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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Council acknowledges the recommendations of the Committee and considers all of the submissions received and heard and makes a final representation proposal, providing reasons for the acceptance or rejection of submissions.   

Please note the importance of carefully considering and recording detailed reasoning for its decisions on the following matters:

identification of communities of interest;

the basis of election;

establishment or retention of community boards;

provision of fair and effective representation for electors and communities of interest, and compliance with the ‘+/-10% rule’ in particular; and

consideration of ward boundaries coinciding with community boundaries.

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed and the membership of the Strategic Heritage Working Group comprise of
Cr Cousins (Chair), Cr Edwards and Cr Lewis.”

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

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

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

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

“That parts (i)-(iv) contained in the report be endorsed with a new part (v) to read:-

(v)     notes agreement to transfer the property to Maori Reserve would be subject to any residential development being able to be rated.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That Council:

(i)      receives the final Statement of Intent for Urban Plus Group for the three year period commencing 1 July 2018; and

(ii)     agrees to the final Statement of Intent for Urban Plus Group for the three year period commencing 1 July 2018.”

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

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

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

(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.

The Appointment of District Licensing Committee Members

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.

Report of the Chief Executive's Employment Subcommittee held on 20 August 2018 -  Process for the Recruitment of the Chief Executive

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 Chief Executive's Employment Subcommittee held on 1 October 2018 - Presentation by Recruitment Agency

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 Policy and Regulatory Committee held on 24 September 2018

Review of Private Use of Public Land Policy

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.

Minutes of the Hutt City Council held on 24 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 15 August 2018 - Chief Executive’s Performance and Remuneration 2017/2018 Review.

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)).

That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exist.

 Resolved:  (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson)                                  Minute No. TRS 18401

“That the apology received from Cr Briggs be accepted and leave of absence be granted, and the apology for early departure received from Cr Edwards, be accepted.”

i)

Block Road - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1115)

Cr Edwards declared an interest in the item and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

In reponse to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that there were no residences to consult with on Block Road. He further advised that it would be difficult to reclaim the costs if vehicle owners were to be charged for the recovery of their. He added that the area was within the remit of the RiverLink project, so large expenditure to provide a parking solution would not be cost effective.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton)          Minute No. TRS 18402

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of the proposed extension to the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Block Road, Melling as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reason the extension of the parking restrictions will reduce the likelihood of vehicles being damaged by floodwaters and reduce the safety hazard associated with retrieval of vehicles from the floodwater.

ii)

Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1213)

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 3 September 2018.

recommended:  (Cr Lewis/Cr Bridson)                        Minute No. TRS 18403

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions on Jackson Street, Petone as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restriction will improve accessibility to the existing bus stop and reduce the risk of vehicle conflict.

iii)

Eldon Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1218)

Speaking under public comment, Mr Rutherford said that he had lived in Eldon Grove for 29 years. He advised that there was difficulty in parking, as not all the properties had ample parking on their property.

In response to questions from members, Mr Rutherford said that this issue with parking was all day on Saturdays, not just the morning and not on weekdays. He asked for the the restriction up to 4pm. He added that the buses parking on Eastern Hutt Road were an issue as cars had to stop to let trucks passed the buses.

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report. The Traffic Asset Manager added that the bus company usage of the land pre-dated the requirement of a resource consent. He noted it would be reviewed if a resource consent was required, for any change of usage.

In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that most issues occurred when netball was played in winter on Saturday mornings. He added that he had no objection to extending the restrictions to later in the day, following public comment.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Sutton/Cr Barry)             Minute No. TRS 18404

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)        approves the installation of the proposed No Stopping At All Times and No Stopping Saturdays 7am to 4pm restrictions on Eldon Grove, Taita as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(ii)     asks officers to continue to work on the bus parking issue on Eastern Hutt Road, Taita; and

(iii)   asks that officers review the parking situation in the area around Eldon Grove and Eastern Hutt Road, Taita at an appropriate time in order to assess whether any further changes may be needed.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would prevent vehicles parking too close to driveways in the cul-de-sac turning areas;

-      would prevent parked vehicles restricting access to the street on Saturday mornings when parking demand is highest due to sport at the nearby Taita College;

-      promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; and

-      are supported by the local residents who responded to the consultation documents. These markings will also promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

iv)

Brookfield Lane - Proposed Give Way Control Crowther Road - Proposed Stop Control (18/1228)

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

Members noted that the Wainuiomata Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 5 September 2018.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Barry/Cr Edwards)          Minute No. TRS 18405

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the proposed Give-Way Control and associated signage at the intersection of Brookfield Lane and Moores Valley Road, Wainuiomata, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii)   approves the proposed Stop Control and associated signage at the intersection of Crowther and Moores Valley Roads, Wainuiomata as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.”

For the reasons:

-      The proposed changes at Brookfield Lane will reduce motorist confusion and reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict.

-      The existing control at Crowther Road does not meet the recommended sight distance requirements for a Give Way control. When sight distance is restricted, a Stop control is required.

-      The proposed markings will encourage compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

v)

Bolton Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark Relocation (18/1300)

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Engineer advised that the option in the recommendation of the officer’s report had been provided to the disabled customer who had raised the initial request, following the Petone Community Board meeting. No feedback had been received.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that the Accessibility and Inclusiveness Plan Advisory Group was asked to provide comment on the proposed relocation, but instead commented more globally on accessibility parking within the city.

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on

3 September 2018.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Lewis/Cr Sutton)             Minute No. TRS 18406

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the relocation of the existing mobility carpark from Jackson Street to Bolton Street, Petone as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons:

-      The proposed location on Bolton Street is better suited to a mobility carpark due to the extra space available and more level carriageway.

