Agenda of Hutt City Council

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

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

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

Tuesday 24 July 2018 commencing at 6.00pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

Mayor Wallace

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

3. Mayoral Statement (18/1125)

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

5. Committee Reports with Recommended Items

a) Traffic Subcommittee

18 June 2018 15

Recommended Items

Item 4a) Willis Grove/Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/251) 15

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4b) Kingsley Street - Proposed Realignment of Centreline (18/395) 17

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4c) Waterloo Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/667) 18

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4d) Poto Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/668) 18

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4e) Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/673) 18

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4f) Parliament Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/680) 19

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4g) Pharazyn Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions (18/736) 19

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4h) Randwick Road - Proposed Mobility & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone Restrictions (18/814) 19

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4i) Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018 (18/819) 20

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

b) Policy and Regulatory Committee

2 July 2018 33

Recommended Item

Item 4ii) Reserve Revocation - 20N Mataura Grove (18/1021) 35

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4iii) Further information about Area C2, Williams Park (18/996) 35

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 4iv) Proposed Control of Animals Bylaw (18/1014) 37

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

Item 5v) Proposed Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw (18/1018) 38

Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

11 July 2018 121

Recommended Item

Item 4) Representation Review - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation (18/1160) 122

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

c) City Development Committee

3 July 2018 64

Recommended Item

Item 5) Riverlink Preliminary Design Approval (18/1076) 66

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

d) Finance and Performance Committee

4 July 2018 105

Recommended Items

Item 4i) Remuneration and Employment Policy Amendment (18/1139) 106

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

e) Community Services Committee

5 July 2018 113

Recommended Item

Item 5) Report of the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Advisory Group (18/1106) 116

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

6. Miscellaneous

a) Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation (18/1220)

Memorandum dated 17 July 2018 by the Divisional Manager, Community Projects and Relationships 128

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

b) Committee Structure and Committee Membership August 2018 -October 2019 (18/1219)

Memorandum dated 17 July 2018 by the Divisional Manager, Democratic Services 134

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the memorandum be endorsed and a new wording on the end of part (iv) to read “effective from 2 August 2018.”

c) Change of Terms Of Reference for Policy and Regulatory and City Development Committees (18/1231)

Memorandum dated 18 July 2018 by the Divisional Manager, Democratic Services 140

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

d) Updated Schedule of Meetings for 2018 (18/1209)

Memorandum dated 16 July 2018 by the Committee Advisor 147

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

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

7. COUNCIL Minutes

22 May 2018 151

8. Committee Reports without Recommended Items

a) Community Plan Committee

16 May 2018 189
6 June 2018 199

b) Hutt City Council Minutes

13 March 2018 222
6 June 2018 249 28 June 2018 252

9. ADDITIONAL COUNCIL MEETING

ACTING Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That an additional meeting of Council be held in the Council Chambers, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on Wednesday, 15 August 2018 commencing at 5.30pm to consider the Chief Executive’s Remuneration and Performance Review 2018.”

10. Sealing Authority (18/1012)

Report No. HCC2018/3/13 by the Executive Assistant, Corporate Services 262

acting Mayor’s Recommendation:

“It is recommended that Council:

(i) approves the affixing of the Common Seal to all relevant documents in connection with the items set out in Schedule 1 contained in the report; and

(ii) approves the deeds executed under Power of Attorney set out in Schedule 2 contained in the report.”

11. QUESTIONS

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

12. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION:

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

13. Committee Report with Recommended Items

Finance and Performance Committee – 4 July 2018

14. Urban Plus Limited Property Acquisition (18/1216)

15. COUNCIL MINUTES

13 March 2018
22 May 2018

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

(A)	(B)	(C)

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

Report of the Finance and Performance Committee held on 4 July 2018 Appointment of Directors - Seaview Marina Limited, Urban Plus Limited and Hutt City Community Facilities Trust.	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.(s7(2)(a)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 22 May 2018	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

Report of the Hutt City Council held on 13 March 2018	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.(s7(2)(a)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)(s7(2)(i))	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.
Urban Plus Limited Property Acquisition.	The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

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

Kathryn Stannard,
Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Traffic Subcommittee

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

Lower Hutt on

Monday 18 June 2018 commencing at 3.00pm

PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) Cr G Barratt

Cr J Briggs Cr T Lewis Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Cr Edwards

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager

Mr Z Moodie, Traffic Engineer Network Operations (part

meeting)

Mr D Wood, Traffic Engineer

Ms D Male, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 18301

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

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Recommendations to Council- 24 July 2018

a	Willis Grove/Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/251)
	The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.
	Members noted that the Wainuiomata Community Board had endorsed recommendations (i) and (ii) contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 13 June 2018 and requested new recommendations (iii) and (iv) as follows: (iii) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on the northern side of Hine Road as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report; and (iv) requests the repainting of all the current broken yellow lines on the corners of Willis Grove and Hine Road. An updated plan was tabled for members, attached as Appendix A, page nine to the minutes.
	In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that, to the best of his knowledge, the Wainuiomata Community Board had not consulted with residents on the northern side of the street to discuss the new recommendation. He said that the officer’s report contained a summary of the objections received and an objection letter from the residents on the northern side of the street was tabled for members, attached as Appendix B, page 10 to the minutes. He added that a throat island on Willis Grove could assist pedestrians to cross the street, but had not been considered as it had not been raised as an issue.
	RECOMMENDED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Bridson) Minute No. TRS 18302 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that the Council: (i) approves the installation of a Give Way priority control on the Willis Grove approach to Hine Road, Wainuiomata as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (ii) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road, Wainuiomata as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (iii) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on the northern side of Hine Road, Wainuiomata as shown attached as Appendix A to the minutes; and (iv) requests the repainting of all the current broken yellow lines on the corners of Willis Grove and Hine Road, Wainuiomata.”
	For the reason that the proposed changes will encourage drivers to slow down to the appropriate speed before entering the intersection and will improve the sight distance and space for vehicles negotiating this intersection.

	b)	Kingsley Street - Proposed Realignment of Centreline (18/395)
		Speaking under public comment, Mr H Anderson made a presentation which included photographs of Kingsley Street which highlighted parking and visibility issues. He said that issues affected residents in properties up the hill to his own property and a number of people in Robson Street. He did not believe that the consultation had gone out to all residents in the street. In response to questions from members, Mr Anderson advised that he was against any parking in the street and the shift of the centreline. He proposed moving the parking to the left downhill side of the street.
		Speaking under public comment, Ms C Stinson advised that she was in favour of the proposals contained in the officer’s report to move the centreline. She said there were multiple residents in properties, who required on street parking. She accepted that vehicles parking on the street at night added to visibility issues. In response to a question from a member, Ms Stinson confirmed that the recommendation contained in the officer’s report would give enough parking and access for vehicles travelling up the hill. She added there was a wider carriageway from Manor Road to Kingsley Street.
		In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that moving the parking to the opposite side of the road could create a safety issue when children were exiting vehicles, as the footpath was only on the left side of the street, going up the hill. He added that the original officer’s recommendation had been amended due to opposition received from residents in relation to the proposed loss of parking.
		MOVED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lewis) That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the proposed realignment of the centreline on Kingsley Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report. The motion was declared lost on a show of hands with two votes in favour and three against.
		Members discussed that the street was a bus route and noted that some residents did not have off street parking, so some parking was required. Members noted it was moved to go with the original recommendation contained in the officer’s report, as set out in option iii) with an amendment to Appendix 2 to the report, to allow for some parking. Members noted the new plan attached as Appendix C, page 11 to the minutes.

		RECOMMENDED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 18303 That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council: (i) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Kingsley Street, Stokes Valley as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report; and (ii) approves parking in Kingsley Street, Stokes Valley as shown attached as Appendix C to the minutes.”
		For the reasons the proposed changes would improve road safety for all road users while still providing some on street parking in the area.
	c)		Waterloo Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/667)
			The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.
			RECOMMENDED: (Cr Lewis/Cr Briggs) Minute No. TRS 18304 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Waterloo Road, Waterloo as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”
			For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve visibility and accessibility for the residents of the two affected private properties, and improve road safety for all road users.
	d)		Poto Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/668)
			The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.
			RECOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson) Minute No. TRS 18305 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Poto Road, Normandale as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”
			For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve visibility and accessibility for motorists and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.
	e)		Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/673)
			The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.
			Members noted that the Petone Community Board had endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 11 June 2018.
			recommended: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 18306 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Maungaraki Road, Korokoro 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.
	f)		Parliament Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/680)
			The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report. Members discussed the mixed use of parking in the area, with differing time restrictions and it being on a bus route.
			recommended: (Cr Briggs/Cr Bridson) Minute No. TRS 18307 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P30 Parking Restrictions in Parliament Street, Melling as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”
			For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve parking accessibility and availability within the street for the benefit of local businesses and business customers.
g)			Pharazyn Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions (18/736)
			The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.
			recommended: (Cr Lewis/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 18308 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P60 Parking Restrictions in Pharazyn Street, Melling as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

			For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users and local businesses.
h)			Randwick Road - Proposed Mobility & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone Restrictions (18/814)
			The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.
			In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Asset Manager confirmed that repainting the footpath hold line to stop children crossing the Steel and Tube driveway without looking could be actioned at the same time as the new restrictions were put in place.
			Members noted that the Petone Community Board had endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 11 June 2018.
			recommendeD: (Cr Sutton/Cr Lewis) Minute No. TRS 18309 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council: (i) approves the installation of a Mobility Park Restriction outside Randwick Primary School, Moera as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (ii) approves 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, Moera as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and (iii) approves the installation of No Stopping at all Times Restrictions outside Randwick Primary School, Moera 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.
i)			Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018 (18/819)
			Speaking under public comment, Mr A Blockley a resident of Dowse Drive, expressed opposition to the proposal for Maungaraki School which included the ability for the school to switch on the lower speed sign whenever they wished to, not just around school crossing times. Mr Blockley explained that he had sent in photographs of accidents in that area as he was concerned about road safety in the area. He also highlighted the law around any vehicle passing a bus must pass at less than 20km/h, not 40km/h.
			In response to a question from a member, Mr Blockley confirmed that he objected that the school could turn on the lower speed sign at any time and he did not object to the 40km/h school zone, as some vehicles travelled at speeds of up to 100km/h around the area.
			The Chair clarified that some of the issues raised within public comment were outside of the scope of the officer’s report. She agreed to arrange a meeting on site with Mr Blockley and officers to discuss the additional issues. Officers tabled updated plans for Muritai Primary School, attached as Appendix D, page 12 to the minutes and a plan was tabled as a Chair’s recommendation for Maungaraki School, attached as Appendix E, page 12 to the minutes. In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager agreed that tear drop road markings could be installed on the junctions of all four main intersections on to Dowse Drive, however, officers would need to confirm the widths of the carriageway to accommodate these. He added that additional consultation on the amendments would be undertaken prior to the Council meeting to be held on 24 July 2018.
			Members noted that the Eastbourne Community Board had endorsed the recommendation in relation to Muritai Road outside Muritai Primary School contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 12 June 2018.
			RECOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton) Minute No. TRS 18310 “That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council: (i) notes the specified parts of (a) Knights Road, Myrtle Street and Bloomfield Terrace, Lower Hutt (for St Peter & Pauls School); (b) Muritai Road, Eastbourne (for Muritai Primary School); and (c) Dowse Drive, Maple Grove, Barberry Grove and Rowan Street, Maungaraki (for Maungaraki School); meet the New Zealand Transport Agency warrant conditions for 40km/h Variable Speed Limits in School Zones; (ii) resolves that 40km/h Variable Speed Limits in School Zones be set from 1 August 2018 for areas around the following schools: (a) St Peter & Pauls School, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (b) Muritai Primary School, attached as Appendix D to the minutes; (c) Maungaraki School, attached as Appendix E to the minutes; (iii) requests officers to undertake all necessary actions to give effect to these resolutions under the provisions of the Rule; and (iv) approves the installation of tear drop road markings at the four intersections with Dowse Drive and Barberry Grove, Holly Grove, Maple Grove and Rowan Street, Maungaraki.”

			For the reasons to reduce the likelihood and consequences of crashes involving children arriving at or leaving school by reducing vehicle operating speeds; and to provide a safer road environment outside schools and reinforce driver expectations of the likely presence of children.

5. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 4.10pm.

Cr MJ Cousins

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 24^th day of July 2018

Appendix A

4. i) Willis Grove/Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Appendix C

4. ii) Kingsley Street - Proposed Realignment of Centreline

Appendix D

4. ix) Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018 - Muritai Primary School, Muritai Road, Eastbourne

Appendix E

4. ix) Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018 – Maungaraki School, Dowse Drive, Maple Grove, Barberry Grove and Rowan Street, Maungaraki

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

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

Lower Hutt on

Monday 2 July 2018 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) Cr C Barry (from 5.32pm)

Cr L Bridson Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)

Cr J Briggs (from 5.32pm) Cr M Lulich

Cr T Lewis Cr L Sutton

Cr C Milne

APOLOGIES: Apologies were received from Mayor WR Wallace and Deputy Mayor Bassett. Apologies for lateness were received from
Cr Barry and Cr Briggs.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

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

Ms H Oram, Divisional Manager, Environmental Consents

Mr G Stuart, Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

Ms K Crandle, Reserves Planner (part meeting)

Mr G Sewell, Principal Policy Advisor (part meeting)

Mr A Pope, Environmental Investigations Officer (part meeting)

Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. PRC 18301

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

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Recommendations to Council - 24 July 2018

Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation (18/557)

The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens elaborated on the report.

Crs Barry and Briggs joined the meeting at 5.32pm.

In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens said that a communications plan could be developed once the use for the site had been decided. He added that the decision to revoke the site could wait until there was further information about the future use of the site. However, the revocation process would be delayed accordingly.

MOVED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson)

“That Council publicly notifies a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Naenae Library property.”

The motion was declared LOST on a show of hands.

Cr Barry said that the revocation process should come to Council after a decision had been made about the use of the land. He added that some Councillors required more information before making a decision about the uses for the land.

Cr Lewis said she favoured knowing more information before going through the revocation process. She requested a Council workshop on the matter and to bring it back to the Committee.

Cr Bridson said that she supported the revocation. However, she was not opposed to delaying the process. She added that Spatial Plan ideas for the site included a supermarket, housing, or a commercial anchor tenant, all of which would require the reserve to be revocated.

The Chair said that revocation was a long process which should be commenced now to allow officers to progress the work.

Cr Milne said that the revocation process and the decision on the land’s use could occur in parallel. If issues arose, the revocation process would not have to continue.

Cr Briggs said that there could be unnecessary community opposition if the decision to revoke was made before knowing the uses of the site.

Cr Edwards said that without a definite use for the site, the community could oppose the revocation process.

MOVED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Barry)

“That Council:

(i) lets the item of the Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation lie on the table; and

(ii) asks officers to hold a workshop on the matter before bringing it back to Council.”

The motion was declared CARRIED on a show of hands.

Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Barry) Minute No. PRC 18302

“That the Committee:

(i) lets the issue of the Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation lie on the table; and

(ii) asks officers to hold a workshop on the matter before bringing it back to Council.”

For the reasons that the property will in the future not be required for library or other community or recreational purposes, it is located within the Suburban Commercial Activity Area of the District Plan and would better serve Council purposes to be used for a commercial or residential purpose.

ii)	Reserve Revocation - 20N Mataura Grove (18/1021)
	recommended: (Cr Briggs/Cr Barry) Minute No. PRC 18303 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property at 20N Mataura Grove was publicly notified with no submissions or objections received; (ii) agrees to revoke the reserve status of the property at 20N Mataura Grove, on the basis that it serves no useful reserve purpose; and (iii) agrees that the property is surplus and be sold to the owners of the adjoining property at 20 Mataura Grove.”
iii)	Further information about Area C2, Williams Park (18/996)
	The Reserves Planner elaborated on the report. In response to a question from a member, the General Manager City Transformation said that Area C2 was included as a draft Significant Natural Area (SNA) in the upcoming plan change on ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas. For this reason, the Committee might wish to delay its decision until the plan change had been finalised. In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive said that the costs in the report were estimates. MOVED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Bridson) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the expert ecological, subdivision and valuation advice about Area C2; and (ii) directs officers to proceed with community consultation with one of the options being to classify Area C2 as recreation reserve.” The motion was declared LOST on a show of hands. In response to a question from a member, the Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens said that the report clarified Council’s request about whether area C2 could be developed without negatively impacting on the ecological values of the site. He encouraged members to use the information to make a decision on whether to consult or to retain the area as reserve land. Cr Edwards said that it would be possible to build two houses on the site and protect the northern rata. However, the proposal was complicated by the SNA process. He advised that he did not support the option of proceeding with consultation. Cr Milne said that Council was required to balance housing needs, ecology and finances. Officers were in the process of determining areas of significant ecological vegetation and there were community concerns over the SNA process. Furthermore, Area C2 could be affected by the upcoming plan change on ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural areas. Cr Lewis said that the community would be unlikely to support the notion that the land was surplus to Council’s reserve requirements. Cr Barry said that Council needed to work through the SNA process before considering whether the site should be used for housing purposes. Cr Briggs said that if Council proceeded with community consultation, there needed to be clarity about Council’s intentions to develop housing on the site. Cr Lulich said that the community felt strongly about the ecological values of the land and wanted Area C2 to be retained by Council as reserve land. Cr Bridson said that Council was considering Area C2 in the context of several pieces of land which may be surplus to Council’s reserve requirements. Area C2 had significant trees on it, therefore, it would be hypocritical of Council to sell the land when it was in the early stages of deciding SNA criteria for the city. Cr Sutton said that she did not support the officer’s recommendations and that the land should be classified as reserve. MOVED: (Cr Sutton/Cr Lewis) “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the expert ecological, subdivision and valuation advice about Area C2; and (ii) directs officers to declare and classify Area C2, part of CTWN49C/741 as recreation reserve.” The motion was declared CARRIED on the voices.
	RECOMMENDED: (Cr Sutton/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PRC 18304 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the expert ecological, subdivision and valuation advice about Area C2; and (ii) directs officers to declare and classify Area C2, part of CTWN49C/741 as recreation reserve.”
iv)	Proposed Control of Animals Bylaw (18/1014)
	The Principal Policy Advisor elaborated on the report. In response to questions from members, the Environmental Investigations Officer said that banned trapping devices, such as spring traps with jaws and gin traps, were defined in the bylaw. People who already had animals and were affected by the changes could apply to Council for a permit to keep their animals. There were no costs for the permit, however, there were capturing and impounding costs.
	RECOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lulich) Minute No. PRC 18305 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes that the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) requires Council to review its bylaws to ensure that they comply with the matters set out in sections 155 and 159 of the LGA 2002; (ii) notes that the Control of Animals Bylaw 2008 has been reviewed in accordance with section 155 of the LGA 2002; (iii) notes the outcome of the s155 review of the bylaw is to propose amendments to the bylaw, as more particularly detailed in the statement of proposal (a draft of which is attached as Appendix 2 to the report); (iv) agrees to consult on the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Amended Bylaw (a draft of which is attached as Appendices 1-3 to the report) in accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002 by means of a special consultative procedure; and (v) agrees to establish a subcommittee comprised of trained hearers Cr Cousins, Cr Edwards and Cr Bridson, with alternates Crs Lewis and Campbell, to: a) hear submissions on the proposed amendments to the Control of Animals Bylaw 2008; and b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval.”

