Agenda of Infrastructure Services

Infrastructure Services

12 May 2020

Part A Reports

DCC Submission - Accessible Streets

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of the attached submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) on the 'Accessible Streets' rules package.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the DCC submission to the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency on the 'Accessible Streets' rules package.

BACKGROUND

2 The Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) are seeking public feedback on the 'Accessible Streets' rules package, that will increase the safety and accessibility of our footpaths and streets and encourage active modes of transport.

3 The package proposes a number of new rules to respond to the rise of micro-mobility devices like e-scooters. Rule changes are also proposed to improve the safety and efficiency of active transport modes and buses.

4 Accessible Streets proposes new rules that would require anyone riding a device on the footpath to give way to pedestrians, to not exceed a speed limit of 15km/h, and for the device to be no wider than 75cm.

5 After consulting with their local community, local authorities would be able to reduce the maximum footpath speed limit and restrict which devices can use areas of footpaths, such as during busy times or in high pedestrian areas. Accessible Streets also proposes that bicycles would be able to use the footpath under these conditions.

6 The Government is also seeking feedback on a number of other rule changes aimed at making streets safer for vulnerable users. This includes requiring a minimum overtaking gap when passing vulnerable road users like cyclists, horse riders, or those walking on roads without footpaths. The proposed rule is for a one metre minimum passing gap for vehicles when the speed limit is 60km/h or less and 1.5 metres when the speed limit is over 60km/h.

7 Other proposed changes include:

a) Allowing e-scooters to use cycle lanes and cycle paths;

b) Giving buses priority when existing bus stops on roads with a speed limit of 60km/h or less;

c) Clarifying road controlling authority powers in relation to parking on berms;

d) Categorising vehicles to reflect changes in technology;

e) Improving the safety of people walking, cycling and using micro mobility devices by making several give way rule changes.

8 Public consultation for the Accessible Streets rules package is being hosted by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). The consultation document, FAQs and further information on how to make a submission can be found on the NZTA website: www.nzta.govt.nz/accessible-streets-consultation.

9 The consultation was initially open from 9 March to 22 April 2020. The deadline for the consultation was extended in the light of the national response to COVID-19 to 20 May 2020.

DISCUSSION

10 The draft DCC submission supports the 'Accessible Streets' rules package. Staff have reviewed the ‘Accessible Streets’ rules package and have drafted a DCC submission using the NZTA feedback form (Attachment A). The People’s Panel Survey Report on the footpath courtesy zone will be attached to the submission as a supporting document.

OPTIONS

Option One – Submit on the 'Accessible Streets' rules package (recommended option)

Advantages

· Enables the DCC to contribute at a national level on development of rules to improve the safety and accessibility of our footpaths and streets and encourage active modes of transport.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not submit on the 'Accessible Streets' rules package (status quo)

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity for the DCC to engage on the development of rules to improve the safety and accessibility of our footpaths and streets and encourage active modes of transport.

NEXT STEPS

11 If the Committee approves the submission, it will be sent to NZTA ahead of 20 May 2020.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Simone Handwerk - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC Accessible Streets submission	21

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and supports the social, environmental, economic and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☐

The submission has been developed in line with the goals and objectives of the strategic framework, in particular, the objectives of the Integrated Transport Strategy, the Social Wellbeing Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

Sustainability is an underlying principle of the DCC’s strategic framework. While there are no specific impacts for sustainability resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission, the proposals note the significant potential for reduced emissions through encouraging modal shift.

10 year plan/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The significance of this decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Transport Strategy and Regulatory Services have contributed to the development of this submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards may be interested in the content of the draft submission.

Infrastructure Services

12 May 2020

Naming of new roads and private ways

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of road names for three new public roads and seven private way roads.

