community boards – functions and delegations

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

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

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

These delegations are based on the following principles:

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

· Efficient decision-making should be paramount;

· Conflicts of interest should be avoided and risks minimised;

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

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

These delegations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DELEGATIONS

Decide:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider and make recommendations to Council on:

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Provide their local community’s input on:

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

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

· Changes or variations to the District Plan.

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

· The disposal or acquisition of significant assets.

· Road safety including road safety education within its area.

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

· Review Local Community Plans as required.

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

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

Co-ordinate with Council staff:

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

Maintain:

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

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

Develop:

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

Grant:

· Local community awards.

Promote:

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

· Arts and crafts in its area.

Appoint:

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

Endorse:

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

17 18 February 2019

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Petone Community Board

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

Monday 18 February 2019 commencing at 6.30pm

PRESENT: Ms P Hanna (Chair) Mr M Branch

Mr B Dyer Mr M Fisher (Deputy Chair)

Mr P Foaese (from 6.33pm) Ms K Yung

Cr T Lewis Cr M Lulich

APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager (part meeting)

Ms D Male, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr Foaese joined the meeting at 6.33pm.

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. Presentations

Presentation by Moera Community House (19/114)

Ms Lorraine Dick, Community House Coordinator advised the following:

· the community engagement funding support went a long way to keep the event free for the community and also to give back and connect with the community;

· the support had allowed for professional activities on a larger scale to any previous events, which also helped to engage with teenage based activities;

· TIa (Teen in Action) a local community dancing and singing group had also helped the organisers set up and they had a good attitude to volunteering.

Ms Yung wished to acknowledge all the work of Ms Dick to develop the event, also the Chair of the Board and Ms Ginny Anderson MP who helped on the day with face painting.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Dick advised that Moera Community House (the House) had been involved in the P2040 project and also had regular meetings with the coordinator of the Naenae Community Trust. She believed they were overlooked regularly by Council, unless officers wanted to run a programme through the House, however without financial backing or infrastructure in place to run the programmes. She noted these programmes would take away for example from their own exercise programmes currently run using the cottage, the House or the hall. She said they continued to work in the community, to gain funding and worked as a hub connecting to Moera Library and local residents. She added that the cottage had made a big difference and was often used for tutoring children with special needs.

The Chair requested officers to provide a progress report to a future meeting to include the renewal of the fort on the play area.

Mr Fisher congratulated the Community House representatives for their event and work. He said a significant issue have been raised and expressed concern that there were no senior officers present at the meeting to hear the views of the community.

Cr Lulich offered to arrange and attend a meeting at the Community House with officers.

Presentation by Petone Baptist Church (19/164)

Ms Jocelyn Smith, representing the Petone Baptist Church advised the following:

· she thanked the Board for the community engagement funding support;

· the Church had also been involved in the Petone Christmas Parade on Jackson Street, with their youth group being very involved, which included teenagers playing Mary and Joseph;

· the event had been provided for the last 14 years, with 839 attending, which was down slightly on the usual 1,000 attendees of previous years; and

· they took a census at the event to gain feedback to use to improve future events.

The Chair congratulated the Church representatives on the event.

Presentation by Local Councillor from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (19/20)

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

· The Airport Flyer bus service, a separate commercial service, would not be accepting Snapper cards from 24 February, payment was by cash and eftpos only. This would mean that the Metlink tracking would no longer show for the service from this date, as it linked to the Snapper service.

· There was a high level of fire risk in all the surrounding regional parks. GWRC

staff had been advised to the cautious, there was a fire ban in place and it was hoped people had a greater awareness of fire risk, following the recent fires in the Nelson area.

· GWRC was working with a Kiwi innovator, Good Nature, using chocolate in rat traps, only in areas where there were no possums.

· Double decker buses had been planned for Eastbourne there was issues raised by Council and residents about damage to trees. Further talks were planned prior to the service change.

In response to questions from members, Cr Lamason advised that if double decker buses were introduced for Eastbourne, they were likely to travel down The Esplanade and not Jackson Street in Petone. She further advised that she was not aware of the review of bus stops planned on Jackson Street, but thought that consultation would take place prior to any changes. She noted the request to review the area of Jackson Street outside of the Jackson Street Programme office.

