Traffic Subcommittee
9
April 2019
Order
Paper for the meeting to be held in the
Council
Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
on:
Monday 15
April 2019 commencing at 3.00pm
Membership
Cr
MJ Cousins (Chair)
Cr S
Edwards (Deputy Chair)
|
Cr G Barratt
|
Cr J Briggs
|
|
Cr T Lewis
|
Cr L Sutton
|
|
Cr C Barry (Alternate)
|
Deputy Mayor D Bassett (Alternate)
|
|
Cr M Lulich (Alternate)
|
Cr G McDonald (Alternate)
|
|
Cr C Milne (Alternate)
|
|
For
the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz
|
TRAFFIC SUBCOMMITTEE
|
|
Membership:
|
One Councillor from each Ward
|
|
Alternates:
|
One Councillor from each Ward
|
|
Quorum:
|
3
|
|
Meeting Cycle:
|
The Traffic
Subcommittee will meet on a six weekly basis.
|
|
Reports to:
|
Council
|
PURPOSE
The Traffic
Subcommittee has primary responsibility for considering and making
recommendations to Council on traffic matters and consider any traffic matters
referred to it by Council.
For
the avoidance of doubt, “traffic” includes parking and excludes
temporary road closures under clause 11(e) of the Tenth Schedule of the LGA
1974 and the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.
TERMS
OF REFERENCE:
The
Traffic Subcommittee will have authority to:
1.0 Do all
things necessary to hear, consider and make recommendations to Council on any
traffic
related matter.
1.1 Regulate
its own processes and proceedings to achieve its purpose and objective.
1.2 Provide
options for the consideration of Council
The
Chair will have authority to:
1.3 Refer
any traffic matter to:
1.3.1 A
Community Board; or
1.3.2 The
Policy and Regulatory Committee; or
1.3.3 Council.
DELEGATED
AUTHORITY:
The
Traffic Subcommittee will have delegated authority to carry out activities
within its terms of reference.
Traffic Subcommittee
Meeting
to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road on
Monday
15 April 2019 commencing at 3.00pm.
ORDER
PAPER
Public Business
1. APOLOGIES
2. PUBLIC
COMMENT
Generally up to
30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be
asked questions on the matters they raise.
3. CONFLICT
OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
4. Recommendations to Council - 21 May
2019
i) Random Roadside
Drug Testing Petition Report (19/281)
Report
No. TRS2019/2/47 by the Divisional Manager, Transport 7
ii) Richmond
Street - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions (19/313)
Report No. TRS2019/2/56 by the Traffic Engineer 12
iii) Gracefield
Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (19/314)
Report No. TRS2019/2/57 by the Traffic Engineer 17
iv) Queens
Grove - Proposed No Parking on the Grass Restrictions (19/339)
Report No. TRS2019/2/58 by the Traffic Engineer 21
v) Eastern
Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (19/359)
Report No. TRS2019/2/59 by the Traffic Engineer 27
vi) Richmond
Grove - Proposed No Stoppping At All Times Restrictions (19/357)
Report No. TRS2019/2/60 by the Senior Traffic Engineer 31
5. QUESTIONS
With reference to section 32 of
Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain
the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the
Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Donna Male
COMMITTEE ADVISOR
Traffic Subcommittee
11 March 2019
File:
(19/281)
Report no:
TRS2019/2/47
Random Roadside Drug
Testing Petition Report
1. Council are
asked to consider a request received from Hon Dr Nick Smith, Member of
Parliament for Nelson, to endorse and promote the petition of Karen Dow in the
name of her late son, Matthew.
|
Recommendation
That the Traffic Subcommittee
recommends that Council endorses and promotes the petition attached as
Appendix 1 to the report, to introduce random roadside drug testing.
|
2. The petition
requests “That the House of Representatives urgently pass legislation to
introduce random roadside drug testing to reduce the escalating road toll from
drugged drivers, which resulted in 79 fatal crashes in 2017 and exceeds the
number caused by those impaired by alcohol.”
3. The Transport
Division supports this proposal as a further initiative in addressing the road
toll.
4. A copy of Dr
Smith’s covering letter and the Petition are attached as Appendix 1.
