0                                                     3 May 2022



KOMITI HANGANGA | Infrastructure and Regulatory Committee


Minutes of a meeting held in the Via Zoom on

 Tuesday 3 May 2022 commencing at 2.00pm




Cr D Hislop (Chair)

Mayor C Barry


Cr G Barratt

Cr K Brown


Cr B Dyer

Cr A Mitchell (Deputy Chair)


Cr N Shaw

Cr L Sutton


APOLOGIES:                  There were no apologies.


IN ATTENDANCE:        Cr J Briggs

Cr S Edwards

Ms J Miller, Chief Executive

Ms A Blackshaw, Director Neighbourhoods and Communities

Ms H Oram, Director Environment and Sustainability

Mr K Puketapu-Dentice, Director Economy and Development  

Mr D Kerite, Head of Regulatory Services

Mr J Kingsbury, Head of Transport

Mr T Grieve, Senior Communications Advisor

Mr M Radu, Senior Traffic Engineer

Ms C Taylor, Principal Advisor Research and Evaluation

Mr R Soni, Traffic Engineer

Mr B Hu, Traffic Engineering Manager

                                          Ms K Stannard, Head of Democratic Services

                                          Ms K Glanville, Senior Democracy Advisor

                                          Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker






The Chair announced that Crs Briggs and Edwards were attending the meeting as non-appointed members of the committee.  She advised that the members could not vote on any matter at the meeting.  She granted permission for Crs Briggs and Edwards to take part in the meeting’s discussions. 


The Chair advised that she had received questions prior to the meeting submitted by
Cr Milne in relation to item 7 on the agenda.  She said that the questions had been responded to in writing by an officer.  She observed that Cr Milne, as a non-appointed member of the committee, was not in attendance at the meeting therefore he may potentially be satisfied with the officer’s answers to his questions.


1.       APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.


Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.


There were no conflict of interest declarations.


Minor item not on the agenda


Resolved(Cr Shaw/Cr Hislop)                                          Minute No. IARCC 22201

“That, in terms of Standing Order 10.13, the Committee:

(1)   notes that the Director of Economy and Development has a verbal announcement on the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund;

(2)   notes the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion; and

(3)   agrees that the verbal announcement be considered as a minor item not on the agenda.”


The Director Economy and Development advised that Council’s application to the contestable Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) had been accepted to progress to the next stage of negotiations with Kāinga Ora.  He explained the application was based on detailed work that Wellington Water Limited had undertaken to assess the future infrastructural requirements on the valley floor for urban development.  He noted the Riverlink project could lead to 1,200-1,750 new homes being constructed.  He said there was the potential to unlock additional development capacity to approximately 6,000 new homes on the valley floor if the infrastructure was improved. He added that progress to this next stage did not guarantee the application would receive funding from the IAF.  He stated Council’s application was one of 35 to progress this far, seeking funding from the $100M fund.

In response to questions from members, the Director Economy and Development advised there were originally 200 applications to the IAF, equating to over $5B worth of works.  He noted that the work Council had completed regarding Riverlink, Plan Change 43 and Development Contributions were all positive indicators to Kāinga Ora that Council was serious in planning for future urban development within the city.  He further noted that a timeline moving forward had yet to be finalised and that the upcoming discussions with Kāinga Ora would provide further details.  He said that Kāinga Ora had signalled the Hutt Valley was an area of focus for them, and that in order for their plans to proceed, overall improvements to all the infrastructural networks were required.  He clarified the application was based on a part funding model and there would be an expectation that Development Contributions would balance any shortfall of cost associated with infrastructure. 

Cr Hislop thanked the team for the work that had occurred in getting the application this far.  She said improving infrastructure now would benefit the city in the future. 



4.         Integrated Transport Strategy (22/1000)

A report titled ‘Additional Draft Integrated Transport Strategy Report (22/1022)’ was attached to the supplementary agenda.

Speaking under public comment, Mr Matt Young and Mr Quentin Duthie representing Hutt Carbon Zero Network spoke to the submission.  Mr Young believed the Integrated Transport Strategy (the strategy) was a step in the right direction.  He noted that the stragety could be further improved. He requested the strategy quantify the changes required in order to achieve the targets, including measures to decrease dependence on private transport modes.  He asked that a full analysis of the walking networks within the city be undertaken.

Mr Duthie asked that the vision statement include a reference to supporting net emission goals and that climate change needed to be a clear driver in how transport was planned.  He also requested that changes made to the existing transport network should seek to ensure active travel modes were at least as attractive as travelling by private car.  He questioned how the strategy would lead to broader considerations of planning for the future of the city.

Speaking under public comment, Ms Jo Clendon representing Hutt Cycle Network spoke to the submission.  She commended Council on the development of the strategy and stated it was difficult to gain a clear understanding of the magnitude of change that was required.  She said the strategy required more clarity and signposts.  She requested that “safety” and the “perception of safety” both be analysed in order to gain a complete understanding of each issue.  She believed that in order to achieve a modal shift, the focus needed to be on the built enviornment and not just on transport systems.