Presentation by Jackson Street Programme (19/21)

Ms Hellen Swales, Jackson Street Programme (JSP) Co-ordinator advised the following:

· Time had been spent with Mr David Bachelor reviewing the Heritage Policy and JSP was disappointed there was no reference to a heritage precinct. JSP was working with P2040 and Council’s Urban Design Manager on a P2040 project to present to four building owners, the funding had to be spent by the end of June 2019.

· A request had been made to Council for the installation of a disability park in Bay Street. The Board were asked to support the proposal.

· An open dialogue with Lime Scooters was important, the Greater Wellington Regional Council parking bay for scooters for the park and ride at Petone was commended, JSP would like Council to also provide parking bays for scooters. Lime Scooters were scheduled to visit the Bob Scott Retirement Village to show residents the scooters, explain how they worked and to raise awareness of listening out for riders of the scooters ringing the bells. JSP had asked for a reduced presence of the scooters on Jackson Street, this request had been listened to and the scooters were moved on to the side roads. JSP had written to both the Minister of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency for a review of the legislation.

· Jackson Street was benefitting from the increased foot traffic into the Hutt from Wellington and asked that the Board pushed Council for more investment in Petone.

The meeting was adjourned at 7.55pm and the meeting resumed at 8.03pm.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

5. Minutes

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Ms Yung) Minute No. PCB 19101

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Petone Community Board held on Monday, 5 November 2018, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

6. Reports referred for Board input before being considered by Subcommittee of Council

Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (19/157)

Report No. PCB2019/1/9 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Asset Manager confirmed that Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017 allowed vehicles to park on the grass berm. He noted that was as long as there was no damage caused, or likely to be caused, or the view of the roadway was not obstructed.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Dyer) Minute No. PCB 19102

“That the Board endorses the recommendations contained in the report.”

Precedence of business

In terms of Standing Order 10.4, the Chair accorded precedence of business to items 9a), 9b) and 9c) relating to Reviews of Parking, prior to item 7, Committee Advisor’s Report.

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

Committee Advisor's Report (19/22)

Report No. PCB2019/1/1 by the Committee Advisor

The Committee Advisor elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Foase) Minute No. PCB 19103

“That the Board:

(i) receives and notes the report; and

(ii) determines advertising spend up to $150 per financial year, via Facebook, for its 2019 meetings.”

New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2019 (19/149)

Memorandum dated 29 January 2019 by the Committee Advisor

The Chair elaborated on the memorandum.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Ms Yung) Minute No. PCB 19104

“That the Board:

(i) notes the New Zealand Community Boards Conference to be held in New Plymouth from 11-13 April 2019 attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) notes the estimated cost of attending the conference per Board member is approximately $1,500.00;

(iii) notes that the Training Policy for Community Boards and Community Committees (the Policy) adopted by Council at its meeting held on 14 March 2017 limited the number of Community Board/Community Committee members to attend the biennial Community Boards conference to one per Board/Committee;

(iv) notes that at a recent Councillors Planning session, Councillors asked officers to review the relevant section of the Policy (see part (ii) above) and report back to the next relevant Committee for consideration and recommending to Council;

(v) agrees that one board member, Mr Dyer, attends the 2019 New Zealand Community Board Conference; and

(vi) agrees, in principle, that an additional board member, Ms Hanna, attends the 2019 New Zealand Community Board Conference subject to Council adopting the revised Policy allowing more than one board member to attend if within the overall Boards training budgets and any expenditure beyond budget be personally funded.”

9. Information Items

Review of Parking - No Stopping At All Times Restriction - Richmond Grove (19/101)

Memorandum dated 30 January 2019 by the Senior Traffic Engineer

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the memorandum.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PCB 19105

“That the Board:

(i) receives the information; and

(ii) notes that officers will submit a report in Meeting Cycle 2 recommending the extension of the new No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Richmond Grove, as requested by the requester.”

Review of Parking - Near 313 Jackson Street (19/116)

Memorandum dated 31 January 2019 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the memorandum.

In response to a question from a member, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that the owner of the liquor store still requested P15 restrictions. He confirmed the utilisation of the parking in the area had been reviewed and it was considered reasonable throughout the day.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PCB 19106

“That the Petone Community Board:

(i) receives the information; and

(ii) notes that no further action be taken at this time, although officers will likely review the parking in the area, near 313 Jackson Street, further once the effects of any changes to the bus stop are finalised and incorporated by Greater Wellington Regional Council.”