Appendices
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
1⇩
|
Letter to Regional Transport Committee re Random
Roadside Drug Testing & Petition
|
9
|
Author: John Gloag
Divisional Manager, Transport
Reviewed By: Damon Simmons
Traffic Asset Manager
Approved By: Matt Reid
General Manager City and Community Services
|
Attachment 1
|
Letter to Regional Transport Committee re Random
Roadside Drug Testing & Petition
|
Traffic Subcommittee
19 March 2019
File:
(19/313)
Report no:
TRS2019/2/56
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.
17. At its meeting on 8 April
2019, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendations
contained in the officer’s report.
Legal
Considerations
18. These restrictions are made
pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.
Financial
Considerations
19. These changes can be funded
from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.
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 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
|
16
|
Author: Victor Fraga
Assistant Traffic Engineer
Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie
Traffic Engineer - Network Operations
Approved By: Damon Simmons
Traffic Asset Manager
|
Attachment 1
|
Richmond Street - Proposed Mobility Parking
Restrictions
|
Traffic Subcommittee
19 March 2019
File:
(19/314)
Report no:
TRS2019/2/57
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.
15. At its meeting on 8 April
2019, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendation
contained in the officer’s report.
Legal
Considerations
16. These restrictions are made
pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.
Financial
Considerations
17. These changes can be funded
from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.
Other
Considerations
18. 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
|
20
|
Author: Victor Fraga
Assistant Traffic Engineer
Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie
Traffic Engineer - Network Operations
Approved By: Damon Simmons
Traffic Asset Manager
|
Attachment 1
|
Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times
Restrictions
|
Traffic Subcommittee
21 March 2019
File:
(19/339)
Report no:
TRS2019/2/58
Queens Grove -
Proposed No Parking on the Grass Restrictions
Purpose
of Report
1. The
purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation
of No Parking on the Grass restrictions on Queens Grove, as shown attached as
Appendix 1 to the report.
|
Recommendations
That the Traffic Subcommittee
recommends that Council approves the installation of No Parking on the Grass
restrictions on Queens Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
For the reasons, the proposed
restrictions:
- would
prevent damage to the grass berm and consequently reduce repair and
maintenance costs;
- would
promote compliance with Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017; and
- are
supported by the majority of residents that chose to respond to the
consultation documents.
|
Background
2. Council has
received a request from a local resident that restrictions be put in place to
prevent vehicles being parked on the grass berms along both sides of Queens
Grove.
3. Vehicles
frequently park on the grass berms, particularly during the working week when
parking demand is highest. This behaviour can damage the berm, particularly
during the wetter months, and makes it difficult for Council and local
residents to maintain and mow the berm.
4. Queens Grove is a
residential access street located in close proximity to the Lower Hutt CBD. The
northern side of the street currently has P120 restrictions installed, while
the parking spaces on the southern side are unrestricted.
5. The general street
layout including grass berms is shown below.
Discussion
6. The proposal
involves the installation of a No Parking on the Grass
restriction and associated signage along both sides of Queens Grove.
7. Council’s
Traffic Bylaw 2017 Clause 12.1(a) states ‘No person may stop, stand, or
park a vehicle on a berm, verge, kerb, lawn, garden or
other cultivation adjacent to, or forming part of a road so as to cause or be
likely to cause damage to the cultivated area’.
8. Although
the bylaw prohibits parking on the berm when likely to cause damage, it is
often difficult to prove whether a certain vehicle has caused the damage. This
means that Parking Services are reluctant to infringe vehicles parked on the
grass.
9. Therefore,
Council usually seeks a specific resolution for No Parking on the Grass
restrictions so that appropriate signage can be installed and enforced.
10. The proposed
restrictions would promote compliance with Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.
11. Preventing
parking on the grass berm will allow regular mowing to be undertaken by both
Council and local residents, and reduce the costs of maintaining the berm.
12. There is
sufficient free and unrestricted on-road parking on one side of the street and
most residences also have off-street parking. The northern side of the street
already has P120 restrictions to cater for motorists looking for short-term car
parking. This prevents all on road parking spaces from being occupied by CBD
commuters.
13. The majority
of residents and directly-affected parties that were consulted have expressed
support for the proposed measures.