2 The road names proposed by the developers have been assessed against the DCC Road Naming Policy, and all the recommended road names comply.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Names a new road off Brooklyn Street, Green Island as ‘Trudi Place’.

b) Names a private way off Proposed Trudi Place, Green Island as ‘Ella Lane’.

c) Names a private way off 14 Polwarth Road, Dunedin as ‘Redwoods Lane’.

d) Names a private way off 135 Dukes Road North, Mosgiel as ‘Benson Close’.

e) Names a private way off Epsilon Street, Dunedin as ‘Nursery Lane’.

f) Names a private way off 49 Dalziel Road, Dunedin as ‘MacLeod Avenue’.

g) Names a private way off Proposed MacLeod Avenue, Dunedin as ‘Hawker Lane’,

h) Names a new road off Formby Street, Outram as ‘Rodeo Place’.

i) Names a new road off Formby Street, Outram as ‘Three Kings Court’.

j) Names a private way off Proposed Three Kings Court, Outram as ‘Buckeye Grove’.

BACKGROUND

3 The Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. For reference, the Road Naming Policy and Road Naming Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming.

DISCUSSION

4 Developers have provided proposed and alternative road names for three new public roads and seven private way roads.

5 Naming of some of the roads is considered urgent. Titles in the Brooklyn Street, Polwarth Road and Formby Street developments have been issued pursuant to section 224c of the Resource Management Act 1991, and a number have been pre-sold to new owners. Landowners are faced with the uncertainty and inconvenience of having no street address.

6 The following table provides a summary of the road names proposed by the developers, and their compliance with the Road Naming Policy. Additional details, including a full assessment for each proposed road name and the location/map of the new roads are provided in the attachments.

Summary of proposed road names

Location of road	Proposed road name	Alternative road name	Recommended road name
New road off Brooklyn Street, Green Island (Attachments A and B)	Trudi Place	Jacs Court*	Trudi Place
Private way off Proposed Trudi Place, Green Island (Attachments C and B)	Ella Lane	Jacs Lane*	Ella Lane
Private way off 14 Polwarth Road, Dunedin (Attachments D and E)	Ross Creek Lane*	Redwoods Lane	Redwoods Lane
Private way off 135 Dukes Road North, Mosgiel (Attachments F and G)	William Benson Close*	Benson Close	Benson Close
Private way off Epsilon Street, Dunedin (Attachments H and I)	Nursery Lane		Nursery Lane
Private way off Dalziel Road, Dunedin (Attachments J and K)	MacLeod Avenue	Norman MacLeod Drive*	MacLeod Avenue
Private way off Proposed MacLeod Avenue, Dunedin (Attachments L and K)	Hawker Lane	Hawker Geddes Lane*	Hawker Lane
New road off 101 Formby Street, Outram (Attachments M and N)	Rodeo Place		Rodeo Place
New road off Formby Street, Outram (Attachments O and N)	Three Kings Court		Three Kings Court
New road off Proposed Three Kings Court, Outram (Attachments P and N)	Buckeye Grove		Buckeye Grove

* These names do not comply fully with the criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

7 Staff recommend the developers’ alternative road names for two roads. In both instances the developers’ preferred road names do not fully comply with the Road Naming Policy, due to proposing long names for short streets.

OPTIONS

Option One – Name the three new roads and seven private ways as recommended

Advantages

· The recommended road names meet comply with the similarity, spelling, length and appropriateness criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

· The roads are named, and landowners gain a street address, allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· There are no significant disadvantages identified with this option.

Option Two – Council does not name the roads (alternative option)

Advantages

· There are no significant advantages identified with this option.

Disadvantages

· The roads will not have a name which will inconvenience new property owners within the subdivisions.

NEXT STEPS

8 If the road names are approved, staff will process the required documentation and advise the developers and Land Information New Zealand of the new road names.

Signatories

Author:

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Road name assessment new road off Brooklyn Street - Trudi Place or Jacs Court	45
⇩b	Brooklyn Street development map	47
⇩c	Road name assessment private way off Proposed Trudi Place - Ella Lane or Jacs Lane	49
⇩d	Road name assessment private way off 14 Polwarth Road - Ross Creek Lane or Redwoods Lane	51
⇩e	Polwarth Road development map	53
⇩f	Road name assessment private way off 135 Dukes Road North - William Benson Close or Benson Close	55
⇩g	Dukes Road North development map	57
⇩h	Road name assessment private way off Epsilon Street - Nursery Lane	58
⇩i	Epsilon Street development map	59
⇩j	Road name assessment private way off 49 Dalziel Road - MacLeod Avenue or Norman MacLeod Drive	60
⇩k	Dalziel Road development map	63
⇩l	Road name assessment private way off Proposed MacLeod Avenue - Hawker Lane or Hawker Geddes Lane	65
⇩m	Road name assessment new road off Formby Street - Rodeo Place	67
⇩n	Formby Street development map	68
⇩o	Road name assessment new road off Formby Street - Three Kings Court	69
⇩p	Road name assessment private way off Proposed Three Kings Court - Buckeye Grove	70

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision supports the social, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☒

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

10 year plan/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The significance of this decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developers.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with BIS and Transport.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Two new roads and two private ways are in the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board area. The Community Board supports the proposed names.