Review of Parking - Gear Street Parking Restrictions (19/132)

Memorandum dated 4 Feb 2019 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

The Traffic Asset Manager elaborated on the memorandum.

Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Cr Lewis) Minute No. PCB 19107

“That the Petone Community Board:

(i) receives the information; and

(ii) notes that officers will subsequently submit a report recommending further parking time restrictions on Gear Street.”

10.	Chairperson's Report (19/23) Report No. PCB2019/1/15 by the Chair, Petone Community Board
	Speaking under public comment, Ms R Mansell, made a plea for a wider consultation on the Petone Library. She noted the library was the heart of Petone, it was important for families and older persons, it needed to be welcoming and still on a human scale for people to be comfortable there. She highly commended the Board for holding public sessions on the plans. She asked for more publicity for people to have a say in how they used the library and how they wanted to use the services. She noted it was important Councillors and senior officers listening to their input. In response to a question from a member, Ms Mansell said that she had seen one picture of a proposed new library and thought that four storeys looked out of scale. She wanted the library to remain on a similar scale, with seating areas and views of the surrounding trees.
	Speaking under public comment, Ms R Fletcher representing the Petone Planning Action Group (PPAG), expressed concern of first hearing of the consent application, with consultants already commissioned to put in the non-notified resource consent. She had thought that the Petone 2040 project was about identifying key areas of Petone. She believed the library was the centre of Petone, it was important to retain that and improve on the current building, which was flawed. She also believed that the library was being treated as a commercial property when it was actually held in trust for the benefit of the citizens. She would like to see links to services, although she had no issue with the inclusion of apartments to help to fund the project. She noted the PPAG Committee was recommended to write to the Mayor to ask to facilitate discussions. In response to a question from a member, Ms Fletcher said she would like the parking to be retained and some of the accessways, with the potential for the building to create a centre. She highlighted the sun and trees needed to be focal points and the space was important to people.
	Speaking under public comment, Mr J Serci, said that he had been an owner occupier in Bolton Street for 18 years. He had recently submitted to a resource consent hearing, where homes over 80 years old were to be demolished for a new development. He noted the hearing decision was due in five working days. He wanted to know more about how Petone could better protect its heritage, with Petone 2040 being important. He felt there was little support, with Council pushing its Urban Growth Strategy and not being focussed on Petone 2040. He wanted the Board to be aware of the spatial plan and incorporating Petone 2040.
	Speaking under public comment, Mr D Jones representing the Korokoro Environmental Group, expressed views on Council’s Environmental Strategy and the Whaitua Committee. He noted the group was keen for the waterways to be reviewed and for improvements to be suggested. He hoped that any issues were addressed from other areas Whaitua Improvement Programmes, which did not have access to independent scientists. Cr Lewis thanked the public speaker for bringing the community’s views to the Board. She advised that she would receive contact as Council’s repesentative on the Wellington Harbour/Hutt Valley Whaitua Committee.
	Speaking under public comment, Mr R Schneider, said that he had operated a financial advice business in Britannia Street since 2010 and was a member of the Jackson Street Programme Board. He noted seven businesses had agreed to a mural being painted in the area to represent some of the European heritage of Petone. He expressed concern about the plans for the library without further consultation. He asked as many car parks be retained as possible, noting he was not adverse to progression.
	Speaking under public comment, Mr S Seinger, Lime Scooters, advised that the company now had scooters in five cities in New Zealand, with total rides length the equivalent to 65 trips around the globe, 150,000 rides and 200 juicers in the Hutt Valley in two months. They were working with Greater Wellington Regional Council, who introduced a scooter parking space at Petone Station park and ride and were working with Wellington City Council to roll out a trial soon. Their community engagement would continue, with safety to be highlighted. In response to questions from members, Mr Seinger advised that the road user rules would need to be considered by central government, with a view to updating legislation to make wearing helmets a requirement and other safety issues. He added that its terms and conditions were signed up by the user for each ride. He said that there was a support telephone number or email address for contact if someone had concerns about users of the scooters, such as children riding with adults. In response to further questions from members, Mr Seinger advised that juicers were encouraged to park the scooters diagonally and take a photograph of each one. Lime Scooters were responsive to feedback on where the scooters should be parked at night, also data was analysed on usage and changes made using the information, all suburbs were using scooters. He added that where needed repairs were reported, the scooter would be put out of action and repairs completed within an hour or two where possible.
	Speaking under public comment, Ms G Anderson MP acknowledged the work of the Board in particular the focus on housing in the area, on behalf of her team.
	The Chair, Petone Community Board elaborated on the report. She congratulated the Korokoro residents newsletter writers for a very good newsletter. She informed members of the five options, as discussed at Council’s Community Plan Committee meeting held on 2 February 2019, for the Petone Library as follows: · replacement of the current building, including building apartments above the community centre; · replacement of the current building with the addition of a master plan for the surrounding area; · repair and upgrade of the current building; · repair of the current building; or · explore the option of building a completely new building. She highlighted the feedback received at the community sessions. Further sessions were to be held on 9 and 10 March with officers and Urban Plus Limited expected to attend. She noted Petone Library staff were arranging a display of old photographs of the previous library and the current library being built, to be ready for the sessions.
	She advised that there would not be formal consultation for Council’s upcoming Annual Plan, as there were no big changes to the Long Term Plan. She noted that members would receive information for community engagement, which was the planned approach for more informal consultation. She added that the Greater Wellington Regional Council was running a Together, Stronger Campaign focussed on the Community Emergency Management Hubs initiative with WREMO information available online.
	Cr Lewis provided an update on the Whaitua Committee. She advised the first day together had been spent on Matiu/Somes Island, at the grassroots would gain Iwi perspectives. She noted there were four people involved from the Hutt Valley who will work together.
	In response to questions from members, the Traffic Asset Manager advised that as part of the review of bus stops on Jackson Street, pedestrian islands and kerb extensions were being considered. He confirmed that Council’s Transport Division was opposed to the tree cutting in relation to double decker buses driving to Eastbourne.
	Resolved: (Ms Hanna/Mr Fisher) Minute No. PCB 19108 “That the Board notes and receives the report.”

11. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

The members finished the meeting with a whakatauki.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.42pm.

Ms P Hanna

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 8^th day of April 2019

MEMORANDUM 19 08 April 2019

Our Reference 19/303

TO: Chair and Members

Petone Community Board

FROM: Debbie Hunter

DATE: 14 March 2019

SUBJECT: Community Engagement Fund 2018-2019

Recommendation

That the Board:

(i) notes that the Community Engagement Fund closed on 4 March 2019 and two applications had been received;

(ii) agrees that the applications were considered according to the merits of the application criteria and priorities of the fund; and

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

Purpose of Memorandum

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

Background

Community Engagement Fund

2. Hutt City Council agreed through the Long Term Plan to contribute $48,850 for 2018/2019 for the Community Board/Panel Community Engagement Fund.

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

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

5. Two applications were received under the Petone Community Board Community Engagement Fund requesting a total of $3,940.00. They are as follows:

No.	Organisation	Description	$Eligible Request
1	Jackson Street Programme	For the purchase of three bronze sporting plaques to honour Petone’s sporting champions.	2,941.00
2	Petone Community House	For the purchase of a data projector for the Community House.	999.00
		TOTAL REQUESTS	$3,940.00

6. The Board has $1,503.00 available to be allocated. The funds need to be allocated by end of June 2019.

7. Board members assessed the two applications and their recommendations are as follows:

No.	Organisation	Description	$Recommendation
1	Jackson Street Programme	For the purchase of one bronze sporting plaques to honour Petone’s sporting champions.	980.00
2	Petone Community House	For the purchase of a data projector for the Community House.	523.00
		TOTAL REQUESTS	$1,503.00

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

Appendices

There are no appendices for this Memorandum.

Author: Debbie Hunter

Community Advisor - Funding and Community Contracts

Approved By: Melanie Laban

Divisional Manager, Community Projects and Relationships

22 08 April 2019

Petone Community Board

27 March 2019

File: (19/377)

Report no: PCB2019/2/52

Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times parking restrictions on Gracefield Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times parking restrictions on Gracefield Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would:

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

- support Council’s Parking Policy; and

- are supported by the majority of directly affected parties that chose to respond to the public consultation documents.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local business to improve road safety and accessibility on Gracefield Road.

3. The concern expressed is that cars parked on the single parking space opposite the driveway for Nº 20 Bell Road South restrict maneuverability when large commercial vehicles enter and exit the vicinity. Due of the size and volume of vehicles travelling down Gracefield Road, this creates a safety hazard for all road users.