For the reason that the LGA 2002 requires the Animal Control Bylaw 2008 to be reviewed.

Proposed Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw (18/1018)

The Principal Policy Advisor elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the General Counsel said that the Fire Service had taken over the fire permit responsibilites that were in the previous bylaw. All Councils were updating their bylaws accordingly. He added that Council could put out communications about the smoke nuisance requirements in the proposed bylaw.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PRC 18306

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA 2002’) requires Council to review its bylaws to ensure that they comply with the matters set out in sections 155 and 159 of the Act;

(ii) notes that the Fire Prevention (Urban Fire District) Bylaw 2008 has been reviewed in accordance with section 155 of the LGA 2002;

(iii) notes that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017 now prescribe the new role and responsibilities for Hutt City Council;

(iv) notes the outcome of the review is to propose amendments to the bylaw, as more particularly detailed in the statement of proposal (a draft of which is attached as Appendix 2 to the report);

(v) agrees to consult on the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Amended Bylaw (a draft of which is attached as Appendices 1-3 to the report) in accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002 by means of a special consultative procedure; and

(vi) agrees to establish a subcommittee comprised of trained hearers Cr Cousins, Cr Edwards and Cr Bridson, with alternates Crs Lewis and Campbell to:

a) hear submissions on the proposed amendments to the Fire Prevention (Urban Fire District) Bylaw2008; and

b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval.”

For the reasons that the current Fire Prevention Bylaw 2008 is due to be reviewed as required by the LGA 2002 and changes to the role and responsibility of Council have been enacted that need to be incorporated into the 2008 bylaw review.

General Manager's Report (18/990)

Report No. PRC2018/3/179 by the Divisional Manager, Environmental Consents and the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

The Divisional Manager, Environmental Consents and the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management said that a local business had put sump litter traps into drains at its own expense to prevent plastic noodles from entering the storm water system. Officers could persue the same strategy with other plastic factories. Council would be responsible for clearing the sumps.

In response to a question from a member, the Divisional Manager, Environmental Consents said that officers had run workshops for business owners in different languages, to upskill their knowledge about the new food regulations.

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson) Minute No. PRC 18307

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

6. Information Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (18/834)

Report No. PRC2018/3/93 by the Committee Advisor

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lulich) Minute No. PRC 18308

“That the report be noted and received.”

7. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.53 pm.

Cr MJ Cousins

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record Dated this 24^th day of July 2018

Attachment 2

Statement of Proposal: Control of Animal Bylaw June 2018.

STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL

TO MAKE THE

HUTT CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2018

Control of Animals

AND REVOKE THE

HUTT CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2008

Control of Animals

July 2018

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.. 3

2. background.. 3

2.1 The perceived problem... 3

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem... 4

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw... 5

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”) 5

3. the proposed bylaw... 5

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw... 6

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content 6

Proposed clause 1 - Interpretation. 6

Proposed clause 2 – General conditions of keeping animals. 6

Proposed clause 3 – Keeping of Goats. 6

Proposed clause 4 – Keeping of poultry. 6

Proposed clause 5 – Noise from animals. 6

Proposed clause 6 – Health and safety issues from beekeeping. 6

Proposed clause 7 – Trapping devices. 7

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw... 7

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council proposes to replace the existing Hutt City Council Bylaw 2008 Control of Animals (“the Bylaw 2008“) with a new bylaw relating to the control of animals (“the proposed Bylaw”).

This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”). It includes information about the review process and whether it is appropriate for the Council to have a bylaw relating to the control of animals.

2. background

The Council is required to review the 2008 bylaw before 1 July 2018, as required by section 159 of the LGA. Under sections 159 and 155, the review of a bylaw must take the form of reconsideration of the matters that the Council is normally required to consider before making a bylaw.

The Council must therefore determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. If so, the Council must determine whether the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether the proposed Bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”). No bylaw can be inconsistent with the NZBORA. In reviewing a bylaw, the Council must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83.

Under section 145, the Council may make bylaws for its district with the purposes of:

protecting the public from nuisance;

protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety;

minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

The Council can also make bylaws for specific purposes as listed in section 146, for example, for the purpose of regulating the keeping of animals, bees and poultry (section 146(a)(v)).

The 2008 Bylaw can be viewed by visiting the Council’s website:

www.huttcity.govt.nz

2.1 The perceived problem

A wide range of animals are kept within the district without causing any problems. Occasionally, however, the keeping of animals may create a nuisance or endanger health which then needs to be addressed by the Council. These activities may cause:

· health or safety hazards - for example, failure to maintain appropriate hygiene or environmental standards e.g. not keeping animals properly fed, watered and housed or their living area clean ;

· damage to property or the environment - for example, when an animal is not kept under proper control damage can be caused to people and property; or

· disruptive behaviour - for example, when an animal creates a noise nuisance that impacts on adjoining neighbours.

The perceived problem means that a bylaw about the control of animals is consistent with the provisions in the LGA relating to the Council’s bylaw-making powers. The Council considers that it is still necessary to have a bylaw relating to animal control for the purposes of:

· protecting the public from nuisance (section 145(a));

· protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety (section 145(b));

· minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145(c));

· regulating the keeping of animals, bees and poultry(section 146(a)(v)).

The proposed Bylaw therefore seeks to regulate a wide range of activities to do with animal control within Hutt City so as to maintain standards for public health and safety and protect the public from nuisance.

Hutt City Council has a commitment to achieving city-wide outcomes identified by the community. Community Outcomes (set out at page 7 of the Hutt City Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan 2015 – 2025) states that the city’s goal is to provide a city that is safe. In order to achieve this goal, the Council considers it necessary to have in place measures to regulate the control of animals.

The Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate the control of animals within the city. The proposed Bylaw is generally intended to ensure adequate controls and monitoring are retained to meet public expectations of the Council’s maintenance of safe and enjoyable places within Lower Hutt.

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem

Consideration has been given to a range of options for addressing the problems identified above.

Non-regulatory options

A wide range of animals are kept without causing concern, and most people voluntarily comply with the Council’s policies and practices. Education is used to inform members of the public about policies and practices, which encourages voluntary compliance. For example Council staff, if asked, provide general advice to members of the public with respect to proper animal care and control.

However, there are some instances where voluntary compliance and education cannot be relied on to address the perceived problem. Educative measures may not reach everyone, nor may they provide an effective deterrent to everyone. In these circumstances, the activities have an effect on the general public, property, and the environment which means it is necessary for the Council to have a greater ability to enforce its policies and practices.

Hutt City District Plan

The proposed Bylaw is consistent with, and complimentary to, the provisions of the Hutt City District Plan. The proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism that allows the Council to:

· address matters relating to, but not explicitly provided for, in the Hutt City District Plan; and

· adopt an alternative and more practicable enforcement option than provided for under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Other regulatory options

In reviewing the Bylaw 2008, the Council concluded that most of the provisions of that Bylaw are still relevant and necessary to address the perceived problems as noted above. However it was felt that roosters and goats should be banned from urban areas of the city unless written permission has been granted by Council.

Summary

Although other regulatory and non-regulatory measures may assist in managing the perceived problem, the Council does not consider that these other measures are able to address the perceived problem to the extent necessary. In addition, other measures may not be appropriate in every instance.

The Council considers that the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem. The Council also considers that the proposed Bylaw will contribute to achieving the community outcomes identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan.

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw

The proposed Bylaw addresses the perceived problem by preventing nuisance and number of unwanted consequences from the keeping of animals.

The proposed Bylaw is flexible and allows changing circumstances to be recognised. The proposed Bylaw clearly states the Council’s position by stating whether or not an activity is permitted and which activities constitute an offence of the bylaws. The Bylaw sets out what action needs to be taken to comply with it, for example, whether prior written permission of the Council is required. The proposed Bylaw reflects a number of the Council’s existing policies and practices, and also reflects community goals that have been identified by the Council.

The proposed Bylaw is therefore the most appropriate form of bylaw. It clearly states the Council’s position, how the Bylaw can be complied with, reflects the Council’s existing policies and practices, and addresses the perceived problem.

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”)

Section 155(2)(b) of the LGA requires the Council to determine whether the Control of Animals Bylaw gives rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is the Council’s view that no provision of the proposed Bylaw is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. the proposed bylaw

This section outlines the outcome of the review of the existing Bylaw, and provides an explanation of the proposed Bylaw.

The proposed Bylaw is based on the existing Bylaw 2008 that was adopted under the Local Government Act 1974.

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw

Much of the content of the Bylaw 2008 has been amended to refine the clauses so that each more specifically addresses the aspect of the perceived problem that the Council intended them to address. Below is an outline of the one proposed change:

· Clause 2 General conditions of keeping animals – a new clause that outlines clearly the general conditions relating to how animals should be kept.

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content

In general terms, the proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism by which the Council can prevent or manage the perceived problem associated with a range of activities that occur with respect to the control of animals. The following outlines the rationale for the inclusion of each of the clauses in the proposed bylaw.

Proposed clause 1 - Interpretation

This clause is proposed so that the meaning of terms used in the bylaw is clear.

Proposed clause 2 – General conditions of keeping animals

This clause is proposed to clearly outline the general conditions relating to how animals should be kept.

Proposed clause 3 – Keeping of Goats

The purpose of this clause is to ensure that no goats are permitted in the urban area unless written permission has been granted by Council. Also specifying other requirements if a goat is permitted in the urban area.

Proposed clause 4 – Keeping of poultry

The purpose of this clause is to specify the terms and conditions associated with the keeping of poultry in any urban area. It also bans roosters in any urban area unless written permission has been granted by Council.

Proposed clause 5 – Noise from animals

The purpose of this clause is to establish that it is a breach of the bylaw if a person keeps an animal that creates a nuisance by frequent or long continued noise.

Proposed clause 6 – Health and safety issues from beekeeping

The purpose of this clause is to establish the legal framework that enables a person to keep bees.

Proposed clause 7 – Trapping devices

The purpose of this clause is to ban the use of trapping devices including gin traps, within the city.

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw

The special consultative procedure will end 4.00pm on Friday 31 August 2018. Hearings and meetings on the proposed bylaw will be open to the public, and people may speak to their submissions at the relevant committee meeting.

An analysis of all submissions will then be presented to the relevant council committee for consideration. The proposed bylaw will then be referred to the Council for consideration and adoption.

CONTENTS

1.... INTERPRETATION. 3

2..... GENERAL CONDITIONS OF KEEPING ANIMALS. 3

3..... KEEPING OF GOATS. 3

4..... KEEPING OF POULTRY. 4

5..... NOISE FROM ANIMALS. 4

6..... HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM BEEKEEPING.. 4

7..... TRAPPING DEVICES. 5

8..... OFFENCES. 5

SCHEDULE ONE. 6

1. INTERPRETATION

1.1 In this Bylaw:

“Animal” has the meaning defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and means any live member of the animal kingdom that is a mammal, bird, bee, or any other member of the animal kingdom that is declared from time to time by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to be an animal.

“Authorised Officer” means any person appointed or authorized by the Council on its behalf.

“Commercial poultry shelter or run” means any commercial poultry operation containing more than 8 head of poultry.

“Council” means the Hutt City Council.

“Domestic Animal” means any animal (including a bird or reptile, but excluding bees) kept as a domestic pet; any working dog; any other animal kept by any person for recreational purposes or for the purposes of that person’s occupation or employment.

“Nuisance” refers to the dictionary definition (a person, thing, or circumstance causing trouble or annoyance; anything harmful or offensive to the community or a member of it and for which a legal remedy exists) or to a statutory nuisance as defined in Section 29 of the Health Act 1956.

“Owner’s Property” includes any property the owner of an animal has a legal right to use for the purposes of keeping the relevant animal.

“Poultry” includes geese, ducks, turkeys, domestic fowls, roosters, or any birds kept as show birds.

“Trapping device” means any trap or other similar device made of metal or other hard material having two jaws closing on each other and operated by a spring and includes without limitation a gin trap but does not include any trap designed for trapping mice or rats.

“Urban area” means the area identified as urban area in the map in Schedule 1. Council may amend this map by resolution.

2 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF KEEPING ANIMALS

2.1 All animals shall be kept in a manner that is not, or is not likely to become, a nuisance, dangerous, offensive, or injurious to health.

2.2 All animals shall be kept in a manner that ensures they have adequate physical well-being through acceptable nutrition, environmental, health and behavioural stimulus, and adequate mental well-being.

2.3 All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer.

2.4 The Council may sell, re-home or otherwise dispose of any animal seized and impounded that has not been claimed or returned within 7 days after it was seized and impounded.

3 KEEPING OF GOATS

3.1 No goats are to be kept in any Urban Area, unless written permission has been granted by Council.

3.2 The Council may grant permission to keep a goat on such conditions as the Council considers appropriate. If there is a breach of any condition, Council may revoke its permission.

3.3 All goats must be fitted with an ear tag or collar with sufficient details to allow the owner to be traced or contacted, if the goat is seized.

3.4 All goats must be kept within private property, unless written permission has been granted by Council to do otherwise.

4 KEEPING OF POULTRY

4.1 Poultry must be adequately contained within the owner’s property, so as not to cause (or be likely to cause) nuisance, offence or be injurious to health.

4.2 No roosters are to be kept in any Urban Area, unless written permission has been granted by Council.

4.3 An owner or occupier of any property in an urban area may keep no more than 8 chickens (or other poultry) without the Council's prior written permission. In assessing an application to allow more than 8 chickens (or other poultry), the Council will consider:

(a) the number of poultry at the premises; and

(b) provision for the welfare, hygiene, control, and confinement of the poultry; and

(d) the size of the property and proximity to neighbours, and

(e) any other factors it considers relevant.

4.4 Council may grant permission to keep roosters or poultry on such conditions as Council considers appropriate. If there is a breach of any condition, Council may revoke its permission.

5 NOISE FROM ANIMALS

5.1 No person may keep an animal that by frequent or long continued noise creates a nuisance by disturbing the quiet enjoyment of people living in the vicinity.

6 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM BEEKEEPING

6.1 No person may keep bees in such a way as to cause (or be likely to cause) nuisance, offence or be injurious to health.

7 TRAPPING DEVICES

7.1 No person may set a trapping device.

8 OFFENCES

8.1 Every person commits an offence who breaches a clause of this bylaw.

SCHEDULE ONE

URBAN AREA

For an interactive viewer to see more detail follow this link:

Summary of Proposal - Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw

Council proposes to make a Hutt City Council Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw 2018 (“the 2018 Bylaw”) to replace the current 2008 Fire Prevention Bylaw.

The Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to review the current Fire Prevention Bylaw 2008 by 1 July 2018.

The current Hutt City Council Fire Prevention Bylaw 2008 can be viewed by visiting the Council website:

www.huttcity.govt.nz

The proposed 2018 Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw

The proposed Bylaw is a consequence of the enactment of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017. It established Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) as the organisation that will bring together urban and rural fire services. This also requires Council to amend its current bylaw to reflect the new legal framework.

To obtain a fire permit applicants now need to apply online to the Fire and Emergency (FENZ) website. The FENZ website is: www.checkitsalright.nz

The proposed 2018 Bylaw is intended to meet Hutt City Council’s new role and responsibility under the Act and Regulations as noted above. This new role is focussed on the ability to regulate for the control of nuisance or health and safety risk from smoke from fires.

Conclusion

Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate for the control of nuisance or health and safety risk from smoke from fires.

Council is seeking submissions on this proposal. The full statement of proposal to create the 2018 Bylaw as noted above is attached to this summary of information, along with a submission form. It is also available at the Hutt City Council Administration Building, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt, Libraries and on the Council Website www.huttcity.govt.nz.

Submissions open on Tuesday 31 July 2018 and close at 4.00pm on Friday 31 August 2018.

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

City Development Committee

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

Lower Hutt on

Tuesday 3 July 2018 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor D Bassett (Chair) Cr C Barry (from 5.32pm)

Cr G Barratt Cr M J Cousins

Cr S Edwards Cr T Lewis

Cr M Lulich Cr G McDonald

Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton (Deputy Chair)

Mayor WR Wallace

APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services

Mr G Craig, Divisional Manager, City Growth

Mr P Maaka, Urban Design Manager (part meeting)

Mr H Shafiee, Economist/Senior Policy Advisor (part meeting)

Mr R Qian, Landscape Architect (part meeting)

Mr A Hopkinson, Senior Traffic Engineer

Ms D Male, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. Presentation

Technology Valley Update Presentation (18/1079)

Cr Chris Milne elaborated on the background of Technology Valley, the tie in with Council’s STEMM Sector Development Manager and introduced Ms Anthea Armstrong. She thanked members for their investment and advised that an update report would be presented at the next Committee meeting scheduled for September.