-      These markings will also promote compliance with the New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility).

-      It will support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

vi)

Mabey Road - Proposed Mobility Carpark (18/1309)

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Sutton)         Minute No. TRS 18407

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a Mobility Carpark on Mabey Road, Avalon as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons:

-      The existing Mobility Carpark is inconveniently located, at the opposite end of the parking area from the hall entrance ramp.

-      The proposed space will comply with the requirements of New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility).

vii)

Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Controls (18/1320)

Speaking under public comment, Mr Timmins believed there were significant safety issues at the intersection of Troon Crescent and Hathaway Avenue, with the intersection being a blind corner. He suggested marking a centreline to encourage cars to stay on their side of the road. He also suggested a stop sign on Military Road and speed humps.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Timmins clarified that he was neutral on the recommendations within the officer’s report. He was suggesting further options.

The Chair drew members’ attention to the information from Mr Olds which had been circulated to members on the day of the meeting.

The Traffic Engineer elaborated on the report.

The Traffic Asset Manager in response to the public speaker advised members of the requirements of when a stop sign or giveway sign would be required. He added that it was vegetation and boundary fences that impeded sight distances in this instance. Where there were no road markings or sign, giveway would be implied. He further advised that the issues raised on speed control were not the subject of the recommendations in the officer’s report. He added that the area would be reviewed within the next few years.

In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager advised there was no history of crashes in the area. He noted the complaint raised initially had been about vehicles exiting the golf course on Military Road and Troon Crescent. He added that by installing stop controls, more people would slow down and it would also provide guidance on where it was safe to stop. He said that any further modifications would require separate consultations.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Lewis)          Minute No. TRS 18408

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the installation of Stop controls at the intersections of Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent with Military Road, Boulcott shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii)   approves the installation of Stop controls at both ends of Fry Street where it intersects with Troon Crescent and Boulcott Street, Boulcott as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report; and

(iii) asks officers to review adding a centreline on Hathaway Avenue near the junction into Troon Crescent, Boulcott.”

For the reasons:

-      The proposed changes will improve road safety.

-      The sight distances available to motorists approaching the intersections are restricted by roadside development and vegetation and warrant the installation of Stop controls.

-      The proposed changes will promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

viii)

Bay Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/1333)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

Members noted that the Petone Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the officer’s report at its meeting held on 3 September 2018.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Lewis/Cr Bridson)                        Minute No. TRS 18409

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P30 parking restrictions over two existing car parks on The Esplanade, Petone as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve parking turnover and availability for local business customers;

-      support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

-      are supported by the directly affected residents.

ix)

Rodney Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (18/1345)

Cr Barry left the meeting at 3.57pm.

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

Cr Barry rejoined the meeting at 3.58pm.

Members expressed support to encourage use of public transport. They considered the recommendations contained within the officer’s report were a good compromise as some of the feedback on the consultation requested further restrictions.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Bridson/Cr Barry)            Minute No. TRS 18410

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions, L and T bar parking markings and P120 parking restrictions on Rodney Street, Waiwhetu as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would:

-      improve parking availability and accessibility on the street for the benefit of all road users;

-      promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; and

-      support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

x)

High Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (18/1346)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Sutton/Cr Bridson)           Minute No. TRS 18411

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on High Street, Avalon as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would:

-      Facilitate the installation of a new pedestrian refuge island to improve road safety and pedestrian accessibility.

-      Promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

xi)

Kings Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1347)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

recommended:  (Cr Bridson/Cr Barry)                         Minute No. TRS 18412

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

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve safety, sight distance and accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users;

-      would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; and

-      are supported by the local residents that responded to the petition document.

xii)

Whiteman Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (18/1349)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Sutton/Cr Lewis)             Minute No. TRS 18413

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions on Whiteman Grove, Taita as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users;

-      promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004;

-      support Council’s Parking Policy 2017;

-      are supported by the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

xiii)

Witako Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1356)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Cousins/Cr Bridson)         Minute No. TRS 18414

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions, and L and T bar parking markings on Witako Street, Epuni as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve sight distance and the road safety level of service within the street for the benefit of all road users;

-      improve accessibility to the driveway of Nº 38A Witako Street; and

-      are supported by the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

xiv)

Marsden Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1357)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Cousins/Cr Barry)                        Minute No. TRS 18415

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Marsden Street, Melling as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve safety within the street for the benefit of all road users; and

-      would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

xv)

Oakleigh Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/1358)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton)          Minute No. TRS 18416

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P30 Parking Restrictions on Oakleigh Street, Maungaraki as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve accessibility, parking availability and general parking turnover for customers of local businesses;

-      support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

-      are supported by the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

xvi)

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (18/1359)

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

recommended:  (Cr Sutton/Cr Bridson)           Minute No. TRS 18417

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Parking on the Grass restrictions on Eastern Hutt Road, Taita as shown attached as Appendices 1-6 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would prevent damage to the grass berm and reduce repair and maintenance costs; and

-      would promote compliance with Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

xvii)

Cambridge Terrace - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (18/1396)

Speaking under public comment, Ms D Tunnicliffe representing the Hutt Valley Sexual Abuse Support and Healing Centre said the the P120 parking restrictions had been requested to assist customers of the centre. She added that it could be stressful for customers to find parking, the centre had been there for 20 years.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Tunnicliffe advised that there was no offstreet parking available at the centre. She confirmed that there was an adjoining alleyway, which customers of the centre did not feel comfortable using.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Barry)          Minute No. TRS 18418

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping at all Times restrictions, P120 parking restrictions and parking bay markings on Cambridge Terrace, Waiwhetu as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve parking availability and accessibility on the street for the benefit of the Hutt Valley Sexual Abuse Support and Healing Centre;