Options
14. The options are:
a. to leave the
area as it is without any restrictions and accept the berm maintenance costs
and obstruction to mowing; or
b. approve the
proposed No Parking on the Grass restrictions to allow more effective
enforcement of the Traffic Bylaw and prevent damage to the berm; or
c. approve
the proposed No Parking on the Grass restrictions to some greater or lesser
extent along Queens Grove.
15. Council Officers recommend
Option b. which will allow effective enforcement of the Traffic Bylaw 2017
along both sides of Queens Grove. Installing the proposed restrictions to some
lesser extent (as it is proposed in Option c.) may result in the migration of
illegal parking on the grass to areas not covered by the restrictions.
Consultation
16. Consultation documents were
delivered to 48 directly affected residences at Nºs 46, 46A, A-C/48, 50,
1-3/52, 53, 1-2/54, 55, 1-2/56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 1-2/61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 1-2/66,
67, 68, 69, 70, 71, A-B/72, 1-2/73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83
Queens Grove and Nºs 6/6 and 8 Cornwall Street.
17. Fifteen questionnaires were
returned; 12 (80%) in favour and three (20%) against the proposal.
18. Comments from supporting
residents include:
a. “But
concerned about the lack of street parking for visitors with all day parking
and funeral and Queensgate shopper.”
Officer’s response: Council’s proposed
measures does not remove any on-street parking spaces that would be otherwise
available for visitors; instead, we are looking to preserve Council assets that
have been damaged by parking behaviour in the area.
b. “Too
many workers from Queensgate complex take advantage of the all-day parking for
at least 6 days a week. A more frequent visit from traffic enforcement would
aid in getting this problem fixed, so that residents can at least use the
parking as paying ratepayers. N.B: Tow them away.”
c. “Not
happy with congestion on Queens Grove. The same people park there 5 days a week
– e.g. Countdown staff and Chemist staff. Traffic wardens should come
around to check more often. The parks should be metered or just for residential
parking only.”
Officer’s Response: Council will communicate with
wardens to visit the vicinity more often to provide more effective enforcement
over the parking spaces with P120 restrictions. Because the current on-street
parking spaces on one side of Queens Grove are unrestricted, more frequent
visits from Council officers would not assist in removing the cars already
parked there.
d. “The
grass berm outside 1/56 is always used as a park. The area for parking between
1/54 and 1/56 is already a blind spot for us pulling out of our drives as this
(area) services 5 houses, the speed the workers drive down the street is
horrific. Maybe that needs hourly parking restrictions, our street is
constantly congested.”
19. Comments from opposing
residents include:
a. “The
problem with parking in Queens Grove is that the space on the south side is
completely filled by 7:30 am and most days on the north side by 9 am. This is
supposed to be 2-hour parking but is not monitored enough and cars frequently
park all day. Parking wardens seem to ignore same cars which regularly park all
day (are they friends?) so this doesn’t encourage these car owners to
move on. They are mainly people who work at Queensgate.”
Officer’s response: Officers will communicate with
Parking Services to visit the vicinity more often and provide more constant
enforcement over the parking spaces with P120 restrictions.
b. “1.
Council comments about ‘sufficient kerb side parking’ is all a
joke. 90% of the street parks are used by local workers, not residents. 2. I
believe a ‘case by case’ approach would be better as tradesmen
often use berms when working on houses.”
Officer’s response: Council believes there is
sufficient kerb side parking available within walking distance as parking bays,
and L and T bars parking markings have maximised the number of car parks along
Queens Grove. Allowing parking on some, but not all, of the berms would be
confusing.
c. “Parking
in Queens Grove is always at a premium, especially since the Kaikoura
earthquake, when the Mall lost a big percentage of their car parks. There is a
constant flow of many Mall workers and shoppers who park in Queens Grove (some
all day), so residents have limited parking for visiting or family vehicles.
(…) Over the past year, there has been traffic congestion, especially
near the beginning of the Grove, as at least 3 homes have been having major
construction projects carried out. The tradesmen have needed close access to
their vehicles for tools, equipment, etc. so the berm has been temporary
parking space, as the Mall workers fill the all-day parking in the street by
7:30 am.”
Legal
Considerations
20. These restrictions are made
pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.
Financial
Considerations
21. These changes can be funded
from Council’s 2018/2019 road signage budget.
Other
Considerations
22. 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 the conditions of existing Council assets. It does this in
a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road signage.