Ms Armstrong, representing Technology Valley presented to members the key highlights relating to the work of Technology Valley and launch in September 2018. She said that work had been completed on a stocktake of the sector and how to create opportunities to engage with the sector. She listed the types of sector activities they would look to host. She added that their targets and aspirations for the future were to become a brand for the Hutt Valley and to be known internationally. She further added that part of the ongoing business development plan would be to look for partnerships and sustainable revenue streams.

In response to questions from members, Ms Armstrong advised that partnership and collaborative working was being reviewed with organisations such as Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce, youth engagement organisations, the Silicon Valley Forum and the Microsoft Programme.

Cr Milne encouraged members to attend a meeting being held at BNZ Queensgate on Wednesday 22 August 2018 at 5.30pm. He agreed to email details to members.

The Chair thanked Ms Armstrong for the presentation and invited her to attend the November Committee meeting to give a further presentation.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Deputy Mayor Bassett declared a conflict of interest in item 8, Activity Report: Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Members noted Cr Sutton declared she was a member of the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce, in relation to item 6, Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce – Six Monthly Update to 31 December 2017 and item 7, Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce – Proposed Contract.

PRECEDENCE OF BUSINESS

In accordance with Standing Order 10.4, the Chair accorded precedence to item 6 dealing with Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce – Six Monthly Update to 31 December 2017 and item 7 dealing with Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce – Proposed Contract.

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

5. Recommendation to Council - 24 July 2018

Riverlink Preliminary Design Approval (18/1076)

The General Manager, City Transformation, the Urban Design Manager and Mr Graeme Campbell, Manager, Flood Protection from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) elaborated on the report.

Crs Milne and Sutton left the meeting at 7.00pm.

The General Manager, City Transformation highlighted to members the financial considerations section of the report, which provided for a breakdown of funding provided for in the Long Term Plan from 2018-2028.

Crs Milne and Sutton rejoined the meeting at 7.03pm.

The General Manager, City Transformation advised there were still elements of uncertainty in the budget, where elements of costs were yet to be allocated. She gave an example of the $6.5M for a footbridge, where the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) may contribute. She added that discussions relating to quality levels had not yet taken place, such as the materials for the footbridge, which could affect the cost. She advised that when aspects were more certain, further discussions would take place with Council.

Mr Campbell confirmed that GWRC had signed off on the Preliminary Design Approval.

Cr Barratt left the meeting at 7.06pm.

A video was shown on the RiverLink project.

Cr Barratt rejoined the meeting at 7.08pm.

Mr Campbell thanked members for the invitation to the meeting and added that Mr Alistair Allan from GWRC had passed on his apologies to the meeting, but confirmed that he was viewing the meeting via the live streaming.

In response to questions from members, the General Manager, City Transformation advised that the strategic properties budget was outlined in the officer’s report, there could be opportunities going forward which Council could choose to fund and these would not be budget overspends. She gave examples of these as pressure to roll out projects earlier, such as an update to the Andrews Avenue area.

The Chair thanked the team for the presentation and confirmed that the Hutt Valley Flood Management Subcommittee had unanimously agreed to the recommendations. He acknowledged the work of the GWRC officers and wished it to be recorded that the ratio remained the same after the submission to the GWRC Long Term Plan.

RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. CDC 18301

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that Hutt City Council (HCC) has been working with Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) on the RiverLink project since 2012 when conceptual design for RiverLink commenced;

(ii) notes that HCC has allocated funding of $51.9M in its 2018-2028 LTP for the Making Places components and associated works for the RiverLink project;

(iii) endorses the urban design, city infrastructure and local road components (referred to as Making Places components) contained within Appendix 1 attached to the report - Riverlink Preliminary Design Summary Report and outlined in more detail in Appendix 2 attached to the report – The Making Places Story;

(iv) endorses the outline programme for implementing RiverLink including consenting and construction, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, noting that programming is subject to decisions to be made by GWRC and NZTA;

(v) endorses proceeding to detailed design and consenting of the Making Places components jointly with our project partners as part of Riverlink, noting that programming is subject to decisions to be made by GWRC and NZTA;

(vi) supports NZTA completing its detailed business case (DBC) for the Melling Transport Improvements that form part of Riverlink in collaboration with GWRC and HCC, and the recommendation of the DBC to the NZTA Board at the end of 2018;

(vii) supports GWRC in completing its preliminary design for the flood protection components and associated works that form part of RiverLink; and

(viii) notes that officers will report back to the City Development Committee before the end of 2018 confirming the decision of NZTA and GWRC and the programme for the next stage.”

For the reasons that this is a collaborative project and these approvals enable the project to move to the next stage.

Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce - Six Monthly Update to 31 December 2017 (18/939)

Report No. CDC2018/3/193 by the Divisional Manager City Growth

Mr Neville Hyde, President of Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc (HVCC) introduced Mr Mark Skelly, Vice President and Ms Helen Down, Board Member. Mr Hyde elaborated on the report. In response to comments made under public comment, Mr Hyde advised the HVCC was not in Council’s pocket and highlighted that they had been very vocal and made representations in relation to the living wage decisions at Council, although they had been unsuccessful in regard to Council employees.

Mr Skelly said that feedback and opinions from local business owners was important to them, they had over 700 members and 4,000 people on an email mailing list to gain feedback from. Mr Hyde added that they had a good rate of return, a recent survey in business confidence had been participated in by 111 members.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Hyde advised that generally the HVCC had sponsors for events such as workshops, to be self-supporting and a charge was only usually requested to cover catering.

Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Barratt) Minute No. CDC 18302

“That the Committee receives the report.”

For the reasons the HVCC is required to report six monthly to this Committee on performance against agreed targets.

Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce - Proposed Contract (18/1078)

Report No. CDC2018/3/192 by the Divisional Manager City Growth

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Shierlaw said that spending money should carry a huge duty of care when Council decides on giving $100k of ratepayers money to the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc (HVCC). He believed that the report was full of half-truths in comparison to the HVCC’s annual report. He questioned if it was a contract for service or a handout to the HVCC. He added that the key performance indicators in the proposed contract were just to promote what Council was working on and it would serve the City better if HVCC was able to speak openly.

In response to questions from members, Mr Shierlaw advised that he was aware that Kapiti District, Southland District, Auckland and Wellington Councils did not support their Chambers of Commerce. He could not testify that no other Councils did. He said that he could not see in the contract items that the HVCC did not already offer to Council. He was unable to give examples of when the HVCC had not spoken open and freely, due to receiving funding from Council.

Mr Hyde, President of HVCC elaborated on the report.

Mayor Wallace left the meeting at 6.17pm

Mr Hyde added that the deliverables were attached to the officer’s report and they had tried to cover all eventualities, noting that there was flexibility to change the deliverables, by agreement.

Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting at 6.18pm.

Mr Skelly, Vice President of HVCC added that the list was suggested based on the officers’ requirements. He noted that, although the Council contract was important to the HVCC, they had suggested the lower value contract.

Ms Down, Board Member of HVCC believed that the best results came from working together constructively before problems arose, which Council and the HVCC were able to do.

The Divisional Manager, City Growth advised that changes at the HVCC related to a change to personnel and the area where Council got real value was the access to the HVCC’s business community. He added that Council did not have the resources to engage with the scale of the business community the HVCC could. He said the proposed contract was different to previous contracts and was tailored for Council to access feedback, which added value for Council.

The Chief Executive advised that he was a Board member of the HVCC, although he was no longer a member, he had stayed out of discussions on the proposed contract. He added that it was important for the City to have a vibrant Chamber of Commerce to support economic growth and employment and noted that business ratepayers paid higher rates than residents.

In response to questions from members, Mr Hyde highlighted key points from the business confidence survey and confirmed that without a signed contract, Council would not be provided with the data and feedback. The Divisional Manager, City Growth added that with the contract, Council had the ability to add questions to the HVCC’s surveys to obtain specific feedback.

Mr Hyde believed that the proposed contract offered good value to ratepayers. He added that some options had been removed from the contract as those areas had been tailored to the HVCC’s Chief Executive at the time. He highlighted that these had been reviewed to move forward with the skill set of the new Chief Executive.

In response to further questions from members, the Divisional Manager, City Growth advised that Council would only pay for the elements used. He noted the costs allowed for the time of HVCC staff and any overhead costs to provide the input.

The Chair thanked the members of the HVCC, the Divisional Manager, City Growth and the General Manager, City Transformation for the time and effort put into the new proposed contract. He advised that the recommendations would be recommended to Council.

Members commented that the proposed contract would give a clear strong relationship with accountability and transparency.

RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr McDonald) (BY DIVISION)

Minute No. CDC 18303

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce & Industry Inc (HVCC) indicated as a result of a restructure completed earlier this year that it would end its current contract for services to Council as at 30 June 2018;

(ii) notes that officers and representatives of the HVCC have been discussing a revised service offering as the basis of a future contract with the HVCC;

(iii) notes that Council has budgeted $100,000 per annum in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 for a future contract with the HVCC;

(iv) notes the Draft Contract Services Delivery Schedule, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(v) approves that the Draft Contract Services Delivery Schedule form the basis of a contract for services with the HVCC – that contract to be for three years with the Contract Services Delivery Schedule to be reviewed and agreed every 12 months”.

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

For

Cr Barratt

Cr Barry

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Cousins

Cr Edwards

Cr Lewis

Cr Lulich

Cr McDonald

Cr Milne

Cr Sutton

Mayor Wallace

Against

Total: 11

Total: 0

For the reasons that the HVCC’s relationship with Council has been constructive and it has consistently supported Council’s drive to improve infrastructure and community and business support services. An ongoing positive relationship between the Council and HVCC will have beneficial outcomes for both working with businesses and encouraging business activity in Lower Hutt and the Hutt Valley.

Officers’ view is that we could not replicate the level of service within Council for the same or less cost.

8.	Activity Report: Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater (18/295) Report No. CDC2018/3/101 by the Senior Engineer, Service Planning, Wellington Water Ltd
	Deputy Mayor Bassett declared an interest in the item and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter. Cr Sutton assumed Chair for the item.
	Mr Chris Matthews, the General Manager Business Services, Wellington Water Ltd (WWL) and the General Manager, City and Community Services elaborated on the report. Mr Matthews highlighted that WWL had been doing its own regional review on the standard of drinking water, following the issues at Havelock North. The review was to be proactive prior to the Ministry of Health review to potentially bring in a new standard. In response to a question from a member, Mr Matthews advised that Lower Hutt City met the standard, with the current ultra violet treatment. He advised that fluoride was not required to be added to the water. Mayor Wallace left the meeting at 7.37pm. In response to questions from members, Mr Matthews and Mr Anthony Clarke, Senior Engineer, Service Planning, WWL, elaborated on the charts within the officer’s report. Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting at 7.40pm. Cr Lewis left the meeting at 7.40pm. In response to a question from a member, Mr Clarke confirmed that the Asset Management Plan was peer reviewed internally at WWL and externally by Audit New Zealand. Cr Lewis rejoined the meeting at 7.42pm. Members commented on the quality of WWL’s report and the good work being undertaken by WWL.
	Resolved: (Cr Sutton/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. CDC 18304 “That the Committee: (i) notes the information contained in this report; (ii) notes that this review also meets the intent of section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002; and (iii) agrees that a full section 17A review should not be undertaken at present for the reasons outlined in the report.”

9.	General Managers' Report (18/928) Report No. CDC2018/3/194 by the Development Planning Liaison Manager
	Deputy Mayor Bassett resumed the Chair.
	The General Manager, City Transformation and the General Manager, City and Community Services elaborated on the report. The General Manager, City Transformation agreed to add information on heritage and urban design in future reports. She confirmed the matters were reported on annually to the Policy and Regulatory Committee. In response to a question from a member, the General Manager, City and Community Services agreed to review who was leading on the installation of new community hydration stations for Wainuiomata and its location. In response to a question from members, the General Manager, City Transformation advised that a workshop had already been held relating to heritage and a second workshop would be held when more work had been completed on the proposed Heritage Policy.
	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. CDC 18305 “That the Committee notes the updates contained in the report.”

10.	Road Closure Request - Highlight: Carnival of Lights (18/1087) Report No. CDC2018/3/195 by the Senior Traffic Engineer
	The Senior Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.
	Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. CDC 18306 “That the Committee: (i) agrees to approve the following proposed Temporary Road Closure subject to the conditions listed in the Proposed Temporary Road Closure Impact Report and Plan attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the report: Highlight: Carnival of Lights 2018 Laings Road from Knights Road to a point 30 metres west of Myrtle Street, from 5:00am on Friday 19 October 2018 to 5:00am on Tuesday 23 October 2018; (ii) agrees, for the Highlight: Carnival of Lights event, to temporarily rescind, for the period 5:00am on Friday 19 October 2018 to 5:00am on Tuesday 23 October 2018, all current parking restrictions applying to Laings Road on both sides, from Knights Road to a point 30 metres west of Myrtle Street; and (iii) agrees, for the Highlight: Carnival of Lights event, to approve a No Stopping At All Times parking restriction for the period 5:00am on Friday 19 October 2018 to 5:00am on Tuesday 23 October 2018 on both sides of Laings Road from Knights Road to a point 30 metres west of Myrtle Street.”
	For the reason that the road closure is required to accommodate the Highlight: Carnival of Lights 2018.

11. Information Item

City Development Committee Work Programme (18/930)

Report No. CDC2018/3/102 by the Committee Advisor

Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr McDonald) Minute No. CDC 18307

“That the work programme be noted and received.”

12. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.10pm.

Deputy Mayor D Bassett

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 24^th day of July 2018

1. Introduction

RiverLink is a transformational project for Hutt City. Its preliminary design has been created through an informal collaborative partnership between Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC), Hutt City Council (HCC), and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZ Transport Agency).

RiverLink brings together these partner agencies to support the aspirations of the communities of Lower Hutt to increase the vibrancy and liveability of Hutt City. RiverLink focuses around the heart of Hutt City, extending from State Highway 2 across to High Street in the CBD, and between Ewen Bridge and Kennedy Good Bridge and along a 3km length of Te Awa Kairangi/the Hutt River.

Each organisations focus in RiverLink ties back to their overarching roles, strategies and plans; for GWRC the flood protection upgrades support the delivery of the Hutt River Floodplain Management Plan (2001) and protect Hutt City’s CBD by connecting the recently completed works between Ewen Bridge and Ava Rail Bridge (completed 2009) and the Boulcott Stopbank (completed 2011). At a broader level RiverLink also delivers, to varying degrees, across three of the priority outcomes for GWRC’s Long Term Plan 2018-2028 of regional resilience, public transport, fresh water quality and biodiversity; for Hutt City Council, RiverLink delivers key parts of the vision of the Making Places Strategy for the CBD, and upgrades sought by the Hutt City Infrastructure Strategy and Environmental Sustainability Strategy; for NZTA the Melling Transport Improvements are part of the Regional Land Transport Plan, State Highway 2 Programme Business Case, and thereby support delivery of its primary purpose to provide an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system.

GWRC and HCC have committed substantial budgets in their respective Long Term Plans to implement RiverLink. NZTA have committed to completing the Detailed Business Case (DBC) for the Melling Transport Improvements project and through their board decision at the end of 2018 will confirm future intent regarding the project.

1.1 Conceptual design phase process

In 2012 conceptual design for RiverLink commenced between the three organisations. At this stage each organisation had identified work that they intended to complete that overlapped with the interests of the other agencies. A memorandum of understanding focusing on the Melling Intersection Investigations was developed between the agencies that outlined the overlapping interests and the intent to work together to pursue these with a focus on the areas immediately adjacent to Melling Bridge. The three projects that fell into this area were; GWRC’s Hutt River City Centre Upgrade Project (HRCCUP) that sought to improve the flood capacity of the flood protection system protecting Hutt City Centre; HCC’s Making Places Strategy; and NZTA’s Melling Intersection Investigations.

In 2014 design objectives for the RiverLink project were confirmed by the Hutt River Management Subcommittee. These objectives are detailed in Attachment A.

In 2015 GWRC made its decision to proceed to Preliminary design phase for the flood protection works, including a decision to enter into property acquisition of land required to deliver the conceptual design. This decision was strongly supported by the community of Hutt City to “do it once, and do it right” through their endorsement of ‘Option A’, that would provide a 90m wide river channel with 25m berms and supporting the acquisition of 118 properties required to achieve these outcomes.

In 2016 NZTA completed its indicative business case (IBC) and shortly afterwards committed funding to complete a detailed business case (DBC) for the Melling Transport Improvements.

In January 2017 Hutt City Council completed its Riverside Promenade Business Case and allocated funding towards that project through its Annual Plan process during the same year, to support delivery of the riverside components of the Making Places Strategy envisioned in 2009.

These key design steps and decisions brought the three organisations into a closer working relationship and strengthened the appetite to continue development of each organisations design focus under a RiverLink umbrella.

1.2 Preliminary design phase process

The development of a closer working relationship between the organisations to support completion of a RiverLink Preliminary Design commenced in 2016. This was facilitated by establishment of a cross organisation working group, a cross organisation management group, and the scheduling of regular meetings between the CE’s of GWRC, HCC and the Regional Relationship Director at NZTA. The existing decision making structures within each organisation remained in place, meaning decisions regarding project commitment and resources at each organisation needed to be made by the Hutt Valley Flood Management Subcommittee (GWRC), Hutt City Council, and the New Zealand Transport Agency board (or its appropriate committees). Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc who represent iwi with statutory acknowledgement over Te Awa Kairangi/Hutt River have positions on the Hutt Valley Flood Management Subcommittee and within the RiverLink Management Group.