Infrastructure Services

12 May 2020

Proposed Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment 11

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for proposed amendments to the Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 to provide for proposed changes to speed limits in Dunedin.

2 Speed limits on roads throughout Dunedin have been reviewed with the objective of recommending the most appropriate safe speed limit for each road, taking into account how the road is used, development of the road and the surrounding environment, national consistency and how the road feels to drivers.

3 The speed limit review recommends the establishment of 30 kilometres per hour (km/h) speed limits on some central city roads; 40km/h speed limits in Peninsula town centre roads; 60km/h speed limits on some high risk rural roads; and 80km/h speed limit on Scroggs Hill Road.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Determines that the Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 is the most appropriate way to address increasing urban development; manage road traffic and safeguard road users; and assist enforcement agencies to safely manage the road network and reduce accidents throughout the Dunedin city region.

b) Determines that the Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

c) Determines that there are no inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

d) Approves the proposed Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 and Statement of Proposal for consultation with the community.

e) Authorises the Chief Executive to make minor changes to the Statement of Proposal, including updating consultation timeframes and information.

BACKGROUND

4 Speed limits must be set by bylaw in accordance with the Land Transport: Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 (“the 2017 Rule”). The DCC has the power under the Land Transport Act 1998 and Local Government Act 2002 to amend bylaws to set speed limits for roads under its control.

5 The Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw dates from 2004, following the change in legislation giving road controlling authorities (RCA) the responsibility of setting speed limits. The overall objective of the Bylaw is to set maximum speed limits for roads under the jurisdiction of the Council. The speed limits are set to what the Council considers is the safe and appropriate speed limit for a road with regard to the function, nature and use of the road, its environment, land use patterns and whether the road is an urban traffic area or a rural area.

6 Reviewing and ensuring that speed limits across Dunedin are set at levels appropriate for road function, safety, design and use is one of the key measures that the DCC is undertaking to improve safety on Dunedin’s roads. Setting safe speed limits will see a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

7 The DCC’s speed limit assessments are undertaken in accordance with the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Speed Management Guide and the Safer Journey’s Risk Assessment Tool. All reports are independently assessed to ensure they are accurate and fit for purpose.

8 The 2017 Rule formalises the approach to speed management as follows:

a) Requires NZTA to provide guidance on and information about speed management for RCAs.

b) Requires RCAs to set speed limits that are, in the RCA’s view, safe and appropriate.

c) Encourages a consistent approach to speed management throughout New Zealand.

d) Replaces the methodology of the 2003 Rule with assessment criteria and outcome statements based on the approach in the Guide for both permanent and variable speed limits.

e) Sets out the categories of speed limits that may be set in accordance with the Rule as well as the range of possible speed limits (all in multiples of 10 km/h).

f) Specifies the circumstances in which a variable speed limit may be set.

DISCUSSION

Speed management review

9 As required by the 2017 Rule, a speed management review has been undertaken to determine safe and appropriate speeds across the roading network. The speed management review considered: function and use of the road; crash risk for all road users; characteristics of the road and roadsides; adjacent land use; number of intersections and property access ways; traffic volume; and planned modification to the road information and guidance from NZTA, including their Speed Management Guide.

10 The speed management reports were independently reviewed to ensure they are accurate and fit for purpose.

11 Findings of the speed management review identified that many speed limits are not currently set at a safe speed and this report proposes to set new speed limits for some roads in response to these findings.