Appendices
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
1⇩
|
Queens Grove - Proposed No Parking on the Grass
|
26
|
Author: Victor Fraga
Traffic Engineer
Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie
Traffic Engineer - Network Operations
Approved By: Damon Simmons
Traffic Asset Manager
|
Attachment 1
|
Queens Grove - Proposed No Parking on the Grass
|
Traffic Subcommittee
26 March 2019
File:
(19/359)
Report no:
TRS2019/2/59
Eastern Hutt Road -
Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions
Purpose
of Report
1. The purpose of
this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No
Stopping At All Times restrictions on Eastern Hutt Road to accommodate proposed
changes to the existing flush median and parking markings, 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
restrictions on Eastern Hutt Road, 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;
- would
promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004;
- would
support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and
- are
supported by the majority of directly-affected parties that chose to respond
to the public consultation documents.
|
Background
2. Council
has received a request from a local business to improve accessibility and
parking availability on Eastern Hutt Road.
3. Eastern Hutt Road
is classified as a Primary Collector under the NZTA’s One Network Road
Classification system. This section is located in a highly commercial/
industrial area.
4. The
concern expressed is that, due to significant business expansion in the area,
there is an increase in demand for on-street parking spaces. It was requested
that parking bays be marked to encourage more efficient use of the roadside
parking space.
Discussion
5. In order to
improve the efficient use of the existing road side parking space, it is
proposed to mark individual parking bays in the area.
6. The parking will
remain time unrestricted and free of parking charges.
7. There is an
existing flush median marked in this location, however when vehicles are parked
kerbside it is necessary to travel over the flush median to avoid conflict.
8. It is therefore
proposed to remove the existing flush median in the vicinity of the parking
spaces and install a solid road centreline instead. This will reduce the risk
of vehicle conflict on the flush median.
9. No Stopping At All
Times restrictions are required to prevent vehicles parking between the
proposed parking bays and adjacent bus stops, to stop parked vehicles
restricting driveway access, and to prevent parking on the curve to the
southwest of the site (Refer Appendix 1).
10. The proposed No Stopping at
all Times restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road
User) Rule 2004 which 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.
6.9 Obstructing
vehicles entrances and exits
(1) A driver or person in
charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle so as to obstruct
entry to or exit from any driveway.
11. The proposed
measures are supported by the majority of local businesses that chose to
respond to the consultation documents.
Options
12. The options are:
a. to leave the
area as it is without any restrictions and accept the current level of service
for accessibility and parking availability; or
b. install the proposed
No Stopping At All Times restrictions, to facilitate the proposed parking and
road marking improvements, to improve the accessibility and parking level of
service.
13. Officers recommend Option b.
as this would improve accessibility and parking efficiency in the area.
Consultation
14. Consultation documents were
delivered to four directly-affected businesses at Nºs 15, 17, 18 and 20
Eastern Hutt Road.
15. One questionnaire was
returned by the original party that requested the proposed measures, in favour
of the proposal.
16. Comments from the
supporting business include:
a. “I
have just posted off our formal support for the revised parking proposal. The
proposal was emailed to all our employees at our Wingate site (current count is
107 employees). The proposal has universal support. Although the street is
unmarked at this point, we are now parking directly outside our building (on
Eastern Hutt Road). This is working well for us.”
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⇩
|
Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times
Restrictions
|
30
|
Author: Victor Fraga
Traffic Engineer
Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie
Traffic Engineer - Network Operations
Approved By: Damon Simmons
Traffic Asset Manager
|
Attachment 1
|
Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping At All
Times Restrictions
|
Traffic Subcommittee
25 March 2019
File:
(19/357)
Report no:
TRS2019/2/60
Richmond Grove -
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 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.
13. At its meeting on 8 April
2019, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendations
contained in the officer’s report.
Legal
Considerations
14. These restrictions are made
pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.
Financial
Considerations
15. These changes can be funded
from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.
Other
Considerations
16. 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
|
34
|
Author: Alan Hopkinson
Senior Traffic Engineer
Reviewed By: Damon Simmons
Traffic Asset Manager
Approved By: John Gloag
Divisional Manager, Transport
|
Attachment 1
|
G2218.2016 Richmond Grove - Proposed BYLs
|
