Agenda of Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 13 November 2018 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Compliance with Current Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand - 2017/18

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	656402
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Santha Agas, Team Leader 3 Waters

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of:

· The outcome of the report received from Central North Island Drinking Water Assessment Unit (CNIDWAU) on compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008) and duties under Health Act 1956.

· The scheduled programme of works in the next 5 years to improve the quality of Napier’s Water Supply network.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Receive the update on compliance with current drinking-water standards.

Chairperson’s Recommendation

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

1.2 Background Summary

Each year, the District Health Board Drinking Water Assessors (DWAs) of CNIDWAU assess the public water supplies under their jurisdiction and produce a compliance report. The compliance reporting period is, 1^st of July to 30^th of June following year. The compliance report is the basis for “Annual Report on Drinking Water” published by the Ministry of Health.

Napier Water Supply is assessed in 3 main areas with regard to compliance. They are as follows:

· Bore compliance

· Distribution zone (pipe network) compliance

· Compliance with duties in the Health Act 1956

The water supply must comply with all 3 areas mentioned above, to achieve full compliance with current DWSNZ and duties under Health Act.

1.3 Compliance with Current Drinking Water Standards

Council received its compliance report from DWA for the period of 1July 2017 to 30 June 2018. The report identified that Napier Water Supply did not fully comply with the current DWSNZ for the year 2017/18 due to aspects of technical non-compliance with reporting of bore monitoring.

The summary of the compliance for the year 2017/18 is given in the following table.

Compliance Area	Achieved/not achieved
Bores	Not achieved
Distribution zone	Achieved
Duties in the Health Act 1956	Achieved

Due to a non-compliance result for supply bores, Napier’s Water Supply did not achieve full compliance with current DWSNZ.

1.4 Reasons for Not Achieving Bore Compliance

Since the removal of bore security status in July 2017, the Council was required to complete the following additional work to meet the current DWSNZ (it should be noted that from a compliance perspective during this period of bore security status removal the drinking water was non-compliant for protozoa, which has never been present in the water supply):

1. Take daily water samples from each bore and test for E.Coli and demonstrate that E.Coli is not present in source water (for bacteriological compliance);

2. Install an appropriate treatment system such as UV treatment to treat protozoa (for protozoa compliance).

Napier Water Supply did not meet these criteria due to following reasons:

1. In late July 2017, Council contracted water samplers were not able to take water samples from one of the bores situated at King Street (bore T5) due to a non-operational sampling tap. The period over which samples could not be taken was 7 days. Although no contamination has been identified in water from this bore, bacteriological compliance was not achieved for year 2017/18 due to this lapse in sampling.

2. While chlorination units have been installed at all operative bore sites to minimise the contamination risk associated with the water reticulation system, treatment to address protozoa risk (such as UV treatment) has not been installed. Therefore, protozoa compliance was not achieved. Installation of protozoa treatment systems is difficult at most of the existing bore locations and expensive. The risk of protozoa contamination in groundwater in New Zealand is very low. The DWA was satisfied with Council’s programme of work in the Water Safety Plan to reobtain interim bore security status.

1.5 Bore Improvement Wok Undertaken by the Council

Following the loss of bore security status, the 3 Waters Team took action to regain bore security status. Following discussions with the CNIDWA it was agreed that Council would engage an independent expert to assess and recommend the works required to regain the bore security status.

The Council appointed GHD Consultants as the independent expert advisor to undertake this work. GHD inspected all of Council’s bores and made recommendations to carry out additional works.

The 3 Waters Team were able to carry out the recommended additional works for five bores namely Coverdale bore, Bledisloe Park bore, Riverside Park bore, Guppy Road South bore and King Street bore to the satisfaction of the independent Consultant by 30 June 2018. The Consultant produced a report confirming that these bores can be granted bore security status. On the basis of Consultant’s report, the DWA did grant interim bore security status for these 5 bores effective from 1 July 2018.