Proposed changes to speed limits

12 The proposed amendment sets out new speed limits for the following areas and roads:

Proposed areas and roads	Current speed km/h	Proposed speed km/h
Central city roads: CBD Dunedin and Green Island.	50	30
Peninsula town centre roads: Broad Bay, Company Bay, The Cove, Harwood, MacAndrew Bay and Portobello.	50	40
High risk rural roads: Allanton, Blackhead, Brighton, Fairfield, Green Island, Halfway Bush, Highcliff, Mount Cargill, North Taieri, Ocean View, Otago Peninsula, Saddle Hill, Tomahawk, Waldronville and Westwood.	70, 80, & 100	60
Scroggs Hill Road	100	80

13 Technical speed limit assessment reports for each of the proposed roads and areas are available.

Determinations

14 Sections 155 and 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 require a territorial authority to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; whether it is the most appropriate form; and whether it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

15 The Council in making the Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 considered that it was the most appropriate means for addressing increasing urban development; managing road traffic and safeguarding road users; and assisting enforcement agencies to safely manage the road network and assist in reducing accidents throughout the Dunedin city region. The Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 is still considered the most appropriate way for addressing those matters and these considerations apply equally to the amendments proposed in the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11.

16 The proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 has been reformatted using the DCC bylaw template and is in the most appropriate form.

17 The proposed speed limit changes are not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and only seek to impose justifiable and reasonable limitations on persons in the interests of public health safety and traffic safety.

Consultation requirements

18 The Council needs to consult on the proposed speed limit changes in accordance with the 2017 Rule and the Local Government Act 2002.

19 There have been preliminary discussions with the NZ Police and Community Boards, and they are supportive of lower speed limits. If the proposed speed limit changes are approved, as required by the 2017 Rule, direct consultation and feedback will be sought from NZTA, emergency services, Road Transport Forum New Zealand, New Zealand Automobile Association, Community Boards in the affected areas as well as general community through the DCC website and print media.

20 A statement of proposal has been drafted (Attachment A) to support community consultation if the Council approves the proposed speed limit changes set out in the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 (Attachment B) and maps (Attachments C to J).

21 Due to the current situation with COVID-19 pandemic, specific dates for consultation have not been set. It is proposed that consultation is undertaken in Alert Level 2 or Alert Level 1 to ensure that the consultation process enables the community to participate and provide feedback on the proposed speed limit changes in electronic and non-electronic ways. All engagement activities will be undertaken in accordance with any Alert Level restrictions.

OPTIONS

Option One – Consult on proposed changes to speed limits on central city roads, Peninsula town centre roads, high risk rural roads and Scroggs Hill Road (recommended option)

22 The recommended option is to proceed with the public consultation process for the proposed permanent speed limit changes under the 2017 Rule and using the Speed Management Guide to meet the safe and appropriate speed for the roads identified in the schedules of the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11.

a) Central city roads: Introduce 30km/h speed limits on some central city roads, as listed in Schedule 3 of the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 (Attachment B) and maps (Attachments C and D).

b) Peninsula town centre roads: Introduce 40km/h speed limits on some residential roads, which lead to commercial precincts and feature high volumes of tourist drivers, as listed in Schedule 4 of the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 (Attachment B) and maps (Attachments E and F).

c) High risk rural roads: Introduce 60km/h speed limits on some outlying roads, as listed in Schedule 6 of the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 (Attachment B) and maps (Attachments E to J).

d) Scroggs Hill Road: Introduce 80km/h speed limit on Scroggs Hill Road, as listed in Schedule 8 of the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 (Attachment B) and map (Attachment J).

Advantages

· Speed in affected areas would be reduced which would improve safety for all road users and provide a safer environment where there are high numbers of vulnerable road users.

· Speed limit changes that are recommended in this report are appropriate for the roadside environment.

· Lower speed limits reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury.

· Some of the existing operating (actual) speeds are normally lower than posted speeds during peak periods due to the high volume of foot traffic.

· Reducing speed in residential areas has many health and well-being benefits.

· The removal of some of the 70 km/h speed zones would minimise the speed limit changes on a road. 70 km/h speed zones are being phased out.

Disadvantages

· Costs associated with consultation and installation of new speed limit signs.

Option Two – Retain existing speed limits on central city roads, Peninsula town centre roads, high risk rural roads and Scroggs Hill Road (status quo)

23 Do not proceed with public consultation on proposed speed limit changes for roads identified in the schedules and maps of the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11.

Advantages

· No resources required for consultation and installation of new speed limit signs.