Given relevant approvals from each partner organisation, the Preliminary design for the flood protection and associated elements of Making Places will be recommended for approval in June and July 2018 respectively. The design process for RiverLink has involved collaborative design development between the three organisations. The recommendation to each organisation will primarily relate to their respective areas of responsibility and recognise the links, synergies and dependencies across RiverLink.

This report provides a summary of the RiverLink Preliminary Design with a focus on the delivery of the flood protection outcomes.

2. RiverLink Preliminary Design

The RiverLink Preliminary design has resulted in a strong overlap, support and dependency between the outcomes each organisation is trying to achieve. This also means that the current design requires decisions and support from each organisation in order to deliver the full benefits sought by RiverLink, and to confirm and agree budget allocation, programme and approach to implementation.

The design can be roughly broken down into consideration of Flood Protection (largely delivered by GWRC), Making Places and City Infrastructure (largely delivered by HCC) and the Melling Transport Improvements (largely delivered by NZTA).

Each organisation has led the design components that align best with its primary focus, however the design teams for this have drawn on the expertise across the organisations required to deliver outcomes that support each organisations primary goals. The preliminary design process established the following three primary goals;

1. Improve the flood protection system between Kennedy-Good Bridge and Ewen Bridge to meet the design flood as set out in the Hutt River Flood Plain Management Plan

2. Promote growth through urban development and connecting the city to the Hutt River

3. Improvements to transport options at the interface between the State Highway and the local community.

The preliminary design delivery against these goals is summarised within this report, further information is available within the full preliminary design report and the supporting technical reports developed to create each part of the preliminary design. These reports are available to read in hardcopy at GWRC and HCC offices, or online at www.riverlink.co.nz.

2.1 Flood Protection

The flood protection outcomes, delivering on providing regional resilience, are set out in the Hutt River Floodplain Management Plan 2001. The plan establishes a safe and agreed flood conveyance protection level (including predicted climate change effects) of 0.23% Annual Exceedance Probability (1-in-440 year return period flood). This translates to a flood conveyance capacity of 2800 cumecs (cubic metres per second) which allows for climate change impacts and uncertainties associated with flood risk, and thereby set the design flood for development of the flood protection designs.

The flood protection designs combine improvements to the river channel that aim to target the majority of general maintenance activities outside of areas that would be more sensitive to these, considering impacts on cultural, ecological and amenity values within the river system.

The flood protection designs work as a combination of channel improvements, soft and hard bank edge erosion protection, maximising width of river berms and upgrading stopbanks to allow for increased flood conveyance and flood security.

The flood protection works will protect against an estimated $1.1B of direct damages from the design flood event, and prevent the flooding of up to 3200 homes, 730 businesses and 5 schools.

2.1.1 Melling Bridge

Melling Bridge is a key constriction point on the Hutt River, and without replacement only a 0.5% annual exceedance probability (1-in-200 year return period) level of service can be achieved. The bridge is owned by the Hutt City Council. As part of its detailed business case for the Melling Transport Improvements the NZTA has identified that any future grade separated interchange would need to be integrated with a replacement bridge. The NZTA has identified three alternative locations for a replacement for Melling Bridge. If built, any of these three designs could be engineered to achieve the target level of service for flood protection of 0.23%AEP (1-in-440 year return period flood) and assist delivery of the flood security goals of RiverLink. The DBC will recommend one of the three options to the NZTA board at the end of 2018.

2.1.2 Ecology, Amenity and recreation

The Hutt River Floodplain management plan is supported by the Hutt River Environmental Strategy that guides the delivery of community aspirations for ecological, amenity and recreational outcomes for the river and contributes to the Biodiversity and Freshwater Quality Outcomes sought by GWRC’s 2018-2028 LTP.

The RiverLink project has been developed alongside the recently endorsed Te Awa Kairangi/Hutt River Environmental Strategy and Action Plan. The RiverLink design makes space available for inclusion of stormwater treatment wetlands on the river berms, outlines areas of landscaped native and exotic plantings, placement of habitat boulders and natural vegetation features within the river, and spaces for a mix of recreation types recognising the diverse uses of the river park and combining design approaches to create a variety of experiences along the riverside. The designs also include improvements to the very popular River Trail by widening the space available to cyclists and pedestrians on the mix of pathways through the area and exploration of creation of a cultural trail telling the story of the river from mountains to sea.

2.2 Making Places and City Infrastructure

The Making Places and Hutt City infrastructure components of RiverLink seek to reinvigorate Hutt City, with a focus on attracting people to live, work and invest in the CBD. The key components of this are the riverfront promenade and associated private investor development of new apartment and office buildings along Daly St, a pedestrian and cycling bridge connecting Margaret St to Pharazyn St and a relocated Melling Train Station, upgraded stormwater infrastructure to support the desired additional CBD population and improvements to the local road network and streetscapes in the areas bounded by Melling Bridge, Ewen Bridge, Cornwall St and the river.

The combined urban design and infrastructure improvement works are forecast to add $2.5B to the local economy, support development of 1300 new homes, and create up to 2700 new jobs.

2.3 Melling Transport Improvements

Melling Transport Improvements Investigations (2016) work programme is considering a range of options that seek to deliver:

1. Safer journeys for all road users

2. More reliable and efficient journeys

3. Better access to travel choices at Melling

4. Better security and availability of the transport system at Melling

It is considering the accessibility of the city by a range of modes including public transport, walking and cycling

The DBC has refined these transport options down to three combinations of grade separated interchange and bridge. These options all aim to support delivery of the Flood Protection and Making Places outcomes and therefore strive to achieve a preferred Preliminary Design across RiverLink.

The transport improvements DBC will be recommended to the NZTA board at the end of 2018.

Investigations looking into the options for Transport Improvements at Melling seek to maximise the synergies between Transport, Flood Protection and Making Places. The major synergies incorporate:

2.3.1 Melling Train Station Relocation

For all proposed upgrade options, the train station will need to be relocated minimum 250m south to provide sufficient space to construct an interchange. Locating the train station opposite Margaret St (~500m south) with the pedestrian cycle bridge connection over the Hutt River, enables a direct public transport connection between the Lower Hutt CBD and Wellington CBD.

2.3.2 Melling Bridge

The investigations to date have identified that the options which best address transport issues at Melling involve a grade-separated interchange. All the proposed options work best with a new Melling Bridge. Depending on the option selected a new bridge may be beside the existing bridge landing on the eastern site at Melling Link or a bridge south of the existing bridge landing on the eastern side at Queens Drive.

2.3.3 Intersections Upgrade

The intersections upgrade at Melling (new interchange) and local roads on Queens Drive and Melling Link (up to High Street) maintains all connections to the state highway and improves transport conditions for all modes including walking and cycling. With input from the RiverLink team, NZ Transport Agency have refined their longlist of ideas to identify a shortlist of three options which are being developed in more detail and have been the subject of community engagement. It is anticipated that a preferred option is identified in July 2018. The local road intersection improvements will be co-designed with the RiverLink team.

3. Implementation Budgets and Programme

The preliminary design has sought to identify and secure budget required for project delivery from each of the organisations. Both GWRC and HCC have committed funding for the project components that fall fully within their respective role responsibilities within their respective LTP’s. NZTA will make a decision regarding the future programme and budget for the Melling Transport Improvements at its board meeting at the end of 2018.

Below is a summary of the RiverLink implementation costs. This has been provided for the 2020 – 2028 period and the work currently proposed following 2028.

The RiverLink implementation cost estimate for 2018 to 2028 is included in Table 2.1. The cost estimate includes the flood protection works, river ecology and amenity, the river promenade, pedestrian cycle bridge, city infrastructure, Melling Train station relocation and the construction and design costs. It currently excludes the yet to be confirmed costs of the Melling Grade Separated Intersection part of the Melling Transport Improvements.

Total funding commitments to the project from GWRC and HCC are shown in Table 2.1. Unfunded items are in relation to those where a shared responsibility may exist and include the new Melling Bridge ($34M), Melling Train Station relocation ($23). It is not possible to resolve these until NZTA has completed its DBC process, however the process itself assists with refining a cost share model.

3.1 Implementation Budget

The budgets allocated by each of the agencies to implement RiverLink is summarised in Table 2.1.

HCC have approved funding as set out in the Hutt City Council Long Term Plan 2018-2028. GWRC will endorse its proposed Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018 on 26 June 2018. This includes the implementation costs for flood protection and river ecology parts of RiverLink.

The current NZTA budgets include no allowance for major highways improvements to the SH2 corridor between Masterton and Ngauranga in the ten year period 2016/17 to 2026/27. NZTA is currently exploring the case for accelerating funding for Transport Improvements at Melling. The Melling transport improvements project is currently being reassessed against the draft GPS 2018-21 priorities to determine alignment with the Government’s new strategic direction which would see a land transport system that:

· Is a safe system, free of death and serious injury

· Provides increased access to economic and social opportunities

· Enables transport choice and access is resilient

· Reduces the adverse effects on the climate, local environment and public health; and

· Delivers the right infrastructure and services to the right level at the best cost

NZTA notes that funding for state highway improvements is increasingly under pressure and that this could influence the priority afforded to the Melling transport improvements project by the Transport Agency and within the Regional Land Transport Plan.

Table 2.1: RiverLink Budget and Forecast

Item	Current allocated budget $M	Forecast $M	Variance $M	Notes
Flood Protection Property	$82	$76	$6	Figures exclude residual property value of $15M Property acquisition is currently in progress
Urban Design Property	$7	$7	0	Figures exclude residual property value Property acquisition is currently in progress
Flood Protection upgrades	$43	$43	$0	Includes river channel, edge protection, and stopbanks. Includes allowance of $5M for design, consent and delivery.
River ecology and amenity	$2	$3	($1)	Includes instream and riparian ecology, habitat and biodiversity
Urban Design Upgrades	$26.3	$28.6	($2.3)	Making Places Components, Promenade,
Pedestrian Cycle Bridge	$6.5	$7	($0.5)	Design and length will influence the final cost
Stormwater	$2.1	$6	($3.9)	Includes wetland treatment infrastructure
Sub-total	$168.9	$170.6
New Melling Bridge	$6.5	$34	($27.5)	Any NZTA contribution is subject to completion of DBC and subsequent board decision
Melling Transport Improvements	$TBC	$TBC		Any NZTA contribution is subject to completion of DBC and subsequent board decision
Melling Station Relocation	TBC	$23		Any NZTA contribution is subject to completion of DBC and subsequent board decision

Note:

1. Detail design, consenting and construction supervision costs are estimated to be up to $15M. Apportionment of costs will be confirmed following NZTA board decision at end of 2018.

2. The Melling Train Station, Melling Bridge and Bus Hub are yet to be fully defined and are dependent on the DBC decision by the NZTA board at the end of 2018. The budget provided is an order of magnitude cost and has been provided to understand the potential budget required for the entire programme.

3. The budget has been split into two tables to identify those projects that are part of RiverLink and those projects HCC has forecast in its infrastructure strategy outside of the next LTP.

4. A margin has not been applied to property costs

Negotiations on how allocation of the implementation budgets from each agency will fund the construction of RiverLink will be undertaken in the next phase of work and are contingent on the decisions to be made by each organisation to commit to the Preliminary Design.

3.2 Projects after RiverLink 2018-2028

A number of design concepts were explored as part of the development of Preliminary Design. These projects have been developed to a conceptual level of detail but due to programming and funding decisions have been programmed to be delivered after RiverLink within the 2018-2028 LTP is completed. These have been identified within infrastructure strategies for each organisation. These projects and their current forecast estimates are tabled below.

Projects	Project Est. $M
Making Places Future Projects – promenade extension	$ 18
Water and Wastewater – growth related covered by Development Contributions	$ 11
Bus Hub	$ 6
Design, consenting, construction delivery	$ 2
Residual Property Value Recover (GW and HCC)	($15)

3.3 Implementation Programme

The implementation sequencing proposed is based on current best estimates for construction timing and past experience. It is anticipated and expected that once the Construction Contractor is appointed that the implementation programme will be refined. The programme is subject to decisions yet to be made by each organisation.

Figure 1: RiverLink Proposed Programme

The proposed integrated RiverLink programme has been developed to achieve the RiverLink outcomes before 2028, the duration of the next LTP. A programme dashboard includes programming estimates based on current designs for the flood protection improvements, Making Places components and Melling transport improvements. This programme includes some assumptions regarding timing of works and has been developed with respect to budget allocations made in both councils LTP’s, and the investment decisions already in place for NZTA regarding State Highway 2. The RiverLink implementation programme is currently based on the assumption that NZTA funded works will occur 2026 - 2036. The implementation programme will be updated at the end of 2018 based on the decisions made by the NZ Transport Agency board.

The scope of the programme to deliver RiverLink has been broken down into:

3.3.1 Detailed Design and Approvals 2018 – 2020

This phase will see the completion of detail design sufficient to lodge joint Notices of Requirements (NoRs) and resource consent applications for the necessary statutory approvals to complete all components of work.

To be able to apply for NoRs and resource consents, parts of the design will be required to be developed in more detail to understand the form of major structures, how they interface with each other while maintaining the hydraulic capacity and security of the proposed river channel.

Once the Consent is underway and preliminary findings are known, the design can be further developed to incorporate the statutory approval requirements and create the Construction documentation.

For further detail of what is entailed in this stage see Attachment B.

3.3.2 Implementation concurrent with detail design and consents

Discrete work packages, such as a the Belmont Wetland, streetscape upgrades and some services improvements have been identified from within RiverLink which can be implemented and delivered outside of the complexity of the overall project Resource Consent and statutory approval process.

3.3.3 Implementation 2021 -2028

Major construction will be undertaken during this period.

The implementation programme recommends an approach that starts at the Mills St stopbank as soon as consents to carry out the works have been granted, followed by works in the City Centre section, followed by the Marsden St section, and the Pharazyn/Belmont section of works will be implemented at the same time as the Melling Transport Improvement works.

Item	Summary Description	Major Interdependency
Mills Section	Flood protection works, services relocation, in stream and terrestrial ecological habitat.	New Melling Bridge location
CBD Section	Flood protection works, services relocation, in stream and terrestrial ecological habitat. Community facilities Promenade -Andrews Ave to Margaret Street Pedestrian Bridge City Connections	Stopbank, MSE retaining wall, promenade, pedestrian bridge, Melling Train Station,
Marsden Section	Flood protection works, services relocation, in stream and terrestrial ecological habitat. Local road changes and street scape	Wellington to Normandale bike path
Pharazyn/Belmont Section	Flood protection works, services relocation, in stream and terrestrial ecological habitat. Channel improvements Local road changes and street scape.	Melling intersection upgrade works including new bridge, roading layout, Melling train station relocation

Current budget decisions mean that Melling Transport Improvements will not happen prior to 2026

3.3.4 Melling Transport Improvements 2026 and beyond

The organisations will continue to collaborate on the design and continue to strengthen the interfaces between RiverLink implementation components and develop a project structure, commercial and management arrangements. The Transport Agency are also looking at options for staging investment as a potential way of providing early benefit to the Councils sought outcomes if the board decision recommends a later implementation of the Melling Transport Improvements parts of RiverLink.

The information will be presented to the NZ Transport Agency board at the end of 2018 for a decision on the preferred budget, timeline and involvement from the NZ Transport Agency.

3.4 RiverLink beyond 2028

RiverLink has been defined as a package of projects up to 2028 across the interests of all organisations. There are however future aspirations outlined in the Making Places strategy and Hutt City Spatial Plans that bear particular mention in relation to RiverLink design decisions that have steered the design to leave opportunity for the delivery of these outcomes beyond RiverLink.

3.4.1 Promenade extension

The promenade could extend beyond the existing promenade (between Margaret St and Andrews Ave built during the RiverLink implementation phase), south from Andrews Ave to Ewen Bridge and north from Margaret St. towards Melling Bridge. The aim of this project is to improve the social amenity and sense of place for all Hutt City residents, and promote the CBD as a vibrant, attractive and liveable area, particularly for young people in addition to its environmental and health benefits.

3.4.2 Bus Hub

Opportunity exists to master plan and future proof bus services into a dedicated central city interchange that better integrates with rail services, walking, cycling, and future growth. RiverLink triggers once in a life time opportunities to obtain land, control land-use, influence key development, and to design and reconfigure the multi-modal central city transport network.

The existing bus situation does not match the quality of lifestyle or the transport choices being made. NZTA research (Transport Outlook: Future State Report, Nov 2017 – Ministry of Transport) shows growing numbers of younger people are choosing not to own cars and instead are choosing to use other modes including public transport. HCC/GWRC research (Colmar Brunton 2016) shows bus users, pedestrians, and cyclists are significant contributors to the Lower Hutt CBD economy.

The optimum location for a bus interchange is expected to shift over time from its current location at Queensgate to somewhere toward the growth centred around the Promenade and pedestrian bridge connection to the relocated Melling train station. HCC and GWRC officers are now considering options that take into account the latest thinking and developments made through RiverLink and 2018 Review of the Making Places Strategy by HCC.

4. Supporting information

To assist decision makers regarding the RiverLink project a number of independent experts have been engaged to review and scrutinise the project. These reviews and opinions can be found at www.riverlink.co.nz

4.1 Preliminary Design Report

The full Preliminary Design report and full technical reports are available to view on www.riverlink.co.nz The Preliminary Design Reports presents a composite description of the design process, influences and elements for the project. The full technical reports detail each design component that makes up the preliminary design and the information fed into the design process.

The preliminary design phase has produced an integrated design incorporating the three partners’ overlapping work programmes and optimising the benefits and opportunities created from the linkages between the programme elements.