-      support Council’s Parking Policy 2017;

-      promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; and

-      are supported by the local residents who signed the petition documents.

xviii)

Belmont School - Proposed Mobility and No Parking on Grass Restrictions (18/1397)

The Traffic Asset Manager agreed to review the lighting in the area.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton)          Minute No. TRS 18419

“That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the following outside Belmont School:

(a)   the proposed Mobility car park, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(b)   the proposed No Parking On the Grass restrictions, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(c)   the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(d)   the existing No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would improve safety, sight distance and accessibility within the area for the benefit of all road users; promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; and support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Attachment 1

Block Road - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions Plan

Attachment 1

Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Attachment 2

Eldon Grove - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Attachment 1

Brookfield Lane - Proposed Give Way Control

Attachment 2

Crowther Road - Proposed Stop Control

Attachment 1

Bolton Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark Relocation

Attachment 1

Mabey Road - Proposed Mobility Carpark

Attachment 1

Boulcott Street, Fry Street & Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Intersections

Attachment 2

Hathaway Avenue & Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Intersections

Attachment 1

The Esplanade - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Attachment 1

Rodney Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

Attachment 1

High Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions

Attachment 1

Kings Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions

Attachment 1

Whiteman Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions

Attachment 1

Witako Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Attachment 1

Marsden Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Attachment 1

Oakleigh Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Attachment 1

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 1)

Attachment 2

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 2)

Attachment 3

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 3)

Attachment 4

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 4)

Attachment 5

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 5)

Attachment 6

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions 70.2018 18/1359 Cycle 4 2018 (Appendix 6)

Attachment 1

Cambridge Terrace (67) - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions 36.2018 18/1396 Cycle 4 2018

Attachment 1

Belmont School - Proposed Mobility and No Parking on Grass Restrictions 35.2018 18/1397 Cycle 4 2018

RESOLVED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Briggs)                          Minute No. DPC 18401

“That the apologies received from Mayor Wallace and Cr Edwards, and the apology received from Cr Milne for lateness be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

Proposed District Plan Change 52: Alignment of District Plan with New Zealand Heritage List (18/1429)

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst said that in the event that the Naenae clock tower was not identified on the New Zealand Heritage List, the building could be listed in Appendix Heritage 2 of the District Plan. She further said that the owners of the Naenae clock tower had been informed about Proposed Plan Change 52 (PPC52) one week ago.

Cr Milne said that Council should be giving property owners the maximum amount of notice as possible that their properties were under consideration for heritage listing, and that one week’s notice was not enough time for them to obtain legal advice.

Cr Cousins said that a report on Council’s Heritage Policy would be going to the Policy and Regulatory Committee for its first consideration next week.

Cr Lewis agreed with Cr Milne that the owner of the Naenae clock tower had been given short notice of PPC52. Heritage issues were sensitive and Council needed to give good publicity and notice of the plan change.

The Chair said that the owners of the property had been informed early in the process, which was a week before Council would start talking about PPC52. Officers were required to balance how much time people had uncertainty about their properties, versus having enough time to obtain advice about the matter. A positive effect of having buildings listed as heritage buildings, was that owners would be able to access Council’s heritage fund for building repairs and improvements.

RECOMMENDED:    (Cr Bridson/Cr Lewis)          Minute No. DPC 18402

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes the Proposed Plan Change attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii)   resolves to promulgate the Proposed Plan Change for consultation;

(iii)  instructs officers to publicly notify the Proposed Plan Change as soon as practicable; and

(iv)  allows officers to make any non-policy related changes to the details of the Proposed Plan Change, should the need arise.”

District Plan Update (18/1395)

Report No. DPC2018/4/123 by the Divisional Manager District Plan

Speaking under public comment, Mr David Innes said that he did not support Council’s proposed identification and analysis of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs).  This was the fourth time he had put up a defence for the land in Moores Valley, and Council was ignoring a 630 pageTonkin and Taylor report previously written about the matter.  He said that conservation required ongoing maintenace and it was not sufficient to reserve land and wait for reversion to biological diversity. Land affected by the SNA proposal included 20,000 hectares of publically owned land and 8,000 hectares of privately owned land.

In response to questions from members, Mr Innes said that officers had written to him about how “significance” was determined.  However, he had not spoken to officers about the quality of the vegetation on his property.

The Environmental Policy Analyst said that the definition of “significance” was set out in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS). The RPS has been interpreted and a full report on the matter was available on the Council website. When contacted by land owners, officers gave them information pertaining to their site and were continuing to carry out site visits as required.

Cr Milne asked officers to circulate the information on significance,  noting that Mr Innes was unclear about why the vegetation on his site was significant.

The Chair encouraged Mr Innes to talk to the officers about the matter, and clarified that there was a difference between ecology policy and a District Plan change. She further said that when a plan change was proposed, he would have a greater opportunity to speak to his submission.

The Divisional Manager District Plan elaborated on the report.

Cr Cousins expressed concern that the upgrade to State Highway 58 no longer proposed a four-lane highway, and only proposed a two-lane highway.  The speed limit for SH58 had been dropped to 80 kmh and Transmission Gully would be a major link road to the City. She considered that the two-lane proposal was not in the long term interests of growth and development for Hutt City.

Cr Milne agreed with Cr Cousins.  He did not recall Council have a discussion and putting a submission to the New Zealand Transport Agency about the proposal for SH52. Heavy traffic used the road and the speed limit on it was an important factor.

Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Cousins)                           Minute No. DPC 18403

“That the report be noted and received.”