In response to questions from members, Ms Clendon stated there were no local authorities encompassing both safety and the perception of safety at present.  She supported measures which resulted in active transport modes being at least as attractive as private vehicle usage.  She added measures needed to be put in place which made it less attractive to drive cars.  She suggested Council investigate charging for parking on streets.



Speaking under public comment, Ms Ellen Blake representing Living Streets Aotearoa spoke to the submission.  She supported the strategy and suggested more emphasis be placed on walking networks.  She noted that only 4% of people walked to work in the city.  However 50% of residents worked in the city.  She believed the stated balance between cars and other modes of transport was not useful as investment into private vehicle infrastructure far outweighed that in other modes of transport.  She suggested efforts should support the transport modes the city wanted to see more of.  She supported the inclusion of the “perception of safety” concept.

In response to questions from members, Ms Blake explained that worldwide, the order of focus was walking, cycling and public transport.  She said it was important to encourage people to access the public transport hubs.

The Head of Transport elaborated on the report.  He noted the strategy was designed to be a living document.  He said that once central government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (the plan) was released the strategy would be altered to reflect the plan.  He reiterated that the strategy was an overarching document that did not contain targets or numbers.  He said the next step would be to develop the seven focus areas in collaboration with Greater Wellington Regional Council and Waka Kotahi.  He advised that measureable outcomes would be developed at that time.

Cr Hislop acknowledged and thanked the Head of Transport and his team for the work undertaken on the strategy. 

In response to questions from members, the Head of Transport agreed to investigate and report back on the issue of the number of properties in the city which could park their cars off road but chose to park on the street.  He added that parking overall was an issue which would be investigated over the next three years.  He confirmed that both safety and the perception of safety were important issues.  He confirmed that to his knowledge, there were no local authorities in New Zealand who had dealt with both issues.  He noted Council would deal with both issues in the future.  He acknowledged shared pathways were a contentious issue and that an effective education programme could help eliminate some of the negative perceptions about shared pathways being unsafe.

In response to further questions from members, the Head of Transport confirmed the strategy would link with the new District Plan in the coming years.  He further confirmed that once the strategy had been approved by Council, work would commence on developing the plans required including liaising with partners and assessing the Cross Valley Link.



Members provided feedback on the strategy:

·      need to paint a picture of the magnitude of the the change that is required.

·      add to the vision statement: “and supports carbon zero emissions goal.” 

·      changes to the existing transport network should seek to ensure active travel modes are at least as attractive as travelling by private car.

·      include a section explaining the context of the policy climate in which Council operates, in particular government and regional policies, priorities and targets.

·      climate change needed to be better highlighted throughout the document.

·      need to reduce attractiveness of private car dependency.

·      need to acknowledge the priorities of neighbouring local authorities to ensure Council was not operating in isolation or against their efforts.

Cr Shaw stated that the strategy was an important piece of work for the city and that with climate change, there would be some tough decisions needed to be made in the future.

Mayor Barry acknowledged all the positive feedback received from submitters and members.  He highlighted that a positive submission had been recevied from Waka Kotahi.

Cr Hislop acknowledged the work that submitters had put into their submissions.


Resolved(Cr Hislop/Cr Mitchell)                         Minute No. IARCC 22202

“That the Committee:

(1)     receives and notes the information;

(2)     thanks the submitters for their feedback on the draft Integrated Transport Strategy attached to the supplementary agenda;

(3)     notes the submissions received on the draft Integrated Transport Strategy;

(4)     agrees to advise Council of its view of the Integrated Transport Strategy by way of amendments made at the meeting ahead of approval being sought from Council on 24 May 2022.”

For the reason set out in the report and attachments.





Response to Petition - Save the Atkinson tree in York Bay, Eastbourne from removal (22/927)

Report No. IARCC2022/2/74 by the Head of Transport


Speaking under public comment, Ms Fiona Christeller commended Council on the shared pathway and urged for the tree to be saved for heritage, placemaking and shading values.  She stated that she favoured Option B.  She offered to lead a fundraising effort to raise monies to pay for a replacement tree if the Atkinson tree could not be saved.  She requested further consultation occur at the completion of the officer’s investigation. 

In response to questions from members, Ms Christeller advised the carpark opposite the tree was used 50% of the time, by residents and visitors.  She said that generally driveways were not blocked in this area by parked vehicles.  She understood the tree was not part of the consented documentation for the shared pathway and was being dealt with as a separate issue.  She maintained the tree should be saved and that alternative options be considered.   

The Head of Transport elaborated on the report.  He thanked Ms Christeller for her offer to lead any fundraising efforts.  He said that officers would report back to the community with a preferred design in due course.  He noted it was undesirable to split the shared pathway in two and that encroachments into the marine environment were not posible.

In response to questions from members, the Head of Transport advised the project team were adhering to all resource consent conditions.  He confirmed the Eastbourne Community Board had been regularly updated on all aspects of the shared pathway project. 


Resolved:  (Cr Hislop/Cr Barratt)                                        Minute No. IARCC 22203

“That the report be noted and received.”