The production rate from these five bores is sufficient for the current (off peak) water demand and as a result the remaining bores were taken out from the production. This means, currently Napier Water Supply has full compliance with the DWSNZ.

Further improvement works are being carried out to improve 2 additional bores namely Guppy Road North and Awatoto 1, to regain bore security status for these bores. These works are expected to be completed by the end of November 2018 and will be connected to the network following sign off from the DWA for interim bore security status.

The addition of these 2 bores to the supply will ensure that the Council can meet peak summer demand. Further to this, a new bore is being developed at Awatoto which will meet the requirements of the bore security criteria and will be added to the network after sign off by the DWA for bore security status. This bore will be added to the system when the necessary work has been completed to further boost the production capability.

1.6 Future Work Programme to Improve Water quality

There are a number of capital projects planned in the LTP to upgrade the water system to improve the water quality and reduce the health risk to the community. The total amount budgeted for these projects in the next 5 years is approximately $9.8 million. This work is summarised in the following table:

Year	Project	Budget ($)
2018/19	Dedicated water take points from reticulation	95,000
2018/19	Groundwater modelling and source protection zones	150,000
2018/19	Improve existing bores and treatment systems	250,000
2018/22	Construction of new bore fields and associated works	5,650,000
2018/2020	New water treatment plants	1,700,000
2018/21	Reservoir improvements	1,980,000
Total		9,825,000

1.7 Conclusion

Napier Water Supply did not fully comply with current DWSNZ for 2017/18 year due to loss of bore security status in July 2017 which required additional water treatment and water testing. The interim bore security has been regained for most of the bores by the end of June 2018. In the current LTP, capital projects to the value of approximately $9.8 million have been included in the first 5 years to address the risks associated with water quality.

1.8 Attachments

Nil

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 13 November 2018 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Speed Limit Bylaw Review 2018

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	468094
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Tony Mills, Senior Roading Engineer

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council to commence formal public consultation on the proposed changes to the “’Napier City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012” and the accompanying Statement of Proposal.

The proposed changes follow the introduction of the new “Speed Management Guide” which was developed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to help Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) better understand the risk associated with their roads so that the appropriate speed limits can be set.

Informal public consultation was undertaken to enable the community to have input in to the process at an early stage and the findings are detailed in this report.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Adopt the report from the Senior Roading Engineer titled “Speed Limit Bylaw Review 2018” with the reasons for the decision being:

i. That a bylaw is the only method mandated by the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017

ii. That the right to control speed limits is granted by Parliament to territorial authorities and the limitations proposed are justified limitations in terms of section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that there is accordingly no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

iii. That the consultation on the speed limits will allow affected parties and the wider community to fully consider the bylaw amendments proposed having regard to the requirements of the Rule 4.2(2) of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017

b. Adopt the Proposed Amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 and the Statement of Proposal to commence public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017

Chairperson’s Recommendation

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

2.2 Background Summary

In 2017 NZTA introduced the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 along with the 2016 Speed Management guide to help RCAs determine and set appropriate speed limits. The setting of speed limits was a responsibility delegated to RCAs by Central Government in 2003 and detailed in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 which is superseded by the new setting of speed limits rule.

The new Setting of Speed Limit Rule provides the legal procedure for establishing speed limits on public roads by way of a bylaw under the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002. This does not include setting of temporary speed limits.

The new rule also sets out the approach for evaluating and determining speed limits in line with the Speed Management Guide.

Council can change existing speed limits by amending their Speed Limits Bylaw with Napier’s most recent amendment completed in 2012. Any amendment requires Council to follow the special consultative procedure under the LGA 2002 and the Setting of Speed Limit Rule also provides its own consultation requirements.