Disadvantages

· Does not help to improve safety of all road users in areas that have been identified as being at risk.

NEXT STEPS

24 If the Council approves the proposed Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 (Attachment B) and the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), the special consultative procedure will be undertaken at an appropriate time and in accordance with any COVID-19 Alert Level 2 or 1 restrictions for engagement.

25 A report constituting the Hearings Panel to consider and hear submissions on the proposed Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 will be prepared for the Planning and Environment Committee or Council.

26 Staff will summarise feedback received and prepare a report for the Hearings Panel. After hearings and deliberations, a report with the Hearing Panel’s recommendations and any amendments proposed in will be prepared for the Council’s consideration.

27 Following Council decisions, any permanent speed limit changes in the Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11 would be effective from 1 November 2020.

Signatories

Author:

Kyle Martin - Senior Transportation Engineer

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Statement of proposal - Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 Amendment 11	79
⇩b	Proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 - Amendment 11	84
⇩c	Proposed 30km/h speed limit in CBD Dunedin	92
⇩d	Proposed 30km/h speed limit in Green Island	93
⇩e	Proposed 40km/h speed limit in Broad Bay, Company Bay, The Cove and MacAndrew Bay and proposed 60km/h speed limit in Highcliff and Tomahawk	94
⇩f	Proposed 40km/h speed limit in Harwood and Portobello and 60km/h speed limit in Otago Peninsula	95
⇩g	Proposed 60km/h speed limit in Blackhead, Green Island and Fairfield	96
⇩h	Proposed 60km/h speed limit in Mount Cargill	97
⇩i	Proposed 60km/h speed limit in Halfway Bush and North Taieri	98
⇩j	Proposed 60km/h speed limit in Allanton, Brighton and Saddle Hill and and proposed 80km/h speed limit on Scroggs Hill Road	99

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☐

Ensuring Dunedin is a safe city is prioritised in the Social Wellbeing Strategy, Spatial Plan and Integrated Transport Strategy. Safer speeds is one of the four pillars under the Safe System approach to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on Dunedin’s road network. Safe speeds and appropriate speeds not only address safety but the efficiency of the road network which contributes to the Economic Development Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There is no impact on the 10 year plan or Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

Costs associated with speed limit changes are funded through the Low Cost / Low Risk safety improvement programme.

Significance

The proposed speed limit changes are considered to be of medium significance in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Consultation will be undertaken on the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment 11.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from Transport, Council Communications and Marketing and Legal Services have been involved in the drafting of the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment 11 and statement of proposal.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The proposed speed limit changes will ‘treat’ the risk by reducing speeds to fit the road environment.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

All community boards will be invited to participate in the consultation process where speed limit changes are proposed to roads within their areas.

Infrastructure Services

12 May 2020

DCC Submission on the New Zealand Rail Plan

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks retrospective approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry of Transport on its draft New Zealand Rail Plan (draft Rail Plan) (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves, in retrospect, the DCC submission to the draft New Zealand Rail Plan.

BACKGROUND

2 The Ministry of Transport sought feedback on their draft Rail Plan by 11 May 2020.

3 The key topics the Ministry was seeking feedback on were: strategic investments priorities for freight and metropolitan rail.

4 DCC staff drafted a submission in line with current DCC strategies and sought feedback via email from Councillor Jim O’Malley as the chair of the Infrastructure Services Committee. Feedback was then sought from all of Council via email.

5 The Mayor approved a revised version of the submission, which incorporated Councillor feedback, and this was submitted on 11 May 2020.

DISCUSSION

6 The Ministry of Transport sought feedback on the draft Rail Plan which outlines the Governments long term vision and priorities for New Zealand’s national rail network. The plan is a result of the recommendations produced from the Future of Rail review which was led and facilitated by Ministry of Transport, KiwiRail, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and the Treasury. The DCC submission was prepared with input from Transport and Policy staff. The DCC submission includes feedback on topics including in relation to the position of Rail in Dunedin for both freight, tourism and commuter services. The draft submission was circulated to Councillors for review and input.

7 Councillor feedback received on Thursday 7 May was included in the revised version. If not received by deadline, feedback will be tabled at the committee meeting.