4. Gracefield Road is a busy Primary Collector Road which provides access to the Wainuiomata Hill Road and the Gracefield commercial/industrial area.

5. A bus stop is located directly upstream of the existing single parking space which, when occupied, makes it difficult for buses to manoeuvre out of the bus stop.

Discussion

6. The proposal involves the extension of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) over the single parking space located opposite the driveway of Nº 20 Bell Road South.

7. The recommended restrictions would result in the removal of one on-street car park.

8. The proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in this area would tie into the existing restrictions to the northeast and southwest, and ensure the effective carriageway is free of obstruction by parked vehicles.

9. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions, as proposed, would improve road safety and ensure the full carriageway width is available for motorists entering and exiting the driveway, reducing the risk for vehicle conflict.

10. The majority of consulted parties that responded to the public consultation documents are in agreement with the proposed measures.

Options

11. The options are:

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

b. install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions to improve the road safety and accessibility level of service.

12. Council Officers recommend Option b. which would eliminate the manoeuvrability issues with the loss of a single existing on street parking space.

Consultation

13. Consultation documents were delivered to 13 directly affected vicinities at Nºs 1-12/50 Gracefield Road and Nº 20 Bell Road South.

14. Two questionnaires were returned, both in favour of the proposal.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

16. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

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

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	23

Author: Victor Fraga

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

27 08 April 2019

Petone Community Board

27 March 2019

File: (19/378)

Report no: PCB2019/2/53

Richmond Street - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a Mobility parking space with a P60 time restriction, as well as L-bar parking markings and the extension of the existing P60 time restriction in Richmond Street, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the installation of P60 parking restrictions, Monday to Friday, from 8:00am to 6:00pm, on Richmond Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) approves the installation of a Mobility car park restriction, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(iii) approves the L-bar parking markings, 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 mobility impaired road users and Medical Centre patients;

- support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

- are supported by the local residents/business that responded to the consultation documents.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Petone Medical Centre to improve accessibility and parking availability on Richmond Street.

3. It was requested that one existing P60 parking space directly outside the medical centre be restricted for mobility impaired users, and that another currently unrestricted parking space have a new P60 time restriction installed.

4. Richmond Street is a primarily residential road with on-street unrestricted parking spaces. The Petone Medical Centre is the only non-residential activity in the vicinity.

5. The requester has indicated that the provision of time-restricted and mobility car parks are essential for patients to have easy access to the medical centre.

Discussion

6. Council officers consider that the provision of a mobility car park on Richmond Street is warranted in close proximity to the Petone Medical Centre.

7. To address this issue, officers propose to install a mobility car park as well as an additional parking space under new P60 restrictions, with accompanying L-bar road markings and signage. The restrictions would be enforceable Monday through Friday, from 8:00am to 6:00pm (standard time restriction hours).

8. This additional parking space would make it easier for patients that need special assistance to find available car parks when attending a consultation at the premises.

9. The proposed measures would result in the removal of one existing, unrestricted on-street parking space otherwise available for residents and visitors.

10. Under the current Concessions for Mobility Permit Holders in the Hutt, for a standard P60 parking restriction, mobility permit holders may park for 120 minutes.

Options

11. The options are:

a. to leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the current level for service for accessibility and parking availability; or

b. install the proposed Mobility parking space under existing P120 restrictions, as well as L-bar parking markings and extend the P120 restrictions to the additional parking space, to improve the accessibility and parking availability level of service; or

c. install mobility and/or time parking restrictions over some greater or lesser extent within the street.

12. Officers recommend Option b. in order to cater for the needs of all road users (including the ones in need of special assistance), at a minimal loss for existing on-road parking availability.

Consultation

13. Consultation documents were delivered to eight directly affected facilities/residences at Nºs 30, 32, 1-3/34, 35, 37 and 39 Richmond Street.

14. Three questionnaires were returned; two (67%) in favour of the proposal and one (33%) against it.

15. Comments from supporting residents include:

a. “Thank you for the proposal for the Mobility Parking Space in Richmond Street outside Petone Medical Centre. I wonder if you could consider changing the proposed parking area to the front park which is closer to our driveway and ramp into the building.”