Attachment 1

PC 52 - Draft Proposed Plan Change for Notification incl. Appendices

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Mayor Wallace)                             Minute No. PRC 18401

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

3.

Hearing of Submissions to the Representation Review (18/1491)

The hearing of submissions is recorded under item 5 i) Representation Review.

i))

Representation Review (18/1412)

Mr D Wilshere presented submission SRR18/3.

Mr Wilshere said that he supported decision making at community level and community boards should be empowered to provide more services than under the current system.

In response to questions from members, Mr Wilshere said that the Harbour Ward should include the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head. Residents who lived there identified with Eastbourne and entered the area via Burdan’s Gate, although some entered via Wainuiomata. He further said that communities decided for themselves who they identified with and should not be decided on a population basis.

Mayor Wallace left the meeting at 5.56 pm.

Ms V Horrocks, Chair of the Eastbourne Community Board (ECB) presented submission SRR18/4.

Ms Horrocks said that Petone and Eastbourne should remain as separate boards due to the geographic access to the Eastbourne bays which would be cut off geographically in the event of a major incident. The ECB had worked on an emergency response over the last four years. She supported Mr Wilshere’s submission to change the Harbour Ward boundary at Baring Head. She added that community boards were cheaper to operate than councillors’ remuneration and provided personal local responses to residents.

Mayor Wallace rejoined the meeting at 6.00pm.

In response to questions from members, Ms Horrocks said that first and second tier representation were linked and when the first tier had been decided then the second tier could be determined. She supported having boards across the city and did not have a recommendation for the number of councillors required.

Mr M Fisher, Mr B Dyer and Mr M Branch, members of the Petone Community Board (PCB) presented submission SRR18/7.

Mr Fisher said that the PCB strongly supported second tier representation. He was concerned about a further review in 2021 and requested that it be undertaken in 2024. The PCB did not support the amalgamation of the ECB and the PCB.

Mr Dyer said that Petone and Eastbourne had very different issues from each other. Community boards represented good value and were cheaper than councillors’ remuneration.

Mr Branch said that PCB supported community boards across the city as communities were decided by people identifying with smaller areas.

In response to questions from members, Mr Fisher said that there were three distinct areas under the PCB and each had their own issues. He believed more community representation would help councillors with their work. In regard to the definition of a “community of interest”, the community in the PCB area would do their shopping and play sport in Petone.

Mr M Young presented submission SRR18/8.

Mr Young supported having community boards across the city and for councillors to be elected at large. He expressed dissatisfaction that the totals in the survey data had not been presented showing the age groups. He believed the younger age groups had supported electing councillors at large. He expressed disappointment that the Facebook survey had limited respondents age to 18 or over because 16 year olds would be eligible to vote in the next election.

In response to questions from members, Mr Young said that community boards provided good value for money. He further said that he had not considered a change in the number of elected councillors.

Mr R Sinnott, Chair of the Wainuiomata Community Board (WCB) presented submission SRR18/9.

Mr Sinnott said that the data supported the retention of community boards. The WCB also supported that the next review be in six years time, (2024), not in three years time. A review in six years would allow sufficient time to undertake research and to get it right.

In response to questions from members, Mr Sinnott said that he supported one community board per ward which would create challenges for the PCB and the ECB.

Mr M Shierlaw presented submission SRR18/2.

Mr Shierlaw said that he supported fully at large elections for Council. Other similar sized cities, such as Hamilton, Palmerston North and Napier had fully at large elections. Council needed to define how “communities of interest” applied to the city. Furthermore, councillors had an interest in keeping the existing voting structure as it was.

In response to questions from members, Mr Shierlaw said that the WCB, ECB and PCB were communities of interest. However, the suburbs of Moera and Gracefield should not be under the PCB. Furthermore, Petone should pay for itself. He further said that when comparing other cities to Lower Hutt, he had not specifically taken into account distance from key points. However, he did not consider that residents of Hutt City had onerous distances to travel to services. He added that only 7% of residents supported at large elections, therefore, he would accept mixed representation which had more support. He highlighted that if a mixed system was adopted by Council, he would not appeal the decision to the Local Government Commission. He believed that a change in the first tier voting system would result in a higher voter turnout.

The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning said that the research companies had assured her that an age restriction was not included in the survey. She was disappointed that the Council Facebook Representation Review page did require participants to be over the age of 18. She further said that Councillors could make changes to the representation review on the basis of the submissions made.

In response to a question from a member, the General Counsel said that Council should provide reasons for its amendments and also its rejections of submissions.

Moved: (Cr Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    receives the submissions received on the proposed representation arrangements for Hutt City for the 2019 local authority elections; and

(ii)   retains the initial draft proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections as follows:

a)      the Mayor be elected at large;

b)      Council be comprised of 12 councillors with two councillors elected from each of six wards;

c)      the existing second tier representation arrangements, three elected Community Board and four Community Panels, remains; and

(iii)  directs officers to draft the final representation proposal for public notification.”

AMENDMENT MOVED: (Cr Milne/Cr Lewis)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    considers the submissions received on the proposed representation arrangements for Hutt City for the 2019 local authority elections; and

(ii)   chooses to retain the initial draft proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections with the following amendment:

       alteration of the initial draft proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019 local authority elections to reflect the submissions made, that is, agrees to adjust the Wainuiomata and Harbour Ward boundaries as suggested in Submission D by including the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head in the Harbour Ward.”

The amendment was declared lost by Division with the voting as follows:

Debate on the Amendment

Cr Milne said that according to the submissions, the community of interest for the Baring Head area was Eastbourne and not Wainuiomata, therefore there was a strong argument to move the boundary.

