until 2021.

This year we again see $1.5M for the Petone Library and this time it is under the label of ‘Developing sustainable community facilities for today and tomorrow’ which bothers us as this could be the forerunner work for the development of a hub where the Petone Library is and Petone people have in no way been consulted about any such possibility. A village and heritage feel is what people have consistently said is important for Petone rather than world class facilities.

d) Museum and art maintenance

We agree to money being spent on Dowse facilities and also want to see that the maintenance and upkeep of art such as the Te Puna Wai Ora granite water feature in Buick Street in Petone is properly undertaken – as part of a public art regular cleaning and maintenance budget.

4. Resilient infrastructure

We see anything that will increase the resilience of the water supply and stormwater and wastewater standards as being of critical importance. We are pleased to see the average spend of capital improvements being proposed to be increased in the next ten years and the average spend of both capital replacements especially and also capital improvements being very much increased over years 11 to 30.

We particularly agree with planned upgrades to the wastewater and stormwater systems and the minimisation of overflows and infiltrations plus better emergency preparedness. The roll out of community water stations such as the one near the Korokoro Stream is real progress.

We still can’t tell how much proportionately will be spent on upgrading footpaths versus roads but if the figures on pages 11 and 12 are to be taken at face value there will be $150M spent on footpaths over the next 30 years. The Board would like to know where footpaths in Petone will fit/be next scheduled to be looked at in the work programme?

We assume that what is being called the East West Connection Project is what has been know as the Cross Valley Link? The provision of $65M in 2024-27 is not soon enough or enough. Technological advances such as autonomous cars will not get rid of the need for resilience work to be done at least as the Esplanade is home to some key pipe infrastructure. The state of the current congestion is also totally unacceptable.

5. A resilient community and healthy environment

Environmental Sustainability

Page 14 reads as if very little may be being done by HCC when the sustainability of our natural environment is critical. We understand that there is a government subsidy for the Silverstream landfall.

We understand that there is a $10 per tonne waste levy paid to local authorities on a per capita basis and that 50% of the money collected through the levy must be applied to waste minimisation activities. Where this money is accounted for in income and expenditure would be good to know. We would like to know that any monies over and above this 50% is also being put into environmental sustainability initiatives – such as better footpaths and more cycleways. What we are saying is that we want more transparency.

Climate change and sea level rise are givens (everywhere except America) and the Kaikoura earthquake has fast forwarded things by ten years – according to GNS and GWRC scientists. So how much help is HCC giving the community initiatives and people who work on dune/coastal restoration Petone and Eastbourne? Coastal systems are a complex, dynamic and fragile buffer between land and sea that need protection from adverse human activities. Officers and council as a whole need to understand e.g. the form and function of our coastal sand dunes and the best possible management and support of sand dune revegetation programmes.

Emergency preparedness

This again reads as if HCC may not be doing very much but we know that work is going on and it is also really important that we know what is actually happening as emergency response capability is vital community by community as well as city wide. We would appreciate regular updates.

Responses to Specific Questions

1. Should we continue to rejuvenate our city?

· We would support a Wainuiomata Sportsville and a Naenae community building – as long as they are definitely supported by local organisations and people

· We do not support anything called Petone Sportsville as two clubs do not make a Sportsville

· A Wainuiomata Community complex should make use of existing buildings rather than cost over $10M

2. Development Incentives and Remissions

We support an Option 2 plus as we want any incentives for developments in Petone to be stopped as from 30 June. Petone people are having to live with the costs of developments that have had fees remitted to date. The effects are not all positive and there are an estimated $6.1M of agreed remissions still to come to fruition/be covered until 2026. Is the proposal to fund these additional remissions by increasing other developer fees mean that future developments will be charged higher fees to cover the current ones having fees remitted? Could we also be advised please of how much is left in this fund.

3. Rates postponement scheme for residential ratepayers aged 65 and over

We support this as it is something that is already offered by other councils and would be cost neutral. In the detail of a related background paper we note that applicants and all their family members would be required to obtain independent legal and financial advice. We wonder how feasible this would be and wonder if other councils have such a requirement.

4. Will the total cost of rates postponements be cost neutral to the Council and be paid only by the applicant ratepayer(s)?

This seems like trying to stop the rates postponement being agreed to? Page 24 talks of a cash “shortfall” needing “to be funded from debt at the policy applicant’s expense”. However, as also stated on page 24 actual uptake of this rates postponement scheme is minimal across other councils. So it seems logical to offer this facility as per question 3.

5. Extension of rates remission for sporting, recreation and community groups, regardless of whether or not they hold a liquor licence

Our response is No as this seems to be in contradiction to the HCC Healthy Families emphasis.

6. 100% Rates remissions for sporting, recreation and community groups or 50% as at the moment

No – as this could include clubs/organisations with liquor licences and in other parts of of the HCC website there is a lot about healthy families and healthy communities being a priority.

7. Feedback on any of the other projects, strategies or policies covered in this document or supporting information

Finding out anything about e.g. the development incentives and postponements is not necessarily available on the HCC Long term Plan consultation part of its website. What is there is very limited but very dense information and this does not make for good consultation or informed submissions.