Officer’s response: Based on the feedback received from the Petone Medical Centre (original party that requested the installation of proposed measures), the plan has been amended with the new location for the Mobility parking space closer to their driveway ramp, for easier and safer access.

16. Comments from opposing residents include:

a. “There is insufficient parking available in Richmond Street for residents. Getting a park outside or within the vicinity is extremely difficult. I suggest Petone Medical Centre use the available space at the rear of their property for parking.”

Officer’s Response: There are a reasonable number of parking spaces within walking distance from the resident’s property. In addition, the available car parks within the Petone Medical Centre would not be suitable for a mobility parking space, as this area needs unrestricted access to ambulance vehicles.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

18. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

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

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Richmond Street - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions	28

Author: Victor Fraga

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

31 08 April 2019

Petone Community Board

27 March 2019

File: (19/380)

Report no: PCB2019/2/54

Richmond Grove - Proposed No Stoppping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times parking restrictions outside 15 Richmond Grove, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the extension of the existing No Stopping At All Times parking restriction for a distance of 11 metres to the north of the existing restriction on Richmond Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons that the proposed restriction would:

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

- would improve the safety of the access for the affected properties.

Background

2. At its meeting on 13 November 2017 the Traffic Subcommittee asked officers to review the installation of the ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restriction in Richmond Grove approximately 12 months after installation.

3. Council officers contacted the original requestor in January 2019.

4. The requestor advised that the new Broken Yellow Lines did not go far enough to the north, and that there was still an issue with a neighbour’s truck parking at the northern end of the existing markings but still too close to their driveway.

5. The Land Transport (Road User Rule) 2004 states that:

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

6. The requestor also indicated that their neighbours were also having access difficulties – principally when leaving their driveway. Again, the problem relates to the parking outside the requestor’s property.

Discussion

7. The proposed solution is to extend the existing ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restriction a further 11 metres to the north. This should ensure that the requester has sufficient clear visibility to leave their property in safety. The extra clear space should also assist with their neighbours’ access issues.

8. The proposed restrictions would result in the loss of two on street parking spaces, however neither of these spaces are technically allowed under the requirements of the Land Transport (Road User Rule) 2004.

Options

9. The options are:

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

b. install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions to improve the road safety and accessibility level of service; or

c. install No Stopping At All Times restrictions over some greater or lesser extent in the street.

10. Officers recommend Option b. which would eliminate the accessibility issues with the loss of two existing on street parking spaces.

Consultation

11. When this issue was first considered, a consultation plan and a covering letter were delivered to the 16 properties in the vicinity of the bend. There were eight replies received (50%). Of those, six were in favour of the proposed restriction, and two were opposed to the proposal (both from the same property).

12. This showed a clear level of community support for the previous proposal, however no additional consultation has been undertaken for this proposal (other than with the original requestor) as the proposed restrictions will simply enforce the requirements of the Land Transport (Road User Rule) 2004.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

14. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

15. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government as defined in the Act. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it uses standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	G2218.2016 Richmond Grove - Proposed BYLs	32

Author: Alan Hopkinson

Senior Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

35 08 April 2019

Petone Community Board

04 March 2019

File: (19/276)

Report no: PCB2019/2/55

Proposed New Private Street Name - Subdivision of 11 Randwick Road, Moera

Purpose of Report

1. To seek approval for an appropriate street name for the new private road at 11 Randwick Road, Moera, Lower Hutt.

Recommendations

That the Board:

(i) approves the name for the new private road at 11 Randwick Road, Moera, Lower Hutt attached as Appendix 1 to the report, from the names suggested below:

a) “Moe” suggested road type “Alley”;

b) “Ram” suggested road type “Way”;

c) “Okautu” suggested road type “Court/Close/Way/Lane ”;

d) “Trotter” suggested road type “Court/Close/Way/Lane ”;

e) an alternate name from the reserved Street Name list, attached as Appendix 2 to the report; or

f) an appropriate name tabled during the meeting; and

(ii) approves the appropriate road type (as permitted by the New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011) as shown attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

Background

2. The outcome of the development of the existing properties at 11 Randwick Road, Moera will be a new private road containing thirteen new residential properties, gaining access off the new private road as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

3. The responsibility for naming new private roads within Lower Hutt lies with the Community Boards, in this case with Petone Community Board, or with the City Development Committee for areas of the City not represented by Community Boards.