8 The Mayor approved a revised version of the submission and it was submitted on 11 May 2020.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

9 Retrospectively approve the DCC submission to the draft Rail Plan.

Advantages

· Opportunity to show support and highlight areas where Dunedin can play an important role in the rail network in Otago and Southland, in regard to mode neutral freight and potential commuter rail options.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Withdraw submission

10 Do not submit on the draft Rail Plan and withdraw the DCC submission.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to show support and highlight areas where Dunedin can play an important role in the rail network in Otago and Southland, in regard to mode neutral freight and potential commuter rail options.

NEXT STEPS

11 If Council approves the DCC submission on the draft Rail Plan, no further action is required. If Council does not approve the DCC submission, the DCC will ask the Ministry of Transport to withdraw the DCC submission.

Signatories

Author:	Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DCC Draft Rail Plan submission	105
⇩b	The Draft New Zealand Rail Plan (PDF)	111

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The draft submission has been developed in line with the goals and objectives of the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known specific impacts for tangata whenua resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Sustainability

The DCC submission supports sustainability goals in relation to climate change and transport.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known impacts for current levels of service and/or performance measures resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of low significance.

Engagement – external

There was no external engagement on this report.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Corporate Policy and Transport developed the draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Infrastructure Services

12 May 2020

DCC Submission on the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks retrospective approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry of Transport on its draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2021/22 - 30/31 (draft GPS 2021) (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves, in retrospect, the DCC submission to the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2021.

BACKGROUND

2 The Ministry of Transport sought feedback on their draft GPS 2021 by 11 May 2020.

3 The key topics the Ministry was seeking feedback on were: strategic priorities for investment in land transport, principles for investing and the activity classes for funding allocation.

5 The Mayor approved a revised version of the submission, which incorporated Councillor feedback, and this was submitted on 11 May 2020.

DISCUSSION

6 The Ministry of Transport sought feedback on the draft GPS 2021 which includes a number of updates from the previous GPS 2018. The DCC submission was prepared with input from Transport and Policy staff. The DCC submission includes feedback on topics including in relation to the Regional Public Transport Plan. The draft submission was circulated to Councillors for review and input.

7 Councillor feedback received on Thursday 7 May was included in the revised version. If not received by deadline, feedback will be tabled at the committee meeting.

8 The Mayor approved a revised version of the submission and it was submitted on 11 May 2020.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

9 Retrospectively approve the DCC submission to the draft GPS 2021.

Advantages

· Opportunity to show support, and highlight areas where Dunedin needs more support from Central Government to implement and thrive, and the opportunity to voice concern with the changes to the funding activity classes.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Withdraw submission

10 Do not submit on the draft GPS 2021 and withdraw the DCC submission.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to show support and highlight areas where Dunedin needs more support from Central Government, and the opportunity to voice concern with changes to the current funding activity classes.

NEXT STEPS

11 If Council approves the DCC submission on the draft GPS 2021, no further action is required. If Council does not approve the DCC submission, the DCC will ask the Ministry of Transport to withdraw the DCC submission.

Signatories

Author:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DCC draft GPS 2021 submission	164
⇩b	Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021 (PDF)	173

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The draft submission has been developed in line with the goals and objectives of the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known specific impacts for tangata whenua resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Sustainability

The DCC submission supports sustainability goals in relation to climate change and transport.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known impacts for current levels of service and/or performance measures resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications resulting from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of low significance.

Engagement – external

There was no external engagement on this report.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Corporate Policy and Transport developed the draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Infrastructure Services

12 May 2020

Otago/Southland Three Waters Investigation

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Otago and Southland territorial authorities are investigating ways to collaborate in the management of drinking water, stormwater and wastewater (three waters). This work is at an early stage and responds to issues raised through the Government’s Three Waters Review.

2 This paper ensures that all Councils in Otago and Southland are aware that this work is underway, with further engagement to follow.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes that Chief Executives from Otago and Southland councils are in the process of applying for Crown funding to investigate the current state of water services in Otago and Southland and whether a collaborative approach to water services delivery could benefit Otago and Southland communities and the environment;

b) Notes the Dunedin City Council’s contribution to the investigation is estimated to be $58,378;

c) Notes the proposed investigation is in the form of an Indicative Business Case; and

d) Notes that once the Indicative Business Case is completed, it will be brought back to councils for information and to consider potential next steps.