Cr Bridson said that Council had considered moving the Wainuiomata and Harbour Ward boundaries out to Baring Head at the last representation review. However, some of the residents in that area related to Wainuiomata and not to Eastbourne.

Mayor Wallace said that further consultation needed to be undertaken with the affected people.

Cr Lulich said that Eastbourne people had a strong interest in Baring Head and supported the amendment.

Cr Barry said that more information was required on the issue before Council made a decision.

Debate on the Substantive Motion

Mayor Wallace said that the community boards needed to show their worth and some of them were doing great work. There had not been enough discussion with the community to make a change from the status quo. He said that there could be a wider scope for a change in representation in the future.

Cr Bridson said that it was important to have a range of views at Council, that the City was well represented and that communities were engaged in the process. A ward system provided all of these facets, whereas an at large system risked having some areas of the City unrepresented. She agreed with the submitter’s comments that more people vote in an at large system, however, her view was that it did not make much difference to the age, gender, ethnic mix of councillors. She supported having geographic community boards across the city which would represent their views to Council.

Cr Barry said that the surveys had shown support for a change to the voting system and preference for a mixed representation and community boards across the City. He considered Councillors had a vested self-interest to keep the status quo. He supported devolving power and decision making to community boards. He added that seven community boards would cost about the same as the current councillors remuneration. He further said that people did not know their regional councillors because they were regionally elected, therefore, not comparable to local at large elections.

Deputy Mayor Bassett said that the ward system gave people in an area a chance to stand for their community, whereas at large voting relied on name recognition. Residents of his Central Ward frequently contacted him about issues that affected them. In contrast, councillors from Greater Wellington Regional Council were elected at large and were seldom contacted about issues.

Cr Lewis said that the survey showed support for community boards across the city was 30% above the status quo. A change was needed so that people would become interested in what was happening in the city, which would increase the voter turnout. She supported mixed representation for the first tier.

Cr Lulich said that there should be more diversity in Council. However, greater diversity would be accomplished with a proportional representation model not the first past the post model. He supported retaining the PCB and ECB as separate boards because they were different communities of interest. He further supported having community boards across the City. He did not support community panels because they were politically appointed and people wanted to elect their representatives.

Cr Sutton said that she supported the ward system. She said candidates would use party political tickets when standing in an at large system. She further said that she was not convinced of the value of community boards and that community panels needed more time because they had only been operating for one year.

Cr Briggs said that the results of community consultation had shown that people wanted a change to the system, when taking into account the status quo bias. Furthermore, whether elected by ward or at large, elected councillors would receive a number of phone calls from the public. He supported enhanced community boards across the City, and a mixed first tier system.

Cr Milne said that he supported ward elections because councillors had a greater degree of accountability compared to an at large election system. Furthermore, residents voted for the Greater Wellington Regional Council using name recognition, and he considered that he did not wish to see Council have a similar election result. Elected community boards across the City would result in 48 elected people. This would result in an overlarge bureaucracy, slow down decision making and be unpopular with the public. Furthermore, it might result in forcing community boards onto communities that did not want them, especially the Western Ward. The cost of more elections would cost more than $500,000.

The Chair said that the scientific part of the PublicVoice survey supported the status quo, but when the data from the self-selected participants was included, it gave a different result. Residents clearly wanted a fair and equitable system. She further said that the Harbour Ward having two community boards was not fair and equitable representation. She added that she had been elected in an at large system, and in that system, the wider areas of the City were not well represented. However, an at large system would benefit Eastbourne and Hutt Central, and it would open the election to party politics, which would be unpopular with citizens.

The Chair asked the General Counsel to provide Councillors with further advice about whether Council could review second tier in isolation to first tier, in 2021. She added that depending upon the advice, Council may wish to review the representation in six years’ time which would be 2024.

The Chair put the substantive motion to the vote in separate parts. Part one was declared CARRIED by Division.

RECOMMENDED:    (BY DIVISION)          Minute No. PRC 18402

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    receives the submissions received on the proposed representation arrangements for Hutt City for the 2019 local authority elections; and

(ii)   retains the initial draft proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections as follows:

a)            the Mayor be elected at large; and

b)            that Council be comprised of 12 councillors with two councillors elected from each of six wards.

(iii)  directs officers to draft the final representation proposal for public notification.”

Part two was declared CARRIED by Division and the casting vote of the Chair.

RECOMMENDED (BY DIVISION) (On the casting vote of the Chair)                 Minute No. PRC 18403

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    chooses to retain the initial draft proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections as follows:

that the existing second tier representation arrangements, three elected Community Board and four Community Panels, remains; and

(ii)   asks officers to provide further information regarding the process of reviewing second tier representation again in 2021.”

For the reasons that:

·      there had not been adequate consultation to determine whether changing the boundary at Baring Head would be supported by the affected people;

·      the PublicVoice survey supported the status quo  for first tier representation, once the data from self-selected participants had been accounted for;

·      councillors had a greater degree of accountability when elected by ward compared to an at large election system;

·      the ward system encouraged a diverse range of people to stand for their local community;

·      there was evidence that respondents wanted change to the second tier, however, the community panels had only been operating for a year and needed more time to prove themselves;

·      more information was required about community panels before Council could make a decision on whether to change the second tier system, therefore, the current mix of community boards and community panels should remain as they were for another term; and

·      the survey results showed that people wanted a fair and equitable system of representation, and the current mix of community boards and community panels was not equitable, therefore, a further review in 2021 was required.

ii)

Heritage Policy Review (18/1387)

The Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning said that the definition of heritage should be wide enough to cover more than just the list buildings included in the District Plan. She said that once the policy had been developed, the preliminary definition of “Heritage” could be altered to ensure that it was congruent with the policy.