4. The subdivision cannot proceed to completion without a legal street address.

Discussion

5. The developer has requested that the Board consider the following names:

a. “Moe Alley” short for Moera; and

b. “Ram Way”.

6. It is customary with new private roads to place emphasis upon any names suggested by the developer. However with minimal backing for the names, additional names have been sought from the community.

7. Councillor Lewis has suggested the names “Okautu” and “Trotter”, sourced from Lower Hutt Past and Present (1941). Further explanation is provided in Appendix 4 attached to this report.

8. The Okautu stream was located between the Awamutu and Heretaunga Rivers in the area west of Frethey Island before it was lifted in 1855 to eventually become Hutt Park in February 1857.

9. New Zealand’s first Nursery Gardens was established in Moera by William Trotter in 1840.

10. The name “Rickards” or “Rickard” Way has been suggested. Mervin "Merv" Batt, best known by his ring name Steve Rickard, was a New Zealand professional wrestler, trainer and promoter. Who owned the Hutt Park Hotel in 1984 and ran it for 15 years before retiring to Napier in 2009.

Options

11. The submitted names “Moe”, “Ram”, “Okautu”, and “Trotter” all conform to the New Zealand Standard for street names and have been approved for use by Greater Wellington Regional Council and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

12. Approval from the Batt family is still pending for “Rickards” or “Rickard”. “Rickards” or “Rickard” conforms to the New Zealand Standard for street names and has been approved for use by Greater Wellington Regional Council and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

13. Other names tabled during the meeting can be considered for use but are subject to the requirements of the New Zealand Standard and must have a second recommended name, in case it is not suitable.

14. Alternatively, the Board could select a name from the Reserved Street Names list attached as Appendix 2.

15. An appropriate road type must be selected (as permitted by the New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011) attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

Consultation

16. As is normal with the naming of private roads, consultation has been limited to the developer and the community network.

Legal Considerations

17. The Board has the delegated responsibility to name the private road.

18. It is important that new streets are named early in the development stage as a variety of utility connections and other administrative bodies require individual street addresses, in order for the necessary connections to be provided.

Financial Considerations

19. There are no financial considerations. The developer is responsible for the necessary street name signs. This will be undertaken by the Council contractor with the cost paid by the developer.

Other Considerations

20. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government in that it names the new street. It does this in the standard cost-effective way.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Map of #11 Randwick Road 19/276 RM170302	36
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 Reserved Street Names List 204	37
3 ⇩	Appendix 3 Extract of Permitted Road Types	39
4 ⇩	Appendix 4: 11 Randwick Road - Subdivision - Okautu Trotter Recommendation	40

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

43 08 April 2019

Petone Community Board

25 March 2019

File: (19/355)

Report no: PCB2019/2/4

Committee Advisor's Report

Purpose of Report

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

Recommendations

That the Board receives and notes the report.

Follow up from last Board meeting

Traffic Reports

2. At its meeting on 18 February 2019, the Board considered the following traffic report:

· Gracefield Road – Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions, the Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the report.

3. At its meeting on 26 March 2019, Council resolved to approve the recommendation contained in the report.

Training Policy for Community Boards – Community Boards’ Conference

4. At its meeting on 26 March 2019, Council resolved to adopt the revised Training Policy for Community Boards (the policy). This allows for more than one Community Board member, from one Board, to attend the Community Boards’ Conference, if any expenditure beyond the training budget is personally funded.

5. Further to the Board’s decision at its meeting on 18 February 2019, Mr Dyer and Ms Hanna will be attending the Community Boards’ Conference 2019. Eastbourne Community Board and Wainuiomata Community will send one Community Board Member each to the Conference.

6. As stated in the policy, members attending the Community Boards’ Conference are required to provide a written report and evaluation back to the Board and the Divisional Manager, Democratic Services.

Council’s current consultation and community engagement

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

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

Heritage Policy Review
Pre-consultation on Proposed Appearance Industry Bylaw	31 May 2019

8. The new interactive way to share input and ideas for the Annual Plan can be viewed here https://haveyoursay.huttcity.govt.nz/all-going-to-plan this is open from 4 March to 15 April 2019.