4.2 Independent Peer Review of Flood Protection Design

An independent peer review was completed, Nov 2017 – Apr 2018, to provide confidence to decision makers that the preliminary design work completed will, based on its current state and consideration of design assumptions, be able to deliver the flood protection outcomes sought by RiverLink.

The peer review excluded the structural perspectives of the various retaining walls, the design of the pedestrian bridge, cost estimate, constructability of the design, recreational values, ecological and biodiversity design, Iwi relationship and emergency management. The review also excluded design standards, these were reviewed and set through the process of developing the Hutt River Flood Plain Management Plan 2001.

The peer review was undertaken by HR Wallingford (Oxfordshire, United Kingdom). HR Wallingford is a leading international specialist company in flood management and the water environment. The specialist areas of expertise covered by the HR Wallingford staff members who carried out this peer review includes flood management, hydraulic modelling, sediment modelling, geomorphology, flood protection banks (stopbanks), geotechnical and structural design and links with other projects. For instance Jonathan Simm (reviewer of the stopbank design) was the Project technical lead and part of the Technical Editorial Team, which set the international good practice on stopbanks through the creation of the International Levee (stopbank) Handbook, 2013.

The peer review concluded that a robust Preliminary Design has been prepared that will deliver the flood protection outcomes sought by the RiverLink project. The design is considered to be pragmatic and realistic taking account of the constraints of the river corridor and the need to pass a large flood without failure of the stopbanks.

A number of detailed comments have been made which have been discussed with the design team. The conclusion is based on the understanding that the issues will be addressed in the detailed design phase of the project. They include comments on the design of the MSE wall that supports the promenade along the Lower Hutt CBD frontage and the rock protection on the river channel.

Some elements of associated projects including the replacement for Melling Bridge and the Making Places proposals have not yet been integrated into the flood protection design. These will affect the detail of the design but not the overall concept.

5. Consenting Pathways

Undertaking the proposed improvements being sought through RiverLink, will require authorisation under the Resource Management Act 1991 through the designation of the land required for public works, and obtaining the necessary resource consents. Longer term changes to the City of Lower Hutt District Plan will also need to make provision for the consequential changes in land use and to encourage forms of development that support the vision for the City Centre.

Achieving many of the project elements will be dependent on other elements occurring first – therefore there is a strong interrelationship between all the project’s components. The full benefits of the project will only be realised through a strongly integrated approach, entailing a high degree of cooperation and joint endeavour between the Project Partners.

In order to assist the participating organisations to decide on the preferred consenting approaches, ‘consenting pathways’ have been developed and are being considered. Once the pathway has been confirmed, a consenting strategy will be developed to map in detail the way forward and address particular designation and resource consent issues.

A range of recommendations were assessed for obtaining the RMA authorisations, with the key recommendation being that the Project Partners jointly agree to pursue a pathway that involves, as much as possible, a collaborative approach, entailing

· Separate Notices of Requirement and resource consents applications prepared together as a single package of documents

· The supporting environmental and technical input provided by a single team of experts, contributing to one overarching Assessment of Environmental Effects and evidence set, and

· The designations and resource consents being issued under each responsible requiring authority, and implemented by the respective agencies in a coordinated approach.

The development of the Notices of Requirement and applications will take between 6-12 months, the application processing 1-2 years, depending on appeals, and a decision is therefore forecast for 2021 at this stage.

6. Communication and Engagement Strategy

Crestani were engaged to assist with the development of a Communication and Engagement Strategy to take the project through its entire life.

They have clearly articulated the needs of the project and provided a blueprint for which all communication and engagement plans at each phase of project will evolve.

For the project to be a success it requires all partner agencies, elected officials, the Hutt City business community and other stakeholders to support the vision and commit to working together to make it a reality. For the broader public, particularly the communities living in and around Hutt City, success lies in maintaining the strong public mandate for the outcomes RiverLink seeks to achieve and in ratepayers supporting the investment required to complete the project.

Quite simply, RiverLink is the most significant initiative and project ever embarked on for Hutt City. It aspires to deliver a more resilient, accessible and liveable city that will make Hutt City an unbeatable place to live, work and play.

Through interviews with stakeholders it has provided an opportunity to RiverLink by providing a strong steer on where future external and internal engagement and communications efforts should be focused. RiverLink engagement and communications blueprint must achieve two outcomes:

1. Deliver a powerful vision that draws people in: an aspirational and joined-up vision for Hutt City that is shared by the three partner agencies and all the project’s wider communities of interest

2. Create a movement that gains and maintains momentum over the entire life of the project. An engagement process that is inclusive and captures the imagination of all those who have a stake in the long-term success of Hutt City.

With the next steps outlined and recommended actions defined by key success factors, RiverLink will develop a Communication and Engagement framework for the next phase around this strategy. The framework will include addressing the recommendations, developing a plan and creating the right team to implement.

7. Delivery Structure Considerations

It has been identified through the technical Peer Review, Consent Strategy and the Communication and Engagement Strategy that objectives for RiverLink are best achieved through collaboration and co-ordination, (integrated), across the three projects (Flood Protection improvements, Making Places and Melling Transport Improvements).

The potential delivery models are currently being investigated by the NZ Transport Agency in collaboration with GWRC and HCC. By July 2018 an understanding of potential delivery models and commercial approach will have been developed.

8. Reference Documents

Hutt River Flood Plain Management Plan. For the Hutt River and its Environment. Flood Protection Group. Wellington Regional Council. October 2001

Hutt River City Centre Upgrade Project River Corridor Options Report. Wellington Regional Council July 2015

Hutt Valley Flood Management Subcommittee Report. Greater Wellington Regional Council. 20 Mar 2014 (File N/03/18/21)

Attachment A: Hutt River City Centre Project Design Objectives 2014

The design objectives for the Hutt River City Centre Project were confirmed by the decision of the Hutt River Flood Management Subcommittee in 2014 and are repeated below:

Flood Risk

1. Improve the Hutt Valley’s resilience to flood hazard by a river channel, structures clearance, and corridor design that provides for a 2800m3/s flood flow.

2. Improve the Hutt Valley’s resilience to flood hazard by managing development and infrastructure elements within the corridor (eg SH2 and any widening of it, stormwater and other pipe networks, or integrated building edges in the town centre) that can reduce the effective floodway, or affect stopbank integrity.

3. Plan for future increases in floodplain resilience by considering now the future options (such as the broadening of the corridor and increasing the height of the new stopbanks) to ensure that these are not precluded by the currently planned upgrades.

4. Improve the river channel edge protection so as to minimise the risk of failure of flood defences from erosion during a flood.

Linking and Development

5. Improve the walking, cycling and other active mode linkages to and along the river corridor from the city centre, public transport nodes, and wider Hutt Valley urban area.

6. Facilitate development opportunities for sites that front to the river corridor in the city centre.

7. Create a direct frontage between river front sites in the city centre and a new river promenade.

Traffic Movement

8. Identify and provide for the modifications to the wider transport network as required to accommodate Linking and Development objectives.

9. Improve the functioning, safety and accessibility of the intersection between SH2 and local road network and off road paths including residential areas on the hills.

10. Understand and recognise the need for car parking in strategic locations, including for recreational, commuter and shopper use

Community, Amenity and Ecology

11. Recognise and provide for the viability and amenity of public and private properties adjacent to or adjoining the river corridor and stopbanks.

12. Generate spaces and places along the river corridor that reflect Hutt River Environmental Strategy (Linear Park) and Making Places initiatives that that are reflective of user’s needs, cultural and landscape values.

13. Improve the ecological performance and biodiversity of the river corridor in respect of stormwater management, riparian and terrestrial habitat values recognising the needs for flood protection works.

14. Engage with iwi with mana whenua of the river in regard to cultural values and those values’ representation in the project outcomes.

Implementation, Strategy and Economic Sustainability

15. Enable a staged implementation process such that developments can occur over time as practicable.

16. Ensure the design outcome is affordable in terms of its ability to be implemented and maintained.

17. Engage with communities of interest and seek their feedback as to the design options and costs of implementation.

18. Recognise that any design options developed will require consideration relative to existing statutes, strategies and plans.

Attachment B: Scope for Detailed Design and Consents 2018 -2020

Table: Major Items of the Detailed Design and Consents 2018-2020

Item	Summary Description	Major Interdependency	Owner
Geotechnical Investigations	Detailed investigations to determine ground conditions, aquifer depth, construction material conditions.	Making Places (MSE wall and pedestrian bridge), Melling Transport Improvements	NZTA, GWRC, HCC
Melling bridge design	Melling Bridge is owned by HCC. Melling Intersection improvements will require a new bridge. Flood Protection designs require a new bridge.	Transport Improvements, Making Places Strategy	HCC (being designed by NZTA)
Pedestrian/Cycle Bridge design	HCC Making Places Pedestrian cycle bridge design	Project is part of making places strategy and design lead is HCC	HCC
Detail design – MSE Retaining Wall	Refinement of design for MSE Wall (Daly St) and recommendations of Preliminary Design Peer Review report. Inclusion of findings of geotechnical investigations	Geotechnical investigations, Stopbank design, Making Places Design	HCC
Detail design -Promenade			HCC
Detail design – Hydraulic Model Update	Inclusion of bridges designs in hydraulic model and adjustments	Melling bridge design, Pedestrian cycle bridge design, Landscape design	GWRC
Detail Design – Sediment transport model	Inclusion of bridges designs in sediment transport model and adjustments.	Melling Bridge design, Pedestrian cycle bridge design, Landscape design	GWRC
Detail design – Stopbanks	Refinement of preliminary design and recommendations of Preliminary Design Peer review report. Inclusion of findings of Hydraulic model update	Landscape and ecology detail design, Making Places Strategy, Transport Improvements	GWRC
Detail design – Channel and Berms	Refinement of preliminary design and recommendations of Preliminary Design Peer review report. Inclusion of findings of Sediment Transport Model.	Landscape detail design, Making Places Strategy, Transport Improvements	GWRC
Detail design – Landscape	Refinement of preliminary design and recommendations of Preliminary Design Peer review report. Inclusion of findings of hydraulic model update and sediment transport model	Stopbank design, Channel and Berms designs, Hutt River Environment Strategy, Making Places Strategy	GWRC, HCC
Notice of requirement	Statutory requirements to facilitate designating required in order to undertake physical works		GWRC, HCC, NZTA
Consent preparation	Statutory requirements required in order to undertake physical works		GWRC, HCC, NZTA

Attachment 2

The Making Places Story

Making Places has been progressing for more than a decade and its story has been well shared between Council, Stakeholders, and Community. Apart from the most recent work to update Making Places through a central city spatial plan everything that follows in this text should be well known within Council.

Making Places is the fourth development strategy adopted by Hutt City Council over the last thirty years for its central business district (CBD). All four strategies share the central theme of connecting the city with the river. For most of this thirty years little progress was made to understand how a meaningful connection could be achieved. In 2009 Making Places was fortunate to discover synergies with the flood protection upgrade project of Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Melling Interchange Upgrade project of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Capture

Image 1: 2009 Making Places drawing showing promenade & new road bridge.

It would be fair to say that the Lower Hutt CBD has been visibly under-performing over many years and that its main street High Street has fallen out of favour as the place to be seen doing business or to be seen socially.

The changing nature of retail including the development of malls has played a significant role in the demise of High Street but in many respects the fortunes of High Street have not been helped by an inability to adapt and complement the product offered by the Queensgate mall.

Though having lost its way the community is determined for the CBD to find itself again. The community continues to tell us (through annual surveys) that the river is very important to the future of the CBD and that we need to connect with it, enjoy it, and take care of it. It seems that people increasingly want authenticity and they want to be surrounded by environments that reflect who they are and who they aspire to be.

Sense of place and self-identity done well are important factors to memorable and liveable cities. Liveable cities capitalise upon what makes them different from other cities. This can be through the built environment, for example heritage and quality of architecture and landscapes. This can be through creative and cultural industries such as science and technology, arts and culture, design, theatre, dance, music, and film making etc. In most cases what makes places inherently special are their natural features and local culture.

The Hutt Valley has a beautiful and diverse natural landscape and prominent amongst this is The Hutt River - Te Awakairangi or ‘the river that eats the sky’.

river

Image 2: Te Awakairangi – Hutt River

Cities around the world are finding their rivers and seafronts for example Auckland, Wellington, New Plymouth, and Hamilton are reinventing themselves around their waterfronts and in doing so this reinforces who they are as communities of people.

For a number of decades Lower Hutt has had the slowest population growth of all cities in the Wellington Region. Though this has improved in recent years it is expected that growth will tail off and attracting and retaining working age population will be continue to be problematic.

Though Lower Hutt has access to a diverse landscape (hills, rivers, sea), flat land, good sunshine, good housing, good schools, employment, and Petone is admired as a desirable destination and place to live - Lower Hutt continues to lose people through internal migration to places like Wellington, Upper Hutt, and Auckland.

Through its Urban Growth Strategy Council has identified that a lack of housing stock constrains growth and plays a significant role in population migration where we are literally ‘losing’ young people. New housing can be built through greenfield, infill, and brownfield development however greenfield land is limited and infill is difficult to orchestrate to scale and communities of low density housing may be resistant to change of housing type and density.

Brownfield development through the conversion of existing or the construction of new buildings as mixed use apartment buildings is underplayed across the city with the exception of Petone. The CBD has latent potential to accommodate a significant residential population – arguably a new urban suburb of several thousand people. Council’s Promenade Economic Business Case modestly estimates 2,600 people to be living in the CBD within 20 years.

There are currently only 200 to 300 people living in the core CBD. Let’s Get Wellington Moving forecasts 100,000 population growth in the Wellington Region over the next 28 years. 50,000 of these will be in Wellington and mostly in Wellington Central. Wellington City Council indicates there are significant challenges to constructing multi-level apartment buildings in downtown Wellington due to availability of suitable sites, natural hazards, and sea level rise. Hutt City Council sees a growing role for Lower Hutt CBD to accommodate a greater share of regional population growth and to provide resilient locations for commerce and social activity.

A range of Wellington based property developers say that the Lower Hutt CBD is not currently seen as a good option for good quality apartment development and that the market needs to shift to attract their interest. The same developers did agree that Riverlink is encouraging and that the promenade was a likely catalyst to shift the market in the right direction. However developers indicated that interim actions would need to be implemented to nudge confidence and the market continually toward the quality of development being sought by the people of Lower Hutt.

Image 3: 2018 Riverlink image of the riverside promenade.

It has become evident that the Hutt CBD is under pressure to deliver on a number of opportunities at least including; regional population growth, local housing growth, resilient local and regional commercial activity, social vibrancy, sense of place, city wide self-identity, and contributing more to the regional economy and reputation.

Riverlink is viewed as the big ‘switch’ that will flip the Hutt CBD from what it is today and into the future downtown area that will house significant population growth, lasting economic growth, social vibrancy, better connect people with the river, and project a strengthened sense of self belief for the city.

The following diagram shows the Making Places components proposed under Riverlink that are funded by and supported by the people of Lower Hutt.

Funded bits

Image 4: Proposed Making Places components of Riverlink.

Making Places components proposed under Riverlink include:

1. Pedestrian & Cycling Bridge

2. Promenade Margaret Street to Andrews Ave – see section 2. Includes city access to the Promenade.

3. MSE (retaining wall to support promenade) from Andrews Ave to Jinas – see section 3.

4. Andrews Ave Upgrade – includes reconfiguration as shared space & city access to the Promenade.

5. Dudley Street Upgrade – includes reconfiguration for two way traffic.

6. Laneway System – includes upgrades that may have synergies for new development between Knights Road and access to the Promenade.

7. Margaret Street Upgrade – includes pedestrian & cycling access from the city to the pedestrian bridge.

8. Stormwater – design tbc.

9. Car parking – design tbc.

10. Melling Bridge contribution – dependent upon NZTA decision Nov 2018.

11. East Access Route – dependent upon NZTA decision Nov 2018.

Projects not funded include:

· Stages of Promenade additional to #2 above.

· Train Station

· Bus Interchange

· Community facilities in river plain.

Cross sections A

Image 5: Cross Sections through Promenade.

The Promenade will achieve a meaningful connection to the river by providing a generous and landscaped walkway that is level with the new stop banks and providing a platform into which mixed use property development can be directly integrated. This connection is expected to turn the future CBD around to face and engage directly with the river. This developed edge is expected to be vibrant with social and commercial activity lined with café’s, restaurants, boutique shops, offices, and apartments juxtaposed to drive a more vibrant inner city lifestyle.

Council has allocated funding for the implementation of the Making Places components of Riverlink.

The Promenade will be made possible by the construction of a secondary structure MSE (mechanically stabilised earth) wall shown in orange of Sections 2 & 3 of Image 5 above. It is expected that the MSE wall will require significant foundations and drilling work will start in July 2018 to ascertain the geotechnical capability of the site along Daly Street.

Council understands that we cannot simply build the promenade and expect the right sort of development to happen under current market conditions and within timeframes compatible with the Riverlink and also to meet with the community’s expectations of quality. Therefore Council approved the purchase of key properties on Daly Street essential for the development of the Promenade, and officers are progressing this. There are additional measures that may need to be considered such as partnering with appropriate partners to develop, potentially occupy, and activate the promenade and future CBD.

Council’s Business Case for the Promenade shows very favourable outcomes for investing in Riverlink. $2.5B is forecast to be added to the economy as well as 1300 new housing units (2600 people), and 2700 new jobs.

Surveys for the Business Case and those done annually under Riverlink and the CBD Spatial Plan continue to show high levels of community support for; the Promenade, residential development in the CBD, and connecting the CBD with the River. Business Case surveys indicated high levels of willingness by community to pay for this.

2018 Making Places Update

During 2018 officers have been developing a Central City Spatial Plan as an update of the 2009 Making Places Strategy. A refresh is required partly as a stocktake of progress in the CBD and partly to capture shifts in expectations, and new opportunities and risks (political, social, economic, climatic, natural hazards etc).