Moved: (Cr Cousins/Mayor Wallace)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    either:

(a)   agrees to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage as a starting point for the discussion of heritage in Lower Hutt; OR

(b)   agrees to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage with amendments;

(ii)   either:

(a)   approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report; OR

(b)   approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review with amendments.”

AMENDMENT MOVED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Lewis)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)       agrees to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage as follows:

“Heritage is the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, art, objects, and culture.  Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities, meanings, and behaviours that we draw from that heritage.  Heritage includes, but is more than preserving, excavating, displaying, or restoring a collection of old things. It is both tangible and intangible, in the sense that ideas and memories--of songs, recipes, language, dances, and many other elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves--are as important as historical buildings and archaeological sites.

Heritage is, or should be, the subject of active public reflection, debate, and discussion. What is worth saving? What can we, or should we, forget? What memories can we enjoy, regret, or learn from? Who owns "The Past" and who is entitled to speak for past generations? Active public discussion about material and intangible heritage--of individuals, groups, communities, and nations--is a valuable facet of public life”; and

(ii)     approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report with the following amendment:

that Council establishes a Strategic Heritage Working Group comprising of three elected members.”

The amendment was declared CARRIED on the voices.

RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Bassett/Cr Lewis)Minute No. PRC 18404

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)       agrees to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage as follows:

“Heritage is the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, art, objects, and culture.  Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities, meanings, and behaviours that we draw from that heritage.  Heritage includes, but is more than preserving, excavating, displaying, or restoring a collection of old things. It is both tangible and intangible, in the sense that ideas and memories--of songs, recipes, language, dances, and many other elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves--are as important as historical buildings and archaeological sites.

Heritage is, or should be, the subject of active public reflection, debate, and discussion. What is worth saving? What can we, or should we, forget? What memories can we enjoy, regret, or learn from? Who owns "The Past" and who is entitled to speak for past generations? Active public discussion about material and intangible heritage--of individuals, groups, communities, and nations--is a valuable facet of public life”; and

(ii)     approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report with the following amendment:

that Council establishes a Strategic Heritage Working Group comprising of three elected members.”

iii)

Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects  - Updated Policy (18/1420)

The General Manager, City Transformation elaborated on the report.

Cr Milne suggested that the policy include the risk of not being able to exit the property at an acceptable price.

RECOMMENDED:  (Cr Milne/Cr Sutton)              Minute No. PRC 18405

“That the Committee recommends that Council approves the updated Policy on Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects subject to an amendment to include the risk of ‘not being able to exit the property at an acceptable price’.”

For the reasons that this policy has been updated in line with a series of interviews on this matter and the views of the majority of interviewees has been captured.

iv)

Stanley Street Easement (18/1391)

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

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs)                Minute No. PRC 18406

“That the Committee recommends that Council agrees to an easement over the reserve property at 52N Stanley Street, Wainuiomata being Lot 2,  DP 53598, in favour of the property at 46A Stanley Street for the rights to drain water and sewage.”

v)

Property Sale - Wainuiomata (18/1421)

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

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Briggs/Cr Cousins)                        Minute No. PRC 18407

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes that the owners of 57 Wellington Road have approached Council to acquire the drainage reserve adjacent to their property;

(ii)   notes that Council has previously agreed to similar proposals earlier this year in Wellington Road and Moohan Street; and

(iii)  agrees to sell the piece of drainage reserve, as shown in the plan, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, being part of Lot 98 DP14784, subject to the creation of an appropriate drainage easement in favour of Council.”

vi)

Wainuiomata Hill Road - Road Stopping and Vesting (18/1446)

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

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs)                Minute No. PRC 18408

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    agrees to stop unformed legal road adjacent to the Wainuiomata Hill Road, identified on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report, as SO 25314 shaded orange and the additional triangular section shaded green;

(ii)   agrees that once the legal road is stopped that the new property be declared and classified as scenic reserve; and

(iii)  agrees to declare as legal road the triangular section of scenic reserve shown on the plan, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, shaded blue.”

vii)

Wainuiomata Marae Development (18/1451)

Speaking under public comment, Mr S Olsen, representing Wainuiomata Marae, said that he supported the proposal. He noted that discussions with Housing New Zealand were to build about 32 affordable homes on the property which would benefit the children.

In response to questions from members, Mr Olsen said that he supported the officer’s recommendations. He advised there were a lot of people needing homes and the Marae had an obligation to their people. He added that Housing New Zealand would lease the land off the Marae.

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

In response to a question from a member, the Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens said that he would report back on the status of whether rates would be payable on the developed land.

Moved: (Mayor Wallace/Cr Briggs)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes that the Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New Zealand for Papakāinga housing on part of the land that it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii)   notes that the Trust wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose reserve on Parkway in regard to enabling a cohesive development for all of the land surrounding the Marae;

(iii)  agrees to consider options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of revoking the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993; and

(iv) directs officers to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the local purpose reserve situated at 9 Wellington Road, for the purpose of adding this land to the existing area of the Maori reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata Marae Trust.”

Amendment Moved: (Cr Milne/Cr Cousins)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes that the Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New Zealand for Papakāinga housing on part of the land that it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii)   notes that the Trust wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose reserve on Parkway in regard to enabling a cohesive development for all of the land surrounding the Marae;

(iii)  agrees to consider options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of revoking the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;

(iv) directs officers to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the local purpose reserve situated at 9 Wellington Road, for the purpose of adding this land to the existing area of the Maori reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata Marae Trust; and

(v)     asks officers to report to Council on whether or not this development will be liable for rates.”

Mayor Wallace said that he supported the opportunity for the Marae to partner with the Ministry of Social Development for this development. He added that Council needed some clarity about whether rates would be paid on the property.