The process for reviewing and setting a new speed limit on public roads is:

· Council must review and set speed limits in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017;

· Analysis is undertaken to establish the safe and appropriate speed limit for the road in accordance with the Speed Management Guide and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017;

· Council may set speed limits for designated locations in accordance with section 8 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017;

· Council resolves to amend their Speed Limits Bylaw to set the revised speed limits under the LGA process;

· A Statement of Proposal is prepared with reasons for the changes and a draft of the revised Speed Limits Bylaw;

· The Statement of Proposal is publicly notified with a period of not less than 1 month being provided for submissions;

· The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 requires that the following people, organisations and communities that are affected by the proposed speed limits are consulted;

o New Zealand Transport Agency;

o The chief executive of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated;

o The chief executive of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand;

o Any local communities considered to be affected by the proposed speed limit;

o The Commissioner of the New Zealand Police;

o Hastings District Council;

o Hawkes Bay Regional Council;

o Any other organisation or road user group the Council considers affected;

· Acknowledge all received submissions and allow submitters the opportunity to be heard;

· After considering submissions and other relevant material, the Council sets a speed limit that it considers to be safe and appropriate for the particular road by making the necessary amendments to their Speed Limit Bylaw;

· The Director of NZTA and the Commissioner of Police are notified of the changes;

· Any required speed limit signs are erected in accordance with the Bylaw Plans;

Council Officers have previously identified a number of possible speed limit changes which were publicised during an informal public consultation process. During this consultation, the public were asked for their opinion on the proposed changes along with an opportunity to request further changes that they felt were necessary. 2630 responses were collected during the informal consultation process and below is a summary of the responses to the proposed changes:

Proposal	Agree	Disagree	Skip this question
Implement Variable 30km/h school zones	73%	24.3%	2.7%
Reduce all Napier Hill roads to 40km/h	53.16%	42.47%	4.37%
Reduce Sandy Road & Brookfields Road to 80km/h	38.16%	52.69%	8.7%
Reduce Tannery Road & Burness Road to 80km/h	40.07%	50.32%	9.61%
Increase the 70km/h section of Meeanee Road to 80km/h	74.64%	23.06%	2.29%
Reduce Puketitiri Road to 80km/h	46.91%	39.95%	13.13%
Reduce Poraiti Road, Fryer Road, Penrith Road, Silverton Road & Quarry Ridge to 80km/h	45.49%	35.68%	18.83%
Reduce Springfield Road to 80 km/h	37.03%	46.99%	15.98%
Reduce the 100km/h section of Prebesen Dr to 80km/h	35.4%	60.6%	4%
Reduce the 100km/h section of Puketapu Road to 50km/h	30.45%	55.87%	13.68%
Reduce the 70km/h section of Tamatea Drive to 50km/h	46.12%	48.26%	5.62$
Reduce the 70km/h section of Te Awa Avenue, all of Eriksen Road and all of Kenny Road to 50km/h	44.71%	45.12%	10.17%
Reduce the northern end of Onehunga Road to 50km/h	29.05%	41.61%	29.34%
Extend the 50km/h in Meeanee village to include the two intersections	56.57%	36.61%	6.82%
Reduce the section of Marine Parade between Vautier St and Coote Road to 30km/h	27.99%	69.1%	2.91%
Reduce the EIT bus layby on Gloucester St to 20km/h	29.8%	61.08%	9.12%
Reduce Symons Lane to 20km/h	56.18%	35.63%	8.19%

The analysis of the additional proposals requested by the public have been evaluated and are appended to this report. Those roads that Council officers agree should be included in this review have been included in the table below.

The draft Statement of Proposal document is appended to this report and the table below provides a summary of the proposed changes.