We are also surprised at the tone and detail of the Guide to Having Your Say At the Annual Plan – as this ostensibly could be quite off putting for a first time submitter

8. What do you think are the key issues the Council should focus on over the next ten years?

· Better quality development everywhere and especially in Petone and the Historic Jackson Street precinct

· True sustainability initiatives such as the District Plan needing to encourage permeable surfaces everywhere

· Heritage – as long as this ensures enhancement and protection of current and celebrated aspects of Petone and Moera and Seaview

· Community development that is about community (relationships/people) and not about buildings

· Better support/recognition of P2040 with all $0.5M or more projects in Petone and Moera being compared against the P2040 Strategy and staged comment sought from the P2040 community group and PCB throughout the life of projects starting at the earliest opportunity. This will facilitate genuine engagement and give Council confidence about whether projects may be supported by the community – inevitably this will help avoid cost and angst across council and our communities. This needs to include all capital projects, operational projects and investigation/business cases such as for CVL, P2G etc

· We would like to work with HCC on mutually agreeable mechanisms that can be developed to include PCB, P2040, JSP input re Jackson Street, and HCC so that comfort on the development of projects can be achieved as well as possible. This could include direct engagement of these organisations, representation of these organisations or of mutually agreed on consultants

· Total refurbishment of Petone wharf

· Increased resilience such as better stormwater and wastewater management – as the public ‘voted for’ last year

Pam Hanna Mike Fisher

Chairperson Petone Community Board Deputy Chair

972 8791 976 7322

0210 866 9366 021 252 1773

pam.hanna@huttcity.govt.nz mike.fisher@huttcity.govt.nz

We wish to speak in support of our submission

MEMORANDUM 71 11 June 2018

Our Reference 18/1006

TO: Chair and Members

Petone 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

· 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 three 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 Memorandum.

Author: Andrew Cumming

Divisional Manager District Plan

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

Chairperson's Report - Petone Community Board - June 2018

Petone Community Board Chairperson’s Report – June 2018

Tena koutou katoa Talofa lava Malo e lelei Neih Hou Namaste

Greetings to everyone who lives in our board area of Korokoro, Petone, Seaview, Moera, Waiwhetu South, Woburn South and Gracefield – called Petone for short.

a) HCC Annual/Long Term Plan Process

Thank you to Mike Fisher and Karen Yung for making a PCB oral submission. Councillors funding decisions will be made on 6 June.

b) Future of Petone Wharf

It was great to see people speaking up about the Petone wharf in the long term plan process. However, there are still no up to date costings – just suggestions at this stage that the cost to refurbish the wharf will be much greater than initially forecast. We will keep the community up to date on this as we get any further information.

c) Neighbourhood Support Group/s

Lesley Davies from HCC will speak at this meeting on her role as HCC Neighbourhood Support Coordinator and we look forward to encouraging Neighbourhood Support Groups as possible.

d) Petone Developments and Traffic

There were submissions in the long term plan process and there have been newspaper articles about how gridlocked Petone has become. The suggestion made that a Grenada to Petone road would ease traffic on the Esplanade is contrary to the NZ transport Agency’s prediction that any such road would spill thousands more vehicles on to the Esplanade. It is also unfortunate that the Petone West area has only seen big box developments when Plan Change 29 was about a mixed use area that would include residential development – with HCC meant to help this happen.

Recent extended road works on a small section of Jackson Street have also highlighted the need for much greater communication about any such works in the future.

e) Petone 2040 and Heritage

The Petone Community Board sees the Petone 2040 spatial planning project as the most important initiative for Petone and Moera and we have strongly urged that there be financial support for Petone 2040 of at least $150,000 in the 2018/19 year and $150,000 in the 2019/20 year.

We see the enhancement and protection of the Jackson Street Precinct buildings as paramount and also submitted that the HCC heritage fund needs to be augmented and advertised so that there is some support for building owners in the aimed for increased enhancement and protection.

f) Significant Natural Areas

We understand residents in Korokoro have had a useful meeting with a Council Officer about the possibility of identifying and protecting some significant natural areas. We also want to know eg, where the Petone beach/foreshore fits into this work.

g) The grandstand on Petone Rec – a paper called a grandstand update went to the 1 May City Development Committee with four options ranging from refurbishment of the current building to complete demolition of it. Officers are to engage with Petone Recreation Ground users, the Petone Community Board and Petone 2040 before reporting back to Council with a recommendation on a preferred option and timing.

h) Moera Playground Fort – This was recently demolished without any consultation with community organisations. We will follow up re a replacement with officers and also seek assurance that this will not happen at any other playgrounds in the board area.

i) Next end of month Petone Community Board coffee club gatherings when anyone is welcome to come and have a coffee with board members any time between 10 and 11.30am will be on 30 June, 31 July and 25 August at Café Dandelion at 274C Jackson Street.

https://www.facebook.com/pcbhcc/ is the link to our facebook page and sign up for our emails via http://eepurl.com/cq33Zj.

Kia ora

Pam Hanna

Chairperson

[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

Pam Hanna (Chair)	Mike Fisher (Deputy Chair)
Mason Branch	Brady Dyer
Peter Foaese	Karen Yung
Cr Tui Lewis	Cr Michael Lulich