Cr Barry expressed support for the proposal because it made sense to use the land.

Cr Milne, in his right of reply, said that he supported more houses in Wainuiomata, as properties funded by Housing New Zealand would pay rates. However, if there was a problem with the property being liable for rates, then an alternative process, such as a lease, could resolve the issue.

The amendment was declared CARRIED on the voices.

RECOMMENDED:    (Cr Milne/Cr Cousins)          Minute No. PRC 18409

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes that the Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New Zealand for Papakāinga housing on part of the land that it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii)   notes that the Trust wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose reserve on Parkway in regard to enabling a cohesive development for all of the land surrounding the Marae;

(iii)  agrees to consider options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of revoking the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;

(iv)   directs officers to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the local purpose reserve situated at 9 Wellington Road, for the purpose of adding this land to the existing area of the Maori reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata Marae Trust; and

(v)     asks officers to report to Council on whether or not this development will be liable for rates.”

viii)

Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) (18/1416)

Cr Cousins declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item. Mayor Wallace assumed the Chair.

The Principal Policy Advisor elaborated on the report. He tabled an update to page four of the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), attached as page 21 to the minutes.

The General Counsel said that the appeals to the LAP had been settled and this would be the final procedural step to bring the LAP into force.

RECOMMENDED:    (Mayor Wallace/Cr Barry)    Minute No. PRC 18410

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes that the appeals on the amendment to the Hutt City Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) have been settled and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) notified Council that the appeals are at an end on 7 August 2018;

(ii)   notes that, pursuant to section 87(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (SASA), this means the amendment to the LAP was adopted 30 days after Council publicly notified it on 29 August 2017, being 28 September 2017;

(iii)  instructs officers to give the required further public notice that the amendment to the LAP has been adopted under section 90(1) of the SASA, in the form required by clause 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013;    

(iv)  resolves that the amendment to the LAP attached as Appendix 1 to the report, will come into force:

(a)        for the amendments to element 1.2, on 19 October 2018;

(b)        for the amendments to element 1.1, on 25 January 2019; and

(v)   instructs officers to carry out all other matters required by the SASA and associated regulations, including notifying affected parties under s90(5) of the Act, giving ARLA a copy of the amended LAP under s91(2) of the Act and ensuring the amendment LAP is published and displayed in accordance with clause 20 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013.”

For the reason that Council needs to complete the legal formalities associated with the adoption of the LAP.

ix)

Smoke-free Policy - Report Back on Smokefree Areas (18/1426)

Cr Cousins resumed the Chair.

The Activator elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Activator said that Council had received one registered complaint about someone smoking in the street.

Cr Briggs said that the Smoke-free Policy was to bring about social change and expressed support for Healthy Families relationships with communities.

RECOMMENDED:    (Cr Briggs/Cr Lewis)                         Minute No. PRC 18411

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)    notes the report on the second 12 months of implementing the Smokefree Lower Hutt Action Plan 2016-19;

(ii)   approves the recommendation of the Wainuiomata Community Board to  designate the area of Queen Street as a smokefree area as outlined in yellow in the map attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(iii)  notes that officers will continue to explore designating areas in suburban shopping centres as smokefree;

(iv)  in 2018, officers are exploring the following areas: the CBD, Jackson Street, Taita, Naenae and Moera; and

(v)   notes that officers will report back to Council with recommendations in relation to these areas.”

For the reasons that this option of designating the area of Queen Street as a smokefree area will increase the number of smokefree outdoor public places with a particular focus on areas where children and families congregate and socialise and where the impact from the visibility of smoking is greatest.  Exploration into designating the CBD, Jackson Street, Taita, Naenae and Moera as smokefree areas, is because these are centres that either have high foot traffic or high rates of smoking.

x)

Alcohol Ban at Days Bay Beach for Concert (18/1409)

The Commercial Events Developer elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Commercial Events Developer said that the proposed alcohol ban was to prevent sideloading, and to limit an incident occurring over the period the event would be held. He further said that Police would be patrolling the event.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton)                       Minute No. PRC 18412

“That the Committee recommends that Council approves a temporary Alcohol Free Zone and relevant temporary signage along the Days Bay Beach between 12:00 midday and 9pm on 21 January 2019, for the area marked yellow on the map attached as Appendix 2 to the report.”

For the reasons that there is no restriction on the consumption of wholesale alcohol on Days Bay beach between 5:00am and 9:00pm, this increases the probability of anti-social and unsafe behaviour for the duration of the concert.  Council’s Promotions and Events team, the NZ Police and the Chair of the Eastbourne Community Board unanimously agree an alcohol ban on the Days Bay Beach 21 January, 2019 is the most sensible action.

6.

Strategic Waste Reviews (18/1433)

Report No. PRC2018/4/250 by the Sustainability and Resilience Manager

The Sustainability and Resilience Manager elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Sustainability and Resilience Manager said that waste collection outcomes could be incorporated into the tender process.

Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Lewis)                                        Minute No. PRC 18413

“That the Committee:

(i)    notes that officers are undertaking reviews and are developing business cases in three waste management areas: kerbside collection, a potential resource recovery centre, and hazardous waste, with the results due by March 2019;

(ii)   notes that officers have commenced a review of Council’s Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw;

(iii)  notes that officers are planning to conduct a workshop with Councillors in early 2019 to assist in problem definition and options analysis for the new bylaw; and

(iv)  notes that a new bylaw will need to be in place by no later than 1 April 2020.”

7.

General Manager's Report (18/1308)

Report No. PRC2018/4/251 by the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents and the Divisional Manager Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

The Divisional Manager Regulatory Services and Emergency Management and the Building and Quality Assurance Manager elaborated on the report.