Location/Road Name	Current Speed Limit (km/h)	Proposed Speed Limit (km/h)
Urban school zones	50	30
All roads on Napier Hill	50	40
Sandy Road	100	80
Hales Road	100	80
Sears Road	100	80
Jessep Road	100	80
King Road	100	80
Brookfields Road	100	80
Tannery Road	100	80
Burness Road	100	80
Waverley Road	100	80
Ulyatt Road	100	50
Meeanee Road	70	80
Puketitiri Road	100	80
Poraiti Road	100	80
Fryer Road	100	80
Nilgri Road	100	80
Boyd Road	100	80
Pinleigh Drive	100	80
Ballantyne Road	100	80
Ballantyne Place	100	80
Longview Road	100	80
Penrith Road	100	80
Silverton Road	100	80
Quarry Ridge	100	80
Springfield Road	100	80
Prebensen Drive	100	80
Awatoto Road	100	80
Hill Road	100	80
Puketapu Road	100	50
Tamatea Drive	70	50
Te Awa Avenue	70	50
Eriksen Road	100	50
Kenny Road	100	50
Onehunga Road (western end)	100	50
Awatoto Road (70m from intersection of Meeanee Road)	100	50
Sandy Road (70m from intersection of Meeanee Road)	100	50
Brookfields Road (70m from intersection of Meeanee Road)	100	50
Marine Parade (Vautier St to Coote Road) & removal of 40kh/m “Courtesy Zone”	50	30
Bus layby on Gloucester Street	50	20
Symons Lane	50	20
Gloucester Street	70	50

2.3 Issues

The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 permits variable speed limits to be set on roads next to educational facilities. The variable speed limit has to be a speed limit in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017. 70km/h, 90km/h and 110km/h are only applicable under the strict approval of NZTA’s Network Manager.

NZTA’s Traffic Note 37 permits variable speed limits at schools in the urban area to be 40 km/h as this significantly reduces the level of injury if a child is struck by a vehicle.

The New Zealand Ministry of Transport’s 2012 research report in to speeding states “At 30km/h pedestrians have about a 90 percent chance of surviving the impact of a motor vehicle, whereas if struck at 45km/h they have only a 50 percent chance of surviving.”

Napier City Council’s transportation team believe that the appropriate variable speed limit for school zones, only when children are present, should be 30km/h to help protect them.

Council’s initial correspondence with NZTA’s Network Manager indicates that he is unwilling to approve 30km/h at schools as there would be inconsistency across New Zealand.

Whilst officers support this principal of maintaining consistency we do not believe that this is an issue where speeds will be guided by active electronic signage.

Officers have contacted a number of other RCAs (including Hastings District Council, Central Hawkes Bay District Council, Wairoa District Council, Palmerston North City Council and Dunedin City Council) and all are in favour of 30km/h school zones.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

Council is required, under the bylaw-making provisions of the LGA 2002 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, to use the special consultative procedure to make, amend or revoke a bylaw.

Should Council determine to proceed with the recommendations of this report, then the appended Statement of Proposal along with the proposed amended Bylaw will need to be publicly notified and made available. They will be available at:

· Napier City Council office, Dunvegan House;

· Napier Library;

· Taradale Library; and

· The Napier City Council website www.napier.govt.nz

The Statement of Proposal provides the procedure for making submissions on the proposals.

All affected parties will be notified of the consultation period and where a copy of the Statement of Proposal can be viewed or obtained.

The minimum period for consultation under the special consultative procedure is one month which is proposed here.

Submitters will all be formally acknowledged and those who have indicated that they wish to speak to their submission will be scheduled to do so. All consultation material, feedback and submissions will be on the agenda at a future Council meeting.

Council will follow the above procedures with key dates below:

· Council approves the draft bylaw for consultation 11th December 2018

· Public consultation starts 28th January 2019

· Public consultation ends 1st March 2019

· Council bylaw hearing with submissions being heard April 2019

2.5 Implications

Financial

It is estimated that the costs to carry out the bylaw amendment under Option 2 (below) will be $50,000+GST. These costs include the public consultation material and the changes to signage excluding the electronic variable school zone signs which is currently budgeted in the 2019/20 financial year.