9. Please see below a list of current community engagement opportunities, as part of the All going to Plan process.

	Open 4 March to 15 April
Petone Library	https://haveyoursay.huttcity.govt.nz/all-going-to-plan/forum_topics/petone-library
Naenae Library site	https://haveyoursay.huttcity.govt.nz/all-going-to-plan/forum_topics/have-your-say-on-the-future-of-naenaes-town-centre

2018/2019 Miscellaneous Administration and Training Budgets

10. The following is the Board’s expenditure as at 25 March 2019. Please note that the costs for the Community Board Conference will not be shown yet under the training budget.

	Miscellaneous Administration	Training
Budget	$5,0000.00	$3,000.00
Expenditure at 25.03.2019	$1,419.55	$827.43
BALANCE	$3,580.45	$2,172.57

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

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Petone Community Board Actual Expenditure 2018 2019	44

Author: Donna Male

Committee Advisor

Approved By: Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

Attachment 1

Chairperson's Report - Petone Community Board - April 2019

Petone Community Board Chairperson’s Report – February 2019

Tena koutou katoa Talofa lava Malo e lelei Neih Hou Namaste Al-salamu alaykum

Greetings to everyone and especially to those who live and/or work in our board area of Korokoro, Petone, Seaview, Moera, Waiwhetu South, Woburn South and Gracefield – called Petone for short.

a) Petone Library Site Possibilities

Our first lot of consultation weekend sessions plus feedback at the Petone Rotary Fair has been overwhelmingly critical of the lack of community involvement, and the design that resource consent was applied for in December. That application is on hold, we now have five options, and some feedback is being sought, over and above what the Community Board has done already.

b) Current Community Engagement

Thank you to those that came to the 25 March Board public meeting and to those who have been in touch before and since. It is obvious that we value our parks and reserves and any green space available, and would actually like more of these and more maintenance and care of what we already have.

The need for HCC to collaborate with GWRC to get our public transport sorted also comes across loud and clear - as the current situation has effects on the environment overall as well as on our already madly congested Esplanade and other streets.

People are concerned too about the removal of existing older and character Petone houses and these being replaced by developments that don’t even include traditional materials such as corrugated iron roofs and weatherboards. Petone 2040 needs to be furthered.

c) Moera issues

It seems that money is going to be available to enlarge the Moera Library, which is great. The replacement of the fort there is crucial and in a similar, flexible model that meets different age group requirements. Swings suitable for very young children also need to be put back and the community hall needs some urgent maintenance.

d) Bell Park/Waiwhetu Issues

Council has agreed to Bell Park remaining a park. Residents are waiting for further communication from officers and say that Ignite Sport being based there would be very positive.

e) Recycling changes

Plastics numbered 3 to 7 will not be accepted for processing in the near future in Lower Hutt. The HCC website explains the following: the plastics market is diverse and complex and while there is still a demand for plastics classified as 1 and 2, there is little to no demand world-wide for most plastic types 3 to 7.

Plastics classified as 1 and 2 are clear polyethylene terephthalate (PET 1) and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE 2). Information about recycling can be found at: http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/recycling

Hutt City Council is also reviewing how it might collect recycling at the kerbside in the future. Please let us know of any ideas you have around that.

f) Sportsville

The Community Board’s understanding is that funding for a Petone Sportsville was withdrawn from any budget in last year’s Long Term Plan process so what is going on? According to the Hutt News the Mayor and the GM, City and Community Services seem to think there could be a change of attitude from clubs in both Wainuiomata and Petone. This is not our understanding for Petone and we are also being told of people's cynicism around the council's general ability to listen to its communities.

g) Petone East

It has been great to see Housing New Zealand, Hutt Valley DHB and Police (plus the Board through myself as Chair) start a six week trial initiative of a cuppa, chat and board games and other activities on Wednesdays – in the Olive Tree Church space – for anyone in the area to join in. A questionnaire is also circulating.

h) HCC 8 May Community Plan Committee

It is community engagement not consultation for this annual plan. The Board will be presenting feedback to councillors at the start of the Community Plan Committee on 8 May, and you can too. Just let Wendy Moore know that you wish to do so via wendy.moore@huttcity.govt.nz

i) Community Board Biennial Conference

Brady Dyer and I are travelling to New Plymouth for the 11 – 13 April national biennial community boards’ conference. We look forward to learning from the speakers, workshop facilitators and members of other community boards from around the country.

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

Kia ora

Pam Hanna

Chairperson

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

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

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