Projects completed under Making Places include; Plan Change 14, Dowse Square, Redevelopment of the Civic Precinct (largely complete), Investigations of Margaret Street Bridge, Traffic Model, Stepping Stones Projects, Bus Interchange Investigations, Night Market, appointment of a CBD Manager, and various improvements to public safety, public art, public space, walkability, and of course progressing the Promenade through Riverlink.

Some Making Places projects did not go ahead such as the zoning of the central city into various employment and activity precincts and environmental factors came into play such as; global financial crisis, Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes, stronger awareness of climate change and other natural hazards, and significant changes to policy - especially from the new Labour government towards transport and urban development. The new government policy for land transport sees significant shift away from state highway projects towards walking, cycling, public transport, resilience, and regional growth. Council also saw changes in political leadership and the development of key policies/strategies particularly for Urban Growth, Sustainability, Infrastructure, Leisure and Wellbeing, and addressing deprivation etc.

Council has become more aware of the demographic challenges that face the city and that there are opportunities that can be best realised by aligning effort/resourcing with third parties toward mutual goals – though Riverlink is the best example of this it may be conceivable for the Cross Valley Link to be progressed upon the same objectives of flood protection, transport, and city growth.

The Central City Spatial Plan considers the whole land area of the central city from Market Grove in the south to VIC corner at the north, and from the western foothills of Harbour View/Tirohanga and eastward toward Waterloo Station.

Riverlink is a big factor for the Central City Spatial Plan but there are wider issues regarding latent growth and this includes how to balance housing intensification with the established character of central city suburbs eg. Woburn. Also to consider is how to treat the entire central city in order to best enable and leverage off the projected benefits of the Promenade and Riverlink.

Draft Central City Spatial Plan.

The following are the key findings of the work done to date for the Central City Spatial Plan – also refer Image 6.

1. The future central city is more likely to be about doing or experiencing stuff rather than buying stuff.

2. Retail (outside Queensgate) should consolidate between the Promenade and Queensgate.

3. Land freed up can be re-purposed to non-retail uses such as good quality med/high density housing.

4. Queens Drive will be the most legible transport route & needs to reinforce ‘sense of arrival’.

5. New road bridge at Queens Drive will better define land-use & consolidate the city core.

6. Walking & cycling is very important & will contribute to amenity & liveability.

7. Margaret St will become a major walking/cycling connector.

8. Pedestrian bridge is crucial & needs to be built at earliest opportunity.

9. Riverlink is the only lever of scale to sufficiently overhaul the way the central city works.

10. Amenity of the river will play a major role in shifting perceptions of the core central city.

11. Quality is critical & the first developments need to set the tone for future growth & should build off the high quality housing stock of nearby central city suburbs.

12. A good activation strategy is very important to ensure a vibrant promenade.

13. Council needs to find partners to lead development and activate the future central city.

14. Council needs to carefully programme the roll out of implementation to build confidence, change perceptions, and shift the market.

Image 6: Partial Draft for Central City Spatial Plan.

Next Steps

During June 2018 the Draft Central City Spatial Plan will help to inform NZTA’s Melling Interchange Detailed Business Case process for narrowing down from the three options currently being considered to one preferred option. The preferred option will be recommended to the NZTA Board for approval in November 2018.

The Central City Spatial Plan confirms Riverlink as the game changer for the central city and reinforces Riverlink’s compatibility with the perceived goals of the government’s policy statement for land transport. If approved by NZTA, a new Melling Interchange will enable full flood protection and all the additional benefits to optimise the rejuvenation and growth of the Lower Hutt central city.

111

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Finance and Performance Committee

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

Lower Hutt on

Wednesday 4 July 2018 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Cr C Milne (Chair) Cr C Barry

Cr G Barratt Deputy Mayor D Bassett

Cr J Briggs Cr MJ Cousins (until 7.25pm)

Cr S Edwards Cr M Lulich

Cr L Sutton Mayor WR Wallace (from 5.34pm)

APOLOGIES: An apology for lateness from Mayor Wallace was received.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services (part meeting)

Mr L Allott, Chief Information Officer

Mr M de Haast, Chief Financial Officer

Mr B Cato, General Counsel

Ms E Davids, Risk and Assurance Manager

Mr D Tyson, Health and Safety Manager

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 18301

“That the apology for lateness received from Mayor Wallace be accepted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Deputy Mayor Bassett declared a conflict of interest in item 7b) relating to TechnologyOne SaaS Governance Update and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Deputy Mayor Bassett and Crs Cousins and Milne declared a conflict of interest in item 10 relating to Appointment of Directors – Seaview Marina Limited, Urban Plus Limited and Hutt City Community Facilities Trust and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

4. Recommendations to Council - 24 July 2018

Remuneration and Employment Policy Amendment (18/1139)

The Chief Executive elaborated on the report.

Mayor Wallace joined the meeting at 5.34pm.

The Chair foreshadowed a motion to remove ambiguity as he believed it provided for an external source to dictate the amount of the living wage each year, regardless of Council’s own remuneration process. He also believed that the Remuneration and Employment Policy (the Policy) gave an expectation for a portion of Council staff to automatically receive a pay increase each year, regardless of performance.

In response to questions from members, the Chief Executive advised that under the Policy all staff were subject to Council’s remuneration process and the Policy provided that Council intends to pay the living wage each year, subject to budget availability. He added that the Policy could be reviewed if a sudden increase in the living wage occurred which had potential to negatively impact the budget. He added that it was expected for the living wage to remain in line with other market wage increase levels for the foreseeable future.

Mayor Wallace reminded members that Council had committed to paying the living wage as a minimum wage to all Council staff, as part of the Long Term Plan process. He added that a workshop had been organised concerning the living wage and the detailed process undertaken to set the figure each year.

MOVED: (Cr Milne/Cr Sutton)

That the Committee recommends that Council will pay the Living Wage of $20.55 to staff employed by Council and thereafter ensure that Council’s remuneration framework is applied to all staff.

The motion was declared LOST on the voices.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Barratt) BY DIVISION Minute No. FPC 18302

“That the Committee recommends that Council adopts the revised Remuneration and Employment Policy attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reason that this will make the Policy consistent with the recent Council resolution to increase minimum wages to $20.55 (the current Living Wage) from 1 July 2018.

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

For

Cr Barratt

Cr Barry

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Briggs

Cr Edwards

Cr Lulich

Mayor Wallace

Against

Cr Milne

Cr Sutton

Total: 7

Total: 2

ii)

Internal Audit Charter and Internal Audit Plan 2018-2021 (18/946)

The Risk and Assurance Manager elaborated on the report.

The General Manager, Corporate Services advised there would be a workshop, around October to allow Councillor input into the strategic direction for Urban Plus Limited, to be factored into next year’s draft Statement of Intent for Urban Plus Limited.

In response to questions from members, the Risk and Assurance Manager advised that most of the additional audits outside of the programme had other sources of assurance.

Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Milne) Minute No. FPC 18303

“That the Committee:

(i) approves the Internal Audit Charter, attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) agrees with prioritisation of the internal audits; and

(iii) approves the Internal Audit Plan 2018–2021, attached as Appendix 2 to the report.”

Risk and Assurance Update and Operational Risk Report 2018 (18/945)

Report No. FPC2018/3/185 by the Risk and Assurance Manager

The Risk and Assurance Manager elaborated on the report.

Mayor Wallace left the meeting at 6.31pm.

In response to a question from a member, the General Manager, Corporate Services agreed to find out why the new Events Centre was not listed as a community evacuation centre which required an emergency generator and report on any budgetary implications.

Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting at 6.34pm.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Cr Lulich) Minute No. FPC 18304

“That the Committee:

(i) notes the information in this report; and

(ii) notes the Operational Risk Profile 2018 as approved by the Strategic Leadership Team, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

Finance Update (18/1068)

Report No. FPC2018/3/187 by the Budgeting and Reporting Manager

The Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Chief Executive advised that the Mitchell Park sale had been delayed due to the conditions of sale yet to be fully realised. He added that the resource consent had been granted that day, which should be the final condition to be fulfilled.

In response to a further question from a member, the General Manager, City and Community Services agreed to review and report back on the reasons for the under achievement of budget targets regarding swimming pools.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. FPC 18305

“That the Committee notes Council’s May 2018 year to date financial performance and the full year forecast for the year ending 30 June 2018.”

7. Information Items

Health & Safety Officer Due Diligence Report July 2017 to June 2018 (18/1084)

Report No. FPC2018/3/97 by the Health and Safety Manager

The Health and Safety Manager elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Health and Safety Manager advised that venues rented out to members of the public were only classed as workplaces, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, when a Council employee was present. He added that he received monthly reports from Council’s main contractors on health and safety, which were reported to Council’s Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) monthly. The General Manager, Corporate Services added that health and safety practises of contractors were a consideration when contracts were tendered.

Members discussed the report, the classifications used and the value of a workshop being held by the Health and Safety Manager for Councillors and SLT. The Health and Safety Manager advised that training would be held this year for Councillors relating to violence de-escalation.

Mayor Wallace left the meeting at 7.11pm.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. FPC 18306

“That the report be noted and received.”

TechnologyOne SaaS Governance Update (18/1086)

Report No. FPC2018/3/98 by the Chief Information Officer

Deputy Mayor Bassett declared an interest in the item and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

The Chief Information Officer elaborated on the report.

Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting at 7.16pm.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. FPC 18307

“That the report be noted and received.”

Finance & Performance Committee Work Programme 2018 (18/1081)

Report No. FPC2018/3/99 by the Committee Advisor

The Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members on the pending section of the work programme, the Chief Financial Officer agreed to remove the rate differential 10 year plan, as no further work was required. He added that the redesign of the combined rates invoices for Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) would seek to clearly distinguish between Council and GWRC rate charges. Changes to the combined invoice would be available from 1 July 2019, or earlier if possible.

Resolved: (Cr Milne/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. FPC 18308

“That the programme be noted and received.”

8. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

9. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

Resolved: (Cr Barry/Mayor Wallace) Minute No. FPC 18309

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

10. Appointment of Directors - Seaview Marina Limited, Urban Plus Limited and Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (18/1091)

(A)	(B)	(C)

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


Appointment of Directors - Seaview Marina Limited, Urban Plus Limited and Hutt City Community Facilities Trust.	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)).	That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.25pm, and the non-public portion closed at 7.40pm.

Cr C Milne

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 24th day of July 2018

120

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Community Services Committee

Report of a meeting held in the Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub, Kawakawa Room, 184 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt on

Thursday 5 July 2018 commencing at 5.00pm

PRESENT:

Cr G Barratt (Chair)
Cr J Briggs (Deputy Chair)	Cr S Edwards
Cr M Lulich (from 5.10pm)	Cr G McDonald
Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: Apologies were received from Mayor Wallace, Cr Milne and
Cr Bridson. An apology for lateness was received from Cr Lulich.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive (part meeting)

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services

Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager, Community Hubs
(part meeting)

Ms J Randall, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

KARAKIA

Cr Briggs led a karakia.

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Mayor Wallace, Cr Milne and Cr Bridson, and an apology for lateness was received from Cr Lulich.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. PresEntations

Visual Presentation on Accessibility for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (18/1100)

Cr Lulich joined the meeting at 5.10pm.

Ms K Pointon, assisted by interpretation from Ms J Reweti, explained some of the day-to-day challenges for the deaf and hard of hearing. Ms Pointon advised that people with hearing loss could feel like an isolated minority group. She suggested ways to remove barriers and improve accessibility to provide better equity and more participation opportunities. She added this could assisy the deaf and hard of hearing feel more fully included in community and work life. She asked Council to work with the deaf and hard of hearing community via Community Connections to improve local services and enable those with hearing loss to experience a stronger sense of belonging.

Ms Pointon advised that finding funding for venues was a challenge and she requested Council consider allowing her to use the Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub for Community Connections staff training and for free community Sign Language lessons. The Chair directed Ms Pointon to the Divisional Manager, Community Hubs to discuss this request and suggested alternative avenues of enquiry for venues.

The Chair thanked Ms Pointon for her presentation and work and invited her to present to a future Accessibility and Inclusiveness Subcommittee meeting.

Verbal Presentation from a Representative of the Toimata Foundation (18/1095)

It was noted that Cr Briggs was a member of the Board of Trustees for the Toimata Foundation (the Foundation) and had previously participated in Foundation projects.

Ms M Ducat, a representative of the Toimata Foundation advised the Foundation worked with schools and early childhood centres on a long term journey to change their environment. The programme also interacted with aspects of environmental work in the community. She said the Foundation worked in partnership with other organisations and she noted this was essential to enable the Foundation to provide support and facilitate positive outcomes.

Ms Ducat said a recent census to measure the effectiveness of the Enviroschools programme found a range of positive outcomes, including a high level of involvement from schools and early childhood centres that deepened with the length of time they participated. A large percentage of schools and early childhood centres had become involved in a variety of sustainability actions as a result of the programme, including social justice and economic initiatives. Teachers had noted the programme had a positive influence on children’s awareness of environmental and sustainability issues and they had expressed appreciation for the resources and the support from the facilitator.

In response to questions from members, Ms Ducat advised she did not have figures on the longer term impact of the programme for children who had left school. She noted the Toimata Foundation had previously collaborated with Keep Hutt City Beautiful on cooperative projects.

Ms Ducat was thanked for her work and her presentation. She agreed to email her power point presentation to the Committee.

Verbal Presentation from a Representative of YOUth Inspire (18/1096)

Ms A Black, Manager of YOUth Inspire, advised that since 2014 they had worked in collaboration with business, schools, community organisations and funding partners. As a result they had supported youth into employment, training, education, work experience, job interviews and driver licencing. She said partnerships were essential to the success of their programmes. Ms Black said YOUth Inspire worked hard to ensure young people were work ready. They collaborated with schools to identify students and provide support before they became disengaged. She added they also connected with other parts of the community such as sports groups and with volunteer projects in the community. She noted staff went out of their way to provide pastoral care for the youth in their programmes.

Ms Black advised a recent peer reviewed study provided strong evidence of the social return on investment that YOUth Inspire delivered. She added the study results had provided a clear direction for YOUth Inspire and would assist them to leverage funding. She noted the study had highlighted the importance of driver licensing to enable young people to maintain employment and avoid getting caught the justice system. She said YOUth Inspire was grateful for seed funding from the Todd Foundation but recognised that continued funding would be needed to sustain young people through to their full licences.

In response to questions from members, Ms Black advised YOUth Inspire would be employing a driver licensing coordinator from September 2018 and she expected the programme would take six months to set up from that time. She said YOUth Inspire was already supporting learner licensing but needed more sponsorship and community volunteers for the programme. She confirmed they were working with Police to ensure youth in the justice system completed the course. Ms Black advised YOUth Inspire worked closely with the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce but the Chamber had lost Ministry of Social Development funding for services that supported training and employment.

Ms Black was commended for her work with the young people of Lower Hutt.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Members noted that Cr Briggs was a member of the Board of Trustees for the Toimata Foundation.

5. Recommendation to Council - 24 July 2018

		Report of the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Advisory Group (18/1106)
		Cr Briggs suggested the words ‘as soon as possible’ be removed from recommendation (iii). He said there was more work needed on the costs for and placement of the toilet facility. He also noted a plan for approval was not likely to be ready before the 2019/20 financial year.
		RECOMMENDED: (Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CSC 18306 “That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the minutes of the 20 June meeting of the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Subcommittee attached as pages 7-8 to the minutes; (ii) notes the actions made to be completed in time for the next meeting of the Subcommittee on 3 October 2018; (iii) agrees to support the Subcommittee’s recommendation to install a Changing Places toilet facility in Lower Hutt’s CBD; and (iv) agrees to support the Subcommittee’s recommendation to further investigate involvement in CCS, Disability Action’s work involving the Thundermaps application for: a) reporting misuse of mobility parking spaces; and b) mapping the location of mobility parks in Lower Hutt.”
6.	Update on Graffiti Removal and Reduction Service (18/1040) Report No. CSC2018/3/96 by the Graffiti Manager/Contracts Officer
	The General Manager, City and Community Services elaborated on the report. He noted there had been a positive reduction in the amount of graffiti around the City and believed the mural projects organised by the Graffiti Manager were a significant contributor to this result. In response to a question from a member, the General Manager, City and Community Services said he understood that funds saved from cleaning up graffiti were being retained for graffiti prevention work. He agreed to find out more detail about this and advise Committee members. The Committee agreed that the work of the Graffiti Manager was having a positive impact and deserved congratulations. They also acknowledged the work of local artists who had demonstrated their skills in a constructive way and were positive role models for the community.
	Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Edwards) Minute No. CSC 18307 “That the report be noted and received.”

7.	Wellington Regional Amenities Fund - Update (18/1082) Memorandum dated 18 Jun 2018 by the Committee Advisor
	Cr Lulich elaborated on the memorandum. In response to a question from a member, Cr Lulich advised a review of the Wellington Regional Amenities Fund criteria would take place later this year or in 2019. The General Manager, City and Community Services further advised funding for this year had already been allocated to Matatini. He noted that Council had applied for funding for their next Highlight Festival.
	Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Lulich) Minute No. CSC 18308 “That the Committee endorses the Arts and Culture Subcommittee’s recommendation that any future savings in Council’s contribution to the Wellington Regional Amenities Fund must be earmarked for arts and culture funding in Lower Hutt.”
8.	General Manager's Report (18/938) Report No. CSC2018/3/184 by the Divisional Manager, Libraries
	The General Manager, City and Community Services elaborated on the report. He advised that the Taka Trust project that delivered modern learning into homes was expected to continue to grow across the North-East area of Lower Hutt. In response to a question from a member, the General Manager, City and Community Services advised that work from the Long Term Plan did not always require full reports and he believed the workload would be manageable. He acknowledged the long hours contributed by members of his team to complete projects and support their communities. The Chair expressed the gratitude of the Committee for the team’s hard work. It was noted the TAKA Trust would be presenting at the September meeting of the Committee.
	Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton) Minute No. CSC 18309 “That the Committee notes the updates contained in the report.”

9. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.18 pm.

Cr G Barratt

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 24^th day of July 2018

Minutes for the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Subcommittee 20 June 2018

1. Changing Places

Bruce Hodgins, Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens addressed the Subcommittee about the planning for the installation of a Changing Places toilet. He outlined the request to the LTP and told the group that it was important for the group to emphasise the need for this facility in Lower Hutt. The LTP submission recommended that the facility being the CBD and Parks and Gardens supported this. Bruce also asked the group to think about funding/sponsorship of the facility. There was a general discussion about location and cost.

Questions/comments:

Cr Barratt – understood from the LTP submissions that the need is high for this type of facility in the city

Alexa: wanted to know why a fob key was necessary, how would visitors to Lower Hutt be able to use it if a fob was required and what about adapting existing facilities.

Expensive equipment that needs to be protected from vandalism and need to ensure safety of users
Will look at solutions for visitors
Can’t adapt existing space to provide level of service that a Changing Places facility would provide

Action: Recommend that Council invest in installing a Changing Places toilet facility in Lower Hutt’s CBD as soon as possible

2. Mobility Parking

Presentation by Raewyn Hailes from CCS, Disability Action on Thundermaps App for reporting misuse of mobility parking and also mobility parks that are not marked out. Raewyn can give the group data on no of offences where, when. CCS registers all mobility parking holders.

CCSS also involved in Changing Places

Action:

Place on Community Services Committee agenda for recommendation to Council to take part in this
Raewyn to provide data report to Wendy

3. Nick Ruane, Co-Chair Wellington City Council, AAG

Talked to the Subcommittee about how the WCC AAG works with Wellington City Council. Four key points:

Clear, concise, constructive when talking with Council
Pragmatic in the short term but grounded in long term principles
Positive, patient, enduring
Example based – demonstrating the lived experience of disability. This has an impact and assists when working for change with Councillors and officers

AAG is updating the Disability Strategy at moment and it is due to come out in the next few months. Aligns with NZ Disability Strategy and UN Convention – accessibility, choice, control are the three focus priorities from the Office for Disability Issues 8 strategic priorities.

Public participation is an issue that has come up. Need to keep the forum as open as possible. Genevieve asked how this is managed. Nick replied that the public are free to ask questions however “the business of the AAG is the business of the AAG. Public has designated time to speak – run like any other Council meeting.

Alexa asked if there was separate consultation with the public. Nick said yes e.g. the development of the strategic plan; disability sector has high expectations.

A general discussion about how the two groups could work together. There will be opportunities for collaboration in the future. Perhaps a national conference for all Council Disability Advisory Groups?

Nick spoke about the importance of building a coalition with Councillors and Council officers as a key approach to success.

Minutes from previous meeting

No matters arising. Chair moved that minutes be accepted. Seconded Genevieve. Carried

Terms of Reference

Some typos to be corrected otherwise TOR approved. Need to include reference to implementation of Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan. Moved by Chair Seconded ?. Carried

Long Term Plan Submission

Cr Barratt spoke to this submission at CPC. Emphasised with Council the fact that the Subcommittee is a committee of Council and there to work with Council on disability issues.

Action: Wendy to check Community Plan Committee minute for Council decision and that mention of the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan is included in the Long Term Plan

Wendy to get someone from Transport to address speed limit issue raised in the submission.

Blind Square

Wendy updated group. Thomas Bryan contact from Blind foundation will speak at the groups next meeting. Possibility of interview with Thomas discussed.

I-See – Genevieve updated group on what happened with this trial.

Ava railway bridge

Jenna spoke to this item. Pedestrian bridge difficult and unsafe.

Action: Wendy to write to GWRC about this

General business

Discussed Liberty Swing and other play equipment. Possibility of a board walk or net meshing so that people in wheel chairs can go onto the beach and get near the water.

Action: Wendy to talk to Parks and Gardens about other play equipment and net mesh idea.

Public transport: Genevieve let the group know that the new buses are amazing. General discussion.

Action: This will be added to the letter to GWRC about the railway bridge to let them know that people are happy with new buses.

Meeting close at 4.57pm.

MEMORANDUM 129 24 July 2018

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

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

Lower Hutt on

Wednesday 11 July 2018 commencing at 5.30pm

PRESENT: Cr MJ Cousins (Chair) Cr C Barry

Deputy Mayor D Bassett Cr L Bridson

Cr J Briggs Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)

Cr T Lewis Cr M Lulich

Cr C Milne Cr L Sutton

Mayor WR Wallace

APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr G McDonald (part meeting)

Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services (part meeting)

Mr B Cato, General Counsel

Ms W Moore, Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Mr J Hoyle, Communications and Marketing Advisor (part meeting)

Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Recommendation to Council

Representation Review - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation (18/1160)

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Shierlaw said that he supported at large Council representation for the reasons that; some councillors were more effective than others; it encouraged councillors to consider the entire city; and it had the potential to increase diversity. He supported equity in second tier representation. He added that Palmerston North City Council had not put out a draft representation proposal, however, they had put out a list of options for the public to submit on.

In response to questions from members, Mr Shierlaw said that research done by the Citizens’ Panel favoured at large representation. He considered that the Peter Glen survey where 55% of respondents favoured the current system, did not give people time to consider the options because it was a phone survey and people were “put on the spot”. He further said that there was no evidence that people who could afford to campaign across the whole city were more likely to be elected.

Speaking under public comment, Mr R Sinnott, Chair, representing Wainuiomata Community Board, said that the consultation results showed that the majority of respondents in the Public Voice survey preferred second tier representation to remain as the status quo. However, the highest preference in the Peter Glen survey was for a change to Community Boards across the city. He considered that this option should be proposed as an option for consultation.

In response to questions from members, Mr Sinnott said that he did not have enough evidence about the effectiveness of Community Panels to be able to advocate for them. He added that Community Panels would need two electoral terms to prove themselves.

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Fisher, representing the Petone Community Board (PCB), said that he supported the retention of Community Boards because they added value to the city. He agreed with Mr Sinnott that Community Panels needed time to prove themselves. Given the survey results, Community Board representation across the city should be an option in the consultation material. He considered there was a bias against Community Boards in the officer’s report.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Fisher said that the PCB had not discussed a possible merger of the two Harbour Wards. He added that the two wards were formed for the historic reason that the two areas were distinct from each other.

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Branch, representing the Petone Community Board, said that elected representation was safer than appointed representation because appointments would be open to political motives.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Branch said that he agreed with either elected Commnity Boards or elected Community Panels. However, his preference was to have Community Boards.

Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Cousins) Minute No. PRC 18301(2)

“That Standing Order 15.2 be temporarily suspended in order to allow further public comment on the representation review.”

Speaking under public comment, Ms A Sutherland said that she supported either Community Boards across the city or the status quo for second tier representation. Furthermore, Community Panels had not been properly tested. Elected Community Panels were a new idea and there was no clear difference between an elected Community Panel and an elected Community Board. The officer’s report did not favour Community Boards as an option.

In response to questions from members, Ms Sutherland said that other areas of the city could have more representation so that they had the same degree of representation as the Eastbourne Bays. She added that she did not know the costs of representation because costs were not in the report. Furthermore, she considered that the Eastbourne Community Board (ECB) worked well.

Cr Barry left the meeting at 6.10pm and rejoined the meeting at 6.11pm.

The Chair said that the Eastbourne Bays was priviliged with the degree of representation that they had across the city. If Council were to implement fair and equitable representation across the city, the status quo would be changed and Eastbourne Bays affected.

Cr Barry said that Ms Sutherland should not be lectured by members of the Committee.

The Chair advised Cr Barry that if he was to repeat such statements he would have to withdraw the statements and apologise.

Speaking under public comment, Mr M Gibbons said that he understood that the Eastbourne Bays was one of the lowest populations to have its own Community Board. However, the ECB did a very good job, supported its community very well, and the cost of the ECB was a relatively small amount of money.

In response to questions from members, Mr Gibbons said that the ECB dealt with issues that did involve distribution of community funding, for example, representing the community about changes to the dog bylaw. He did not believe that Community Panel members would take the time to represent the community on these sorts of issues if they were not paid. Furthermore, he considered that community funding through Community Panels could be subject to Council withdrawing funds over time.

The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report. She said that there were the following errors in her report; page 12, paragraph 24. a, should read “fair and effective representation; and page 22, the bullet pointed list at the bottom of the page proposing to make changes to the current arrangements should be removed.

Mr Peter Glen, from Peter Glen Research, said that survey respondents were given explanations of the survey prior to giving their responses, therefore, participants made considered replies to the questions. Community Boards were elected by the public, and this was the given reason that they were favoured over Community Panels. Community Boards across the city was the preferred option and a lot of comments were received about having a fair and consistent process across the city.

Mr Jared Bothwell, from Public Voice Limited, said that the survey was written for ease of understanding, given its technical and abstract content.

Mr Steven Peter, from Public Voice Limited, said that the survey revealed that respondents considered the process important and favoured a fair, consistent election process. He added that there was a known status quo bias in survey results, and when the bias was taken into account, the data supported a change in representation from Community Boards to Community Panels.

The General Counsel said that Community Panels were not explicitly provided for in the legislation. However, Council had the ability to determine its own rules for panel bodies outside of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Mayor Wallace and Cr Briggs left the meeting at 7.20pm and rejoined the meeting at 7.21pm.

The meeting adjourned at 7.24pm and reconvened at 7.30pm.

MOVED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) agrees that the status quo be retained for Council elections; and

(ii) agrees with the status quo for second tier representation, but that it be reviewed starting March 2021 when Council has more information about how the Community Panels are working.”

Cr Sutton said that she supported first tier ward representation. At large representation risks were electioneering on a party political ticket and that it would favour those who could afford to stand.

Cr Milne said that he did not support the motion. Community Boards had been established for historical reasons in 1989, and Council now had an opportunity to change the inequity across the city. Furthermore, more value could be delivered to local communities with Community Panels as opposed to paying Community Board salaries.

Deputy Mayor Bassett supported the status quo for first tier representation. He said that there were historical reasons dating back to 1989 for the establishment of the Community Boards, and Council should review the long term representation in the city. He considered that Community Panels were more cost effective than Community Boards, but they needed more time to function before Council made a decision. Furthermore, there needed to be consistency over the city.

Cr Edwards supported the motion. He did not support at large first tier representation because it favoured people with sufficient wealth and time that could afford to stand. For second tier representation, he considered the Community Panels had not had enough time to prove themselves.

Cr Bridson said that the issue of fair community representation could not be resolved in deciding between Community Panels or Community Boards. Furthermore, funding for community purposes was a separate issue to representation. She considered that elected representation was preferable, the disadvantage being that it would cost more than appointing members. However, elections were important and they were the price of democracy.

Cr Barry said that local communities wanted to be represented at Council. The right way to look at the issue was to determine what was best for representation. He added that improvements could be made to Community Boards, and he supported having Community Boards across the city.

Mayor Wallace said that he supported the motion. He considered that it was too soon to determine the correct second tier representation structure. The community saw value in Community Boards. However, Community Panels needed more time. Furthermore, there needed to be equity across the city.

Cr Lewis said that she agreed with Cr Bridson’s comments. She considered that DLA Piper’s legal opinion had not been given enough regard. She supported Community Boards across the city.

Cr Briggs said that he supported having two councillors per ward. He supported local representation by way of Community Boards across the city, and added that the research results also supported this.

Cr Lulich said that he supported the status quo for first and second tier representation. He supported keeping Eastbourne Community Board and Petone Community Board as separate entities.

The Chair said that Community Panels needed more time and that a decision should not be made without more information about how they were working. She further said that it was important the representation process involved the principles of equity, fairness and election across the city. The principles would have implications for representation in the Harbour Ward.

The Chair put the motion to the vote in its separate parts. Both parts were declared CARRIED on a show of hands by division.

recommended: (BY DIVISION) Minute No. PRC 18302(2)

“That the Committee recommends that Council agrees that the status quo be retained for Council elections.”

For

Cr Bridson

Cr Barry

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Briggs

Cr Cousins

Cr Edwards

Cr Lewis

Cr Lulich

Cr Milne

Cr Sutton

Mayor Wallace

Against

Total: 11

recommended: (BY DIVISION) Minute No. PRC 18303(2)

“That the Committee recommends that Council agrees with the status quo for second tier representation, but that it be reviewed starting March 2021 when Council has more information about how the Community Panels are working.”

For

Cr Barry

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Cousins

Cr Edwards

Cr Lulich

Cr Sutton

Mayor Wallace

Against

Cr Bridson

Cr Briggs

Cr Lewis

Cr Milne

Total: 7

Total: 4

For the reason that Council is required to consult on a final Draft Representation Proposal no later than 8 September 2018.

4. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.15 pm.

Cr MJ Cousins

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 24^th day of July 2018

Our Reference 18/1220

TO: Mayor and Councillors

Hutt City Council

FROM: Melanie Laban

DATE: 17 July 2018

SUBJECT: Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation

Recommendation

That Council publicly notifies a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Naenae Library property.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. To ask Council to consider publicly notifying a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Naenae Library property.

Background

2. At Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting held on 2 July 2018, the committee resolved the following:-

Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Barry) Minute No. PRC 18301

“That the Committee:

(i) lets the issue of the Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation lie on the table; and

(ii) asks officers to hold a workshop on the matter before bringing it back to Council.”

3. This workshop is scheduled for Thursday, 19 July 2018. Officers will update Council on the outcome of the discussions from the workshop.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation Report	130

Author: Melanie Laban

Divisional Manager, Community Projects and Relationships

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

Attachment 1

TORP&R&CDC

POLICY AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Membership: 9

Meeting Cycle: Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the
requisition of the Chair

Quorum: Half of the members

Membership Hearings: Minimum of 3 elected members (including the Chair) and alternates who have current certification under the Making Good Decisions Training, Assessment and Certification Programme for RMA Decision-Makers. The inclusion of an independent Commissioner as the rule rather than the exception

Reports to: Council

PURPOSE:

• To monitor the development of strategies and policy that meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

• To monitor the effectiveness of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan as a strategic policy and operational document for the district and facilitate consideration of Plan Changes.

• To consider matters relating to the regulatory and quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Council under legislation. This includes, without limitation, matters under the RMA including the hearing of resource management applications and district plan hearings.

• To consider traffic matters and consider any traffic matters referred to it by Council. For the avoidance of doubt, “traffic” includes parking and excludes temporary road closures under clause 11(e) of the Tenth Schedule of the LGA 1974 and the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

Determine:

• Draft policies for public consultation, excluding those that will subsequently be required to follow a statutory process

• Approval and forwarding of submissions on matters related to the Committee’s area of responsibility

• All other matters (including decisions requested by submitters) concerning the District Plan and District Plan changes (in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).¨

• Exercise the power of waiver of the requirement to provide parties with copies of written reports prior to hearings (under Section 42A (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991).

• Hearing and deciding notified resource consent applications.

• Hearing and deciding objections to conditions imposed on resource consents

• Hearing and deciding any matter notified under the Local Government Act 2002

• Hearing and deciding objections to the classification of dangerous dogs under section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and abatement notices regarding barking dogs under section 55 of that Act

• Hearing and deciding objections to the classification of dogs as menacing dogs under sections 33A and 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996

• Hearing objections to specified traffic matters where the community board wishes to take an advocacy role.

• Exercising the power of waiver under section 42A (4) of the Resource Management Act of the requirement to provide parties with copies of written reports prior to hearings.

• Authorising the submission of appeals to the Environment Court on behalf of Council

• To appoint a subcommittee of suitably qualified persons to conduct hearings on behalf of the Committee. The Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee is also delegated this function.

• All statutory requirements under the Reserves Act 1977 that require the Department of Conservation to ratify.

Conduct of Hearings:

• To conduct hearings where these are required as part of a statutory process^{^[2]}.

• Hearing of submissions required on any matters falling under the Terms of Reference for this committee or delegating to a subcommittee to undertake hearings (this delegation is also held by the Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee).

• Regulate its own processes and proceedings to achieve its purpose and objective.

Review and make recommendations to Council on:

• District Plan changes and District Plan variations for Council approval prior to notification.

• Private District Plan Change requests for Council to Accept, Adopt or Reject.

• Final approval, to make operative, District Plan and District Plan Changes (in accordance with clause 17, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).

• Any traffic related matter.

General:

· Set the District Plan Work Programme and monitor its implementation.

· Develop and review appropriate strategies and policies in relation to the District Plan.

· Monitor the effectiveness of the District Plan and consider issues raised with the committee.

• Maintain an overview of work programmes carried out by the Council's Environmental Consents, Regulatory Services and strategy and policy development activities.

· Any other matters delegated to the Committee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.

NOTE:

The Ministry for the Environment advocates that Councils offer specialist RMA training in areas of law which are difficult to grasp or where mistakes are commonly made. This is to complement the Good Decision Making RMA training that they run (which is an overview and basic summary of decision making, rather than an in-depth training in specific areas of the RMA). Therefore in order to facilitate this, the RMA training run for councillors that wish to be hearings commissioners is mandatory.

Reasons for the importance of the training:

1 Hearings commissioners are kept abreast of developments in the legislation.

2 Legal and technical errors that have been made previously are avoided (many of which have resulted in Environment Court action which is costly, time consuming and often creates unrealistic expectations for the community).

3 The reputation of Council as good and fair decision makers or judges (rather than legislators) is upheld.

CITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Membership: 10

Quorum: Half of the members

Meeting Cycle: Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the requisition of the Chair

Reports to: Council

PURPOSE:

To monitor Council’s performance in promoting the on-going growth, redevelopment and improvement of the City, oversee the delivery of projects which contribute to these outcomes and to monitor the delivery of the regulatory and operational services in accordance with goals and objectives set by Council and ensure compliance with relevant legislation.