Social & Policy

A review of the current Speed Limit Bylaw 2012 was put on hold whilst NZTA completed their review of the Speed Limit Rule. Now that the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 is in place a review can be undertaken.

Risk

With further consultation with NZTA’s Network Manager being required, it is uncertain whether variable school zone speed limits of 30km/h will be permitted.

Should NZTA not permit the use of 30km/h variable school zone speed limits, officers will pursue the use of already approved (by NZTA) variable school zone speed limits of 40km/h or generic variable speed limits of 30km/h.

2.6 Options

There are two options available to Council and as follows:

1. Do nothing and retain the existing bylaw including its schedules.

2. Propose to amend the Speed Limit Bylaw as detailed in the Statement of Proposal and to proceed with public consultation on the proposal by way of the special consultative procedure in accordance with the LGA 2002 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is Option 2.

This provides a full opportunity for the public and all other appropriate bodies to comment on the speed limit changes proposed.

The process described is in accordance with the obligations as set out in the LGA 2002 and the Land Transport Rule setting of speed limits 2017.

Rule 4.2(2) of the Land Transport Rule setting of speed limits 2017 requires that when reviewing or considering setting a new speed limit that the Council (as Road Controlling Authority) considers a range of factors:

a) the information about speed management developed and maintained by NZTA;

b) any relevant guidance on speed management provided by NZTA;

c) the function and use of the road;

d) crash risk for all road users;

e) the characteristics of the road and roadsides;

f) adjacent land use;

g) the number of intersections and property accesses;

h) traffic volume;

i) any planned modification to the roads; and

j) the views of interested persons and groups.

The proposals as described in the Statement of Proposal are deemed to provide safe and appropriate speed for the roads and sections of roads identified taking into account the above factors.

The public consultation process will enable Council to obtain and consider the views of persons likely to be affected by this proposal.

2.8 Attachments

a Draft Statement of Proposal ⇩

b Public speed limit request analysis ⇩

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee - 13 November 2018 - Open Agenda

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 2 October 2018
Time:	3.00pm-4.08pm
Venue	Council Chamber Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street Napier

Present	Councillors Price (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, McGrath, Tapine, White, Wise and Wright
In Attendance	Chief Executive, Director Community Services, Director Infrastructure Services, Director City Services, Director City Strategy, Manager Communications and Marketing, Manager Community Strategies, Marketing Manager, Venues Manager, Manager Regulatory Solutions/ Manager Business Excellence & Transformation, Manager City Development, Communications Specialist, Strategic Māori Advisor
Administration	Governance Team

Apologies

Councillors White / Wise

That the apologies from Mayor Dalton, Councillor Taylor and Councillor Jeffery be accepted.

Carried

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Public forum

Dr Robin Gwynn – Easter Sunday Trading Policy [Agenda Item 2]

Dr Gwynn felt significant aspects of the High Court case had not been taken into account in the report to Council, and noted the following points:

· Council had previously considered unions and retailers to be the key stakeholders but the High Court Judgement confirmed that the involvement of Easter Sunday means that churches should also be considered key stakeholders in this matter.

· The officers’ report speaks to notifying people and receiving their feedback but fails to reference ‘encouragement’ which was repeatedly noted in the High Court Judgement.

· It was considered that officers did not actively encourage churches to make a submission; the Judge noted that churches of the Pasifika community specifically had received no encouragement to participate.

· Council’s failure to encourage and obtain the views of concerned stakeholders means that the decision was based on insufficient information.

· The 2016/17 survey is quoted in the new Statement of Proposal. Council had approached only one of three key stakeholders meaning the results of this survey are misleading and biased.

Dr Gwynn advised that when Council comes to consider submissions received through the consultative process they need to approach their decision with a new mind, and this cannot be done by considering the 2016/17 survey. He accepted that Council officers had agreed to work with him regarding engagement and appreciated the changes made to the Statement of Proposal.