Members noted that all of the buildings with unreinforced masonry facades or parapets had now completed structural engineering work. The members recorded their appreciation to officers for their expeditious work in that area.

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Mayor Wallace)                                   Minute No. PRC 18414

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

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (18/1379)

Report No. PRC2018/4/125 by the Committee Advisor

The Committee Advisor elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr Sutton)                                   Minute No. PRC 18415

“That the report be noted and received.”

Resolved:   (Cr Cousins/Mayor Wallace)                                              Minute No. PRC 18416

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

11.     Review of Private Use of Public Land Policy (18/1027)

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:

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.”

Attachment 1

Final Draft Representation Proposal 2018

Attachment 3

Census data ethnicity for Representation Review - Submission C

Attachment 4

Draft Representation Proposal 2018 - submissions analysis

Attachment 1

Final Heritage Policy Review Project Plan August 2018.

Date

Required Action

Accountability

Responsibility

Review of heritage in Lower Hutt

Drew Cumming

Consultant

Form Advisory Group made up of stakeholders and community representatives (include Arts and Culture Subcommittee, historical societies/experts etc)

Wendy Moore

Wendy Moore

Jennie Henton

Liz Castle

Director of the Dowse

Secure iwi consultant to:

·      undertake Maori built and cultural heritage stock take

·      develop approach to engaging with iwi

·      undertake engagement with support from HCC officers

Wendy Moore 

Iwi consultant in consultation with appropriate staff

Undertake community engagement including survey

Wendy Moore 

Wendy Moore 

Economic study of heritage (wider than just buildings) – costs, benefits, financial solutions, incentives, private property rights, hedonic value

Wendy Moore 

Hamed Shafiee

Understanding regulatory environment – Building Act, District Plan

Helen Oram

Helen Oram

Paki Maaka

Drew Cumming

Understanding of funding environment – this is more about ensuring that those looking for funding know where, how, what, when

Wendy Moore 

Debbie Hunter

Ministry of Culture and Heritage

Develop stronger relationships between heritage advocacy groups and community

Wendy Moore

Wendy Moore

Helen Oram

Jennie Henton

Complete policy review and draft

Wendy Moore 

Wendy Moore 

Begin District Plan changes to implement policy (if required)

Drew Cumming

Drew Cumming

Heritage story – context, place, cultural landscape, how the story can be told (see Archives work)

Wendy Moore

Wendy Moore

Jennie Henton

Liz Castle 

Director of The Dowse 

Priority

Name the resource

Minimum $

Maximum $

HIGH PRIORITY

Review of heritage buildings in Lower Hutt - consultant

$20,000

$50,000

Engagement – wide engagement with stakeholders and the community – consultant and HCC staff

$5000

$10,000

Mana whenua – relationship between culture and Maori built heritage – iwi consultant

$5000

$10,000

MEDIUM PRIORITY

Understanding the history of Lower Hutt, its development and future – HCC staff

In budget

Heritage survey – explore heritage values of city, collections in institutions and the personal collections of residents

$3000

$4000

LOW PRIORITY

Total Amount in $

$33,000

$74,000

Risk

Rate Your Risk

Mitigation

Failure to ensure broad community discussion and input into the development of the Heritage Policy

·        Focus initial engagement on broader aspects of cultural and built heritage and the history and heritage of Lower Hutt and the relevance to residents

·      Undertake Public Voice survey to ascertain overall community attitudes towards cultural and built heritage and their willingness to pay for community benefits provided by private owners of heritage buildings

Public focus on private property rights

High

·       Factor a discussion about private property rights into early stakeholder engagement particularly focussing on known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences

·       Reframe conversation as “opportunity”

·       Focus on intergenerational asset

Political reluctance to use all available means to protect cultural and built heritage

High

As above – involve Councillors in these early discussions with known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences

People want funding to help them look after their heritage whatever form that may take

Medium

·        Council considers reinstating funding assistance for buildings and culture

·        Build understanding of funding available – where, when, how, how much

·        Recognising greater costs for Earthquake Prone (EQP) buildings

·        Build connections with other services like The National Preservation Office Te Tari Tohu Taonga

Criticism about focus on Maori heritage

Medium to high

Work closely with local iwi and community generally to alleviate any concerns and fears

Develop communication piece/s on history of Te Awa Kairangi

Adverse reaction to the possibility of inclusion of Heritage NZ listed buildings in the current District Plan because other buildings considered to be heritage buildings are not being included. This risk is particularly high for the Petone area.

·        Communication about this plan change needs to focus on the reason for the immediate inclusion of these buildings in the District Plan ahead of other buildings. That is, these buildings are already listed or nominated

·        Listen and work to understand people’s concerns.

Risk

Rate Your Risk

Mitigation

Process is too slow and other Heritage Buildings are demolished before the policy is developed

High

Progress work as quickly as possible particularly in high risk areas such as Petone, High St and Naenae

Public focus on private property rights

High

·       Factor a discussion about private property rights into early stakeholder engagement particularly focussing on known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences

·       Reframe conversation as “opportunity”

·       Focus on intergenerational asset

Political reluctance to list heritage buildings in District Plan (private property rights)

High

As above – involve Councillors in these early discussions with known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences

People want funding to help them look after their heritage whatever form that may take

Medium

·        Council considers reinstating funding assistance

·        Build understanding of funding available – where, when, how, how much

Criticism about focus on Maori heritage

Medium

Develop communication piece/s on history of Te Awa Kairangi

It is difficult to achieve a collaborative approach across Council and/or Council staff cannot agree on common vision

Medium

Address concerns and set clear goals