Determine and where relevant monitor:

The framework and timetable for relevant work programmes contained in Council’s policies, vision statements and strategies to ensure objectives are being met, including:

• The monitoring of key City Development Projects.

• Progress towards achievement of the Council’s economic outcomes as outlined in the Economic Development Strategy.

• To consider the monitoring and review the outcomes from the major events programme.

• Oversight of the Advisory Group for economic development and city events.

• Temporary road closures and stopping associated with events.

• Naming new roads and alterations to street names (Central, Eastern, Western and Northern Wards only).

• The effective implementation of Council policies through monitoring the achievement of stated objectives.

• Exercise of Council’s statutory and regulatory responsibilities and compliance with relevant legislation.

• 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.

• Heritage matters.

• Matters arising from issues raised relating to climate change.

Review and make recommendations to Council on:

• Plans that promote for the on-going growth, redevelopment and improvement of Hutt City

• Operational and capital projects to promote city development including associated issues such as scope, funding, prioritising and timing of projects.

• Changes to aspects of the LTP arising from issues raised before the committee in the course of its deliberations.

• Operational contracts, agreements, grants and funding for city and economic development purposes.

• Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan matters as required.

General:

• Any other matters delegated to the Committee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.

• Approval and forwarding of submissions on matters related to the Committee’s area of responsibility.

Conduct:

Hearing of submissions required on any matters falling under the Terms of Reference for this committee.

Note:

This does not include hearing objections to conditions imposed on resource consents which will be heard by the Council’s Policy and Regulatory Committee.

174 22 May 2018

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of The Hutt City Council held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Tuesday 22 May 2018 commencing at 6.00pm

PRESENT:	Mayor WR Wallace (Chair)
	Cr G Barratt	Cr C Barry
	Deputy Mayor D Bassett	Cr L Bridson
	Cr J Briggs	Cr MJ Cousins
	Cr S Edwards	Cr T Lewis
	Cr M Lulich	Cr G McDonald
	Cr L Sutton

APOLOGIES: An apology was received from Cr Milne.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive

Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation

Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services

Mr M Reid, General Manager, City and Community Services

Mr L Allott, Chief Information Officer

Mr B Cato, General Counsel (part meeting)

Mr D Newth, Financial Accounting Manager

Ms L Dalby, Senior Communications Advisor

Mr J Pritchard, Principal Research and Policy Advisor (part meeting)

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

Ms K Stannard, Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 18201(4)

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

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

MINOR MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA

The Mayor advised that the Mayoral Statement item was not on the Council Agenda due to a technical failure with the automatic running of the Agenda.

MAJOR ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA

Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Briggs) Minute No. C 18202(4)

That Council:

(i) notes that the matter of the Homeless Strategy report was not included in the agenda for the meeting, for the reason that the information was not available until after the agenda had been distributed; and

(ii) agrees that the recommendation be considered at this meeting for the reason that deferring this matter would not allow the Community Plan Committee to discuss the matter at its meeting to be held on 6 June 2018.”

MAYORAL STATEMENT

Mayor Wallace read out his Mayoral Statement. He advised that Mrs Margaret Willard was stepping down from her role as elected member on the Wainuiomata Community Board. He acknowledged her service and contribution to the Wainuiomata community.

Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 18203(4)

“That the Mayoral Statement be noted and received.”

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Deputy Mayor Bassett declared a conflict of interest in relation to UrbanPlus Limited, District Plan 49 and Wellington Hutt Valley Whaitua Committee.

Cr Cousins declared conflict of interest in relation to the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust.

Cr Sutton declared conflict of interest in relation to the public excluded item titled ‘Hutt City Community Facilities Trust Appointment of Directors’.

Cr Milne declared a conflict of interest in relation to Seaview Marina Ltd.

4. Committee Reports with Recommended Items

a) Traffic Subcommittee

9 April 2018

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton) Minute No. C 18204(4)

“That the report of the meeting held on 9 April 2018, with the exception of items 4a) to 4m), be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Recommended Items

Item 4a)	Koraunui Stokes Valley Hub - Proposed P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction (17/1777)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18205(4) “That Council approves the installation of a P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction at Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub, ‘Reserved for Electric Vehicles on charge only, for a maximum of 180 minutes at all times as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/1777.”
Item 4b)	Kaitawa Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/178)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18206(4) “That Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Kaitawa Road and Waitohu Road, York Bay, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/87.”
Item 4c)	Cambridge Terrace - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/232)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18207(4) “That Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Cambridge Terrace, Waiwhetu, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to Report No. TRS2018/2/88.”
Item 4d)	Shepherd Grove - Proposed Change in Parking Restrictions (18/315)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18208(4) “That Council: (i) approves the changing of Parking Restrictions in Shepherd Grove, Taita, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/89; and (ii) asks officers to review parking in the area in six months.”
Item 4e)	Brunswick Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (18/342)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18209(4) “That Council approves the installation of P120 Parking Restrictions, from Mondays to Fridays only, in Brunswick Street, Lower Hutt, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/90.”

Item 4f)	Rutherford Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/343)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18210(4) “That Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Rutherford Street, Lower Hutt, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/91.”
Item 4g)	Military Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/365)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18211(4) “That Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Military Road, Boulcott, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/92.”
Item 4h)	The Esplanade - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/366)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18212(4) “That Council: (i) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on The Esplanade, Petone, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/93; (ii) approves the installation of No Parking Zones and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in the off street parking areas adjacent to The Esplanade, Petone, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/93; and (iii) approves that the dashed lines to the east of the Boating Club are not immediately installed.”
Item 4i)	High Street (559) - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions (18/367)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18213(4) “That Council approves the installation of P60 Parking Restrictions, from Mondays to Fridays only, in High Street, Lower Hutt, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/94.”
Item 4j)	High Street (Taita Station) - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/369)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18214(4) “That Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in High Street, Taita, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/95.”

Item 4k)	Lees Grove - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (18/372)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18215(4) “That Council: (i) approves the installation of No Stopping Restrictions, from 8:30am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm on school days only, in Lees Grove, Wainuiomata, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/96; and (ii) notes that the Wainuiomata Community Board: (a) supported refreshing the painting of yellow lines and kea crossing markers in Lees Grove; and (b) asked officers to work with Council’s Parks and Gardens Division to consider the installation of a footpath on the grassed area near the alternative entrance to Fernlea Primary School.”
Item 4l)	Memorial Park (off Bracken Street) - P180 Parking Restrictions (18/375)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18216(4) “That Council retrospectively resolve the P180 Parking Restrictions from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Mondays to Fridays only, in Memorial Park, Bracken Street, Petone, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/97.”
Item 4m)	Woodvale Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/397)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18217(4) “That Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Woodvale Grove, Fairfield, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to Report No. TRS2018/2/98.”

b) Policy and Regulatory Committee

30 April 2018

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18218(4)

“That the report of the meeting held on 30 April 2018, with the exception of items 5i)-5viii), be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Recommended Items

Item 5i)

Representation Review - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation (18/537)

Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Deputy Mayor Bassett) Minute No. C 18219(4)

“That Council :

(i) directs officers to develop a package of options for further community consultation and report back to the Policy and Regulatory Committee on 2 July 2018 with a draft representation proposal based on the results of that consultation;

(ii) notes that the proposed package options are:

a) Status quo for Council, and

1. no second tier representation, or

2. Community Panels, or

3. Community Boards, or

4. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

b) Council elected as a mix of ward and at large, and

1. no second tier representation, or

2. Community Panels, or

3. Community Boards, or

4. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

c) Council elected at large, and

1. no second tier representation, or

2. Community Panels, or

3. Community Boards, or

4. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

(iii) establishes a subcommittee comprising Mayor Wallace (or his Deputy),
Cr Cousins and Cr Barratt to consider and approve the representation options developed for community consultation; and

(iv) notes that Council, once it has agreed on a draft proposal, must publicly notify that proposal no later than 8 September 2018.”

Item 5ii)	Reserve Revocation - Molesworth Street Reserve (18/464)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18220(4) “That Council: (i) notes that there were no submissions to the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Molesworth Street Reserve; and (ii) confirms the proposal to revoke the local purpose reserve status of the property and make the property available for sale for the development of housing.”
Item 5iii)	August Street Encroachment (18/415)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18221(4) “That Council: (i) notes that the formed driveway to 2/43 August Street, Stokes Valley is partially located on Council land, having been constructed around 1987; (ii) agrees to rectify the encroachment by way of a boundary adjustment; (iii) agrees to sell the encroached area to the property owner of 2/43 August Street, with all costs to be met by the purchaser; and (iv) agrees, once the boundary adjustment has been completed, to publicly notify a proposal to declare and classify the balance of the property as recreation reserve.”
Item 5v)	Proposed Lease to Hutt Cricket Academy - Hutt Recreation Ground Grandstand (18/523)
	Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Edwards) Minute No. C 18222(4) “That Council agrees to lease the first floor of the Hutt Recreation Ground Grandstand to Hutt Cricket Academy for a term of 15 years.”

Item 5vi)

Allowing Free-Floating Car Sharing in Hutt City (18/508)

Cr Cousins advised that the proposal would move Council to being a leader in vehicle sharing in New Zealand.

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson) Minute No. C 18223(4)

“That Council:

(i) notes that each car share vehicle can take up to 15 vehicles off the road by offering more travel choice and displacing under-utilised vehicles, thereby reducing pressure on parking;

(ii) approves the implementation of an annual or quarterly fee for approved car share vehicles, instead of requiring users of those car share vehicles to pay for parking each time they park a vehicle;

(iii) approves an exemption for car share vehicles to display a parking coupon and coupon exemption permit under section 3.2 of the Hutt City Council Bylaw 2017; and

(iv) approves an exemption for approved car share vehicles to comply with parking time restrictions P60 and longer.”

Item 5vii)		Earthquake-Prone Priority Buildings (18/498)
		Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Lulich) Minute No. C 18224(4) “That Council: (i) uses the special consultative procedure described under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic, onto which parts of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings could fall in the event of an earthquake; (ii) does not use the special consultative procedure described under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify strategically important routes which could be impeded by the collapse of buildings in the event of an earthquake; and (iii) agrees to establish a subcommittee comprising of Cr Cousins, Cr Edwards, and Cr Bridson, with alternates, Cr Lewis and Cr Barry to: (a) hear submissions on the proposed Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings proposal; (b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval; and (c) be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings proposal prior to public consultation.”
	Item 5viii)	Review of Policy on Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee (18/271)
		Resolved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Sutton) Minute No. C 18225(4) “That Council: (i) adopts the amendments to the Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee Policy, as attached as Appendix 1 to Report PRC2018/2/101 (shown as tracked changes); and (ii) appoints Cr Cousins and Cr Edwards as members of the Appointment Panel.”

c) City Development Committee

1 May 2018

Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Sutton) Minute No. C 18226(4)

“That the report of the meeting held on 1 May 2018, with the exception of item 5, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Recommended Item

Item 5

Options For Archives Storage, Office and Exhibition Spaces (18/430)

The Deputy Mayor elaborated on the item. He explained that the report had two aspects: a review of the archives accommodation and facilities and whether there was any opportunity to display the many items from the archives.

In response to a question from a member concerning the outcome of talks with Upper Hutt City Council regarding joint storage of archives, the Chief Information Officer advised that a renewed lease for the storage of Council archives had already been signed.

Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Sutton) Minute No. C 18227(4)

“That Council:

(i) receives the report;

(ii) notes the limitations of the current facilities;

(iii) notes the level of fire risk identified;

(iv) agrees that the Archives will stay in the current premises for the duration of the current lease (until 31 March 2023) and that officers will work to relocate the Archives at that time;

(v) notes that the Archives, Libraries and Museums will work together to organise shared exhibition spaces; and

(vi) asks officers:

(a) to investigate opportunities for exhibition spaces and report back to the Committee in six months; and

(b) that a draft development plan be prepared for Council to consider, that will allow the archives to tell the story of the city.”

For the reason that recent advice has indicated a greater fire risk at the archives than previously understood. Mitigation options to reduce fire risk are limited and eventual relocation should be planned.

d) Community Services Committee

3 May 2018

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Lulich) Minute No. C 18228(4)

“That the report of the meeting held on 3 May 2018, with the exception of item 6, be be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Recommended Item

Item 6

Epuni Community Hall Lease (18/578)

Cr Lulich commented that the matter was an emotive issue and the public speakers at the meeting had convinced members to retain the facility.

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Lulich) Minute No. C 18229(4)

“That Council:

(i) notes that the main part of the Epuni Community Hall is leased to the Hutt City Musical Theatre which manages the hall for its use and makes it available to other groups for hire;

(ii) notes that the lease expired on 30 September 2017 and since then has been on a month-to-month basis; and

(iii) agrees to renew the lease with the Hutt City Musical Theatre for a defined period (say 3 years), working closely with the organisation to help increase use of the facility by other regular users.”

e) Hutt Valley Services Committee

4 May 2018

Resolved: (Cr McDonald/Cr Bridson) Minute No. C 18230(4)

“That the report of the meeting held on 4 May 2018, with the exception of item 5, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Recommended Item

Item 5

Proposed Health and Hygiene Bylaw (18/603)

Resolved: (Cr McDonald/Cr Bridson) Minute No. C 18231(4)

“That:

(i) Hutt City Council:

(a) notes at its meeting held on 13 March 2018 it approved a timeframe to undertake the development of the Proposed Health and Hygiene Bylaw (Minute No. C 18134(3);

(b) notes the reasons for the revocation of the decision are because of unexpected staffing shortages and other workload priorities; and

(c) agrees to revoke Minute No. C 18134(3) (attached as Appendix 1 to the report);

(ii) Hutt City and Upper Hutt City Councils agree to the proposed timeframe outlined below for its development:

(a) 4 May 2018 - Hutt Valley Services Committee – sign off timeframe;

(b) 22 May 2018 - Hutt City Council ordinary meeting;

(c) 23 May 2018 - Upper Hutt City Council ordinary meeting;

(d) 23 November 2018 Hutt Valley Services Committee – sign off proposed bylaw recommending establishing a joint hearings subcommittee and membership of that subcommittee;

(e) 11 December 2018 - Hutt City Council ordinary meeting; and

(f) 19 December 2018 - Upper Hutt City Council ordinary meeting;

(iii) notes after 15 January 2019 public notice will be given in the Hutt News and Leader papers and that the Special consultative procedure starts January 2019;

(iv) delegates to the joint hearings subcommittee to agree on a time, date and location of a hearing if submissions are received;

(v) notes any other action required from the joint hearings subcommittee to be determined after submission period has closed; and

(vi) notes that the joint hearings subcommittee will meet to hear submissions and make recommendations on the proposed Bylaw for consideration and adoption by Hutt City and Upper Hutt City Councils.”

f) Finance and Performance Committee

2 May 2018

Resolved: (Cr Barry/Cr Lulich) Minute No. C 18232(4)

“That the report of the meeting held on 2 May 2018, with the exception of items 5i)-5ii), be be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Recommended Items

Item 5i)

Lending to Council Controlled Organisations (18/559)

Deputy Mayor Bassett, Cr Cousins and Cr Milne declared conflicts of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Resolved: (Cr Barry/Cr Sutton) Minute No. C 18233(4)

“That Council:

(i) approves extending the maturity of existing loan agreements to allow Council to continue on-lending up to:

(a) $3.5M to Seaview Marina Limited (SML);

(b) $13.0M to Urban Plus Limited (UPL); and

(c) $3.0M to The Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT);

(ii) approves a further short term funding facility of $5.0M to UPL for project financing of property developed for resale by UPL included in the UPL Statement of Intent (SOI);

(iii) agrees that these approvals will cover the period up to 30 June 2021;

(iv) agrees that the maximum maturity date for any loan is limited to three years from the date the loan is arranged;

(v) agrees that the margins on loans to Council Controlled Trading Organisations (CCTOs) (SML and UPL) be 1.0%, and 0.5% for Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) (CFT);

(vi) requests officers to draw up formal agreements between Council and the CCTOs/CCOs outlining the terms and conditions associated with these loans; and

(vii) agrees that any amount borrowed by Council and on-lent to a CCTO/CCO be treated as an investment for the purposes of calculating Council’s net debt figure when considering the Financial Strategy Limits.”

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Committee Structure Aug2018-Oct2019	136
2 ⇩	CommitteeMembershipAug2018Oct2019	137

City Development Committee Membership: 10	Finance and Performance Committee Membership: 7	Policy and Regulatory Committee (including traffic matters and hearing of RMA/DP to be heard by Commissioner/certified Councillors) Membership: 9	Community Services Committee Membership: 7
*Chair:*	*Chair:*	*Chair:*	*Chair:*
Deputy Mayor Bassett	Cr Milne	Cr Cousins	Cr Barratt
*Membership:*	*Membership:*	*Membership:*	*Membership:*
*Deputy Chair:*	*Deputy Chair:*	*Deputy Chair:*	*Deputy Chair:*
Cr Sutton	Cr Barry	Cr Edwards	Cr Briggs
*Members:*	*Members:*	*Members:*	*Members:*
Cr Barry Cr Barratt Cr Cousins Cr Edwards Cr Milne Cr Lewis Cr Lulich Mayor Wallace	Deputy Mayor Bassett Cr Briggs Cr Cousins Cr Edwards Mayor Wallace	Deputy Mayor Bassett Cr Barry Cr Briggs Cr Bridson Cr Lewis Cr Sutton Mayor Wallace	Cr Bridson Cr Edwards Cr Lulich Cr McDonald Mayor Wallace

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

Decide on:

Policy issues

District Plan

Representation, electoral and governance matters

Delegations and employment of the Chief Executive

Meetings and committees

Operational matters

Appoint:

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