Council must specify what will happen if Council adopts the Easter Sunday Trading Policy, but they must also be clear about what will happen if they don’t. There was considerable confusion from the 2016/17 submissions as to who would be able to open on Easter Sunday if the Policy were not adopted.

Announcements by the Deputy Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Councillors Boag / Wright

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 August 2018 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Agenda Items

1. Amendment of Resolution - War Memorial Consultation Options

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
Document ID:	636482
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Wayne Jack, Chief Executive

1.1 Purpose of Report

To recommend the amendment of the part b of the resolution of Council dated 29 June 2018 regarding the Napier War Memorial consultation options.

At the Meeting

The Chair clarified that his recommendation was for the matter to be open to discussion, and the recommendation noted in the report is incorrect.

A substitute motion was moved by Councillor Wise to include a third option, internal to the War Memorial building, to go out for consultation.

The following points were noted in favour of including the internal option:

· Following the Council decision of 29 June 2018, the Brent Scott design was withdrawn as it is not viable without substantial changes to the current building. It was questioned why this concept was initially included in the design options.

· As the design brief was signed off by the War Memorial working group, not Council, a Councillor suggested that the process by which the original three design concepts were assessed was flawed.

· Attendees at a public meeting held on 16 September 2018 were presented with three designs including the internal design prepared by Mr Morley. The majority voted in favour of including an internal option.

· It was proposed that Mr Morley’s option should be included as an internal example in response to the community’s wishes as Council has been assured all along that the design concepts are examples for the community to consider.

· It was noted that Mr Morley had agreed to his design images being used in the consultation process.

· Providing three different concepts as examples truly gives the community an opportunity to engage in this process; a wide breadth of options should be provided.

· The community of interest in this matter, although not a majority anymore, must be encouraged to participate in the process. A Councillor stated that we must learn from the Easter Sunday Trading decision and encourage the community’s participation.

It was acknowledged that preliminary costings would be required for the third option to be included in the consultation.

The following points were noted against including a third option:

· The proposed design has not undergone the testing that has been completed for the other two designs.

· Council does not want to prolong the process of returning the War Memorial to the site and Council is ready with a consultation plan now. This consultation process will provide our community with the opportunity to comment on the two designs, as well as submitting other options for Council to consider. These options can be internal and external designs and can include Mr Morley’s design as a submission.

· Why should this proposed internal option be included when other members of the community have not had an opportunity to submit their designs?

Officer’s recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Amend part b of the Council resolution dated 29 June 2018 to the following:

That Council:

Approve that the following assessed design options go out for public consultation, requesting not only feedback but also feedback into any potential modifications:

· Option Two – Building solution outside of the main Memorial Building

· Option Three – Landscape solution outside of the main Memorial Building

b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow consultation to be initiated as soon as possible.

Substitute Motion

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee amend part b of the Council resolution dated 29 June 2018 to the following:

a. That Council approve the withdrawal of the Brent Scott design from the community consultation process and replace this with an internal example/concept, that being the design concept prepared by Craig Morley.

b. That the following three design options go out for public consultation, requesting not only feedback but also input into any potential alternative designs or modifications:

a) Option One - Renovation solution Internal to the main Memorial Building

b) Option Two – Building solution external to the main Memorial Building

c) Option Three - Landscape solution external to the main Memorial Building

c. That Council notes the offer of the video and images of Option One from Mr Morley and agrees that these will be sufficient to include in the consultation without needing to incur additional design costs.

d. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow consultation to be initiated as soon as possible.