BACKGROUND

Three Waters Review

3 Central government is reviewing the regulation and supply arrangements for three waters across New Zealand. The review acknowledges several challenges facing the sector, including funding pressures, rising environmental standards, climate change, seasonal pressure from tourism, and the recommendations of the inquiry into the Havelock North water supply contamination incident in 2016.

4 The regulatory components of this work are well progressed. In December 2019, the Government introduced Taumata Arowai-the Water Services Regulator Bill, which establishes a new water regulator – called Taumata Arowai – as a Crown agent and outlines its objectives, functions, operating principles and governance arrangements. A separate bill will implement new regulations affecting drinking water, wastewater and stormwater networks.

5 Alongside the proposed regulatory changes, and with the input of local government and the wider water sector, the Three Waters Review Team at the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is considering ways to respond to affordability and capability challenges facing the three waters sector. This includes encouraging regional groups of councils to investigate collaborative approaches to water service delivery.

6 To support such investigations, the Government has agreed to provide financial assistance on a case-by-case basis. Funding is available for regional investigations of service delivery arrangements that address current weaknesses in the delivery of three waters services, and align with the wider objectives of the Three Waters Review.

7 A Cabinet paper from January 2020 – since publicly released – confirms the Government’s commitment to this process. In the paper, Cabinet agrees to continue to support local government to make voluntary changes to service delivery arrangements, and also sets a one-year deadline, beginning in 2020, “by which the local government sector needs to demonstrate that it has made progress with voluntary reform”.

Otago and Southland workshops

8 Like many in the local government sector, senior council officials in Otago and Southland have had various discussions with DIA and others about the Three Waters Review and related issues since 2016.

9 In November 2019, DIA senior officials visited Dunedin to discuss these issues with the Otago Chief Executives Forum and Otago Mayoral Forum. At the invitation of their Chief Executives, Infrastructure General/Executive Managers from Otago local authorities convened a series of workshops to take a first look at the current state of water services in Otago region and what collaboration could look like. At this point Southland local authorities were invited to join the discussion.

10 Two workshops have now taken place with good attendance from all Otago and Southland senior council officials. The working group (primarily made up of Infrastructure General/Executive Managers, water managers and those in similar roles) has identified a need for more detailed information, which the Government’s financial assistance makes possible.

DISCUSSION

Investigation

11 Chief Executives from Otago and Southland councils are in the process of applying for Crown funding to investigate the current state of water services in Otago and Southland and whether a collaborative approach to water services delivery could benefit Otago and Southland communities and the environment.

12 While the Three Waters Review is an initiative of central government, there are clear incentives for local authorities to design and lead their own investigations into the issues raised. Water services vary significantly by region – key parameters include size and distances between population centres, geographic features, existing asset condition, contractual arrangements, volumetric charging or its absence, and councils’ debt positions.

13 Leading this investigation allows Otago and Southland to develop and understand the water service arrangements that best meet local objectives and respond to local circumstances. Conversely, there is a risk that – without action – central government may develop a one-size-fits-all model that does not respond to these specific circumstances, leaving Otago and Southland worse off.

14 The working group has developed the content of the proposed investigation. The investigation will determine key principles and objectives, document the current state of water services in participating districts, and establish the most pressing issues for Otago and Southland. It will then examine various collaborative models to determine whether they could benefit Otago and Southland communities and the environment.

15 At their initial workshops, the working group identified a long-list of options for delivering three waters services. This includes the status quo, shared contracts or services, a shared services agreement, an alliance, a “virtual” council-controlled organisation (CCO), a non-asset-owning CCO and an asset-owning CCO. The proposed investigation will explore each of these options at sub-regional and regional level, as well as for both regions together, through an Indicative Business Case using the Better Business Cases methodology.

16 It is a condition of the funding that public ownership of existing assets is retained. Mana whenua will also be involved throughout the process.

Cost, compliance and communication

Financial implications

17 Applications for Government funding may seek a 50% contribution to investigation costs on a co-investment basis. Councils’ contributions can include staff costs in-kind (for example, to cover a programme coordinator), with the remaining costs to be shared among participating councils.

18 The Indicative Business Case has been costed at $375,000. Otago and Southland Chief Executives have proposed that