Proposed Private Street Names: Subdivision of 128 and 132A Molesworth Street, Taita (22/908)

Report No. IARCC2022/2/75 by the Traffic Engineer


In response to questions from members, the Traffic Engineering Manager confirmed consultation had occurred in accordance with the previous Naming Policy.

Cr Brown left the meeting at 3.34pm and rejoined at 3.36pm.

Cr Dyer expressed support for the recommended name.  He noted there were other names on the Naming List which had been set aside for use by Urban Plus Limited.

Cr Mitchell expressed support for the recommended name.


Resolved:  (Cr Hislop/Cr Shaw)                                          Minute No. IARCC 22204

“That the Committee:

(1)       approves a new street name for the new private road shown in Appendix 1 of the report, as ‘Te Ara o Takapū’; and


(2)      approves the appropriate road type as shown in the list attached as Appendix 3 to the report.”

For the reasons so that these sections of the development may proceed to completion as a variety of utility connections and other administrative bodies require formalised street addresses for the necessary connections to be provided.



Regulatory Matters Report (22/865)

Report No. IARCC2022/2/76 by the Head of Regulatory Services


Speaking under public comment, Mr Max Shierlaw expressed concern with the statement that 40 days for processing of building consents was an acceptable timeframe.  He requested Council adhere to the legal requirement of 20 working days and that the discounted fees be applied to all building consent and LIM applications.  He questioned where the additional staff resource funds had been spent. 

In response to questions from members, Mr Shierlaw hoped that the 20 working day timeframe would be adhered to and that additional officers would be employed.  He understood that if Council adopted his proposal, any shortfall in costs would be borne by the ratepayers.

A written comment under public comment from Mr Grant Birkinshaw was read out by the Director Economy and Development in Te Reo Maori. 

In response to a question from a member, the Director Economy and Development confirmed Mr Birkenshaw’s written comment stated he was of Ngati Toa descent.

The Director Environment and Sustainability elaborated on the report.  She explained the timeframe figures provided in the report were constantly changing.

Cr Brown and Cr Sutton left the meeting at 3.38pm.

The Director Environment and Sustainability advised the hui recently held with developers would become a regular quarterly event.

Cr Sutton rejoined the meeting at 3.40pm.

The Director Environment and Sustainability advised three of the four vacancies in Council’s Resource Consent team had been filled with the last one due to be finalised by the end of the week.  She said that consultants were still being used when required.  She further advised that the required information had been supplied to International Accreditation New Zealand on time with a further audit scheduled for August 2022.  She noted the Food Verification Division had completed a successful audit.

Cr Brown rejoined the meeting at 3.43pm.

In response to questions from members, the Director Environment and Sustainability confirmed the relaxing of the national borders may assist in the recruitment process over time.  She agreed to report back to members regarding the 28 Raukawa Street development.  She explained that even though the Avalon Studios may be the largest such complex in Australasia, if an application was received to alter it in any way, Council’s Regulatory team had to process it as the building was not protected.  She added the tower block was remaining.

In response to a question from a member regarding Project Information Memoranda (PIM), the Director Environment and Sustainability explained that with the advent of Kāinga Ora becoming a processing unit, it required access to all the PIM information.  He said this had created a new work programme for Council’s Regulatory team.

In response to further questions from members, the Director Environment and Sustainability advised officers were constantly learning from previous applications and would apply those learnings to new applications.  She confirmed the suggested 40 working day timeframe for building consent processing had been discussed with other local authorities in the region.  She advised she was unaware of any proposed legislative changes to processing times.  She said the general comments from the developer hui centred around processing times and increasing communications.  She added officers were seeking technical and legal advice about some of the suggestions.  She noted that a slowing down of building applications had yet to occur to reflect the slowing housing market.  

In response to questions from members regarding the recruitment of Design Engineer specialists, the Director Economy and Development advised there was a national shortage of these skilled personnel. 

Crs Dyer and Hislop thanked officers for the updates and acknowledged the difficulties the nationwide worker shortages presented.


Resolved:    (Cr Hislop/Mayor Barry)                                  Minute No. IARCC 22205

“That the Committee:

(1)      receives and notes the information;

(2)      notes that the Committee will continue to be updated on all matters identified in the Regulatory Matters report; and

(3)      asks the Chief Executive to keep the Chair of the Committee up to date on all regulatory matters between meetings of the Committee.”





8.       Information Items


Street Names Approved by Community Boards (22/857)

Memorandum dated 5 April 2022 by the Traffic Engineer


Resolved:  (Cr Hislop/Cr Barratt)                              Minute No. IARCC 22206

“That the Committee receives and notes the contents of the memorandum.”



Infrastructure and Regulatory Forward Programme 2022 (22/858)

Report No. IARCC2022/2/77 by the Democracy Advisor


Resolved:  (Cr Hislop/Cr Dyer)                                 Minute No. IARCC 22207

“That the Committee receives and notes the Forward Programme for 2022 attached as appendix 1 to the memorandum.”

9.       QUESTIONS

There were no questions.



There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 4.07 pm.








D Hislop







CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 24th day of May 2022