The division was declared carried by 6 votes to 3 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, McGrath, Tapine and Wise

Against: Councillors Hague, White and Wright

Abstained: Councillor Price

Carried

Council Resolution

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That Council amend part b of the Council resolution dated 29 June 2018 to the following:

b. That the following three design options go out for public consultation, requesting not only feedback but also input into any potential alternative designs or modifications:

a) Option One - Renovation solution Internal to the main Memorial Building

b) Option Two – Building solution external to the main Memorial Building

c) Option Three - Landscape solution external to the main Memorial Building

Carried

2. Easter Sunday Trading Policy

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	632729
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

2.1 Purpose of Report

A high court decision on 1 August 2018 overturned the current Easter Sunday Trading Policy that allowed shops within the Napier District to open on Easter Sunday. This report is to seek Council approval to re consult on an Easter Sunday Trading Policy. This requires Council to adopt a draft policy, the accompanying Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), and to authorise officers to commence the special consultative procedure.

At the Meeting

A substitute motion was moved by Councillor Boag to include a few amendments to the Easter Sunday Trading Policy.

The following points were noted in favour of the substitute motion:

· Pharmacy and souvenir shops should be included in the Policy as they are included under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

· To avoid any confusion it should be made very clear that if the Policy was not adopted following consultation, certain shops as listed in the Policy would still remain open.

· The proposed amendments are required to make the Policy clearer and to reduce the risk of any possible challenges to the decision.

· A full briefing on the High Court ruling by Council’s legal representation is requested before submissions received through consultation be considered.

In response to questions from Councillors the following points were clarified:

· The 2016/17 survey was a recommendation from Local Government New Zealand. It was not a statistical survey, but more to understand whether there was any support for undertaking further work.

· It was noted that the full briefing requested in relation to the High Court ruling would need to be a public excluded workshop.

· As Council is identifying communities of interest there is a risk that we may miss another interested group. In this instance, Council has received advice in relation to the groups of interest; there are some 42 churches identified within the Napier area which Council will specifically engage with.

· The information received is that this is a unique situation to Napier, in that other Councils have followed a Statement of Proposal and special consultative process and followed their normal process.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Approve the draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal; and

b. Authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in Section 83, of the Local Government Act 2002.

c. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently so that public consultation may be initiated as soon as possible.

Substitute Motion

Councillors Boag / Brosnan

That the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Agree the proposed changes to the draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, as follows:

1. Include in Reason for Proposal section (page 10):

Pharmacy and Souvenir Shops, as these are also to be open under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

2. Add in another heading:

What would happen if we do not pass this policy?

We would return to the situation in which some shops listed above could open and others not.

3. Include in the Religious Beliefs section (page 11):

During consultation with the community in 2016 and 2017 on the previous Easter Sunday Trading Policy, Council received feedback from parts of the community that demonstrated concerns with having a policy that removed one of the few remaining days where shops were not legally able to trade. Council is keen to understand the Napier community’s views on this aspect of the policy.

4. That the survey on page 11 of the proposal be removed.

b. Approve the Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, with the agreed amendments as set out in Part A.

c. Authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in Section 83, of the Local Government Act 2002

d. Officers to prepare an engagement plan that is specifically directed to Christian Churches, Unions, Retail and business organisations.

e. Request that council be provided with a full briefing of the High Court ruling by our legal representation

f. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to allow consultation to be initiated as soon as possible.

Carried

Council Resolution

Councillors Boag / Brosnan

That Council:

a. Agree the proposed changes to the draft Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, as follows:

1. Include in Reason for Proposal section (page 10):

Pharmacy and Souvenir Shops, as these are also to be open under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

2. Add in another heading:

What would happen if we do not pass this policy?

We would return to the situation in which some shops listed above could open and others not.

3. Include in the Religious Beliefs section (page 11):

4. That the survey on page 11 of the proposal be removed.

b. Approve the Easter Sunday Trading Policy and Statement of Proposal, with the agreed amendments as set out in Part A.

c. Authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in Section 83, of the Local Government Act 2002

d. Officers to prepare an engagement plan that is specifically directed to Christian Churches, Unions, Retail and business organisations.

e. Request that council be provided with a full briefing of the High Court ruling by our legal representation

Carried

3. District Plan Review - pre-engagement strategy

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	634986
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Catherine Reaburn, Senior Policy Planner

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for Council to approve the pre-engagement strategy for the District Plan Review (DPR).

At the Meeting

It was agreed that although pre-engagement is not a legislative requirement, it is worthwhile undertaking this step to ensure that Council engages as many people as possible in the process.

In response to questions, Council officers noted the following:

· The District Plan review is a long process. The three weeks proposed for pre-engagement is a good period of time to gain an initial response and understanding; however, stakeholder engagement will continue well beyond the three weeks.

· This pre-engagement is about sharing Council’s proposed outcomes with the community and receiving their feedback on these outcomes. Council is already aware of the key issues and knows who the stakeholders are. Therefore consultation on these issues is an almost separate work stream.

· The plan is to resolve as many issues as possible, in a consultative manner, prior to distributing a draft document. This will then be followed by Council adopting a Proposed District Plan which marks the moment when the legal consultation requirements under the Resource Management Act 1991 commence. This process will ensure most issues have been well worked through with stakeholders and avoid the legal framework being required to resolve issues as much as possible.

· There will be plenty of opportunities to engage with the wider community through the draft document.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Wright / Wise

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Endorse the District Plan Review pre-engagement strategy

Carried

4. Parking Control Change - Upper Tiffen Car Park

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Parking Control Bylaw 2014
Document ID:	603217
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy

4.1 Purpose of Report

To seek council approval to convert the upper floor of Tiffen Car Park from pay and display all day casual parking to leased car parking during the week days (Monday to Friday).

At the Meeting

In response to questions, Council officers noted the following:

· It is standard for free parking to be further away from the town centre as a City grows.

· Council needs to provide for working commuters so their parking needs doesn’t impinge on the short term casual retail parking supply which is currently congested.

· Alternative parking options have been taken up successfully; the Edwards Street leased parking facility for $15 per week is now fully let.

· Positive feedback has been received in relation to the park-n-ride option.

· The change made to the Herschell Street parking from two hour to all day parking has been well received.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Tapine / White

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Resolve that the Upper Tiffen car park becomes leased car parking (Monday to Friday).

i. That the rate be set at $25.00 per week.

b. Resolve that the ground level of Tiffen car park becomes $5 all day casual parking Monday to Saturday

Carried

5. Road Stopping - Edwardes Street

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Public Works Act 1981
Document ID:	634953
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

5.1 Purpose of Report

To seek a Council resolution to:

a) Declare the service lane described in the Schedule below as being stopped pursuant to Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981; and

b) Deal with the stopped service lane described in the Schedule pursuant to Section 117(3)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981 by vesting the stopped service lane in the adjoining owner, Eastside Enterprises Limited, and amalgamating the stopped service lane pursuant to Section 120(3) of the Public Works Act 1981 with the land in CFR HBV2/563.

At the Meeting

There was no discussion on this item.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Hague

The Strategy and Infrastructure Committee:

a. Declare the service lane described in the Schedule as being stopped pursuant to Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981; and

b. Deal with the stopped service lane described in the Schedule pursuant to Section 117(3)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981 by vesting the stopped service lane in Eastside Enterprises Limited, and amalgamating the stopped service lane pursuant to Section 120(3) of the Public Works Act 1981 with the land in CFR HBV2/563.

SCHEDULE

Hawke’s Bay Land District – Napier City

Area (ha)	Legal Description	Adjoining
0.0233	Section 1 SO 528887	CFR HBV2/563

Carried

The meeting closed at 4.08pm.

Approved and adopted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Chairperson .............................................................................................................................

Date of approval ......................................................................................................................

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 13 November 2018
Time:	3pm
Venue:	Council Chambers, Hawke's Bay Regional Council, 159 Dalton Street, Napier

Committee Members	Mayor Dalton, Councillor Price (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright
Officers Responsible	Director City Strategy, Director Infrastructure Services
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Strategy and Infrastructure Committee Meeting Tuesday 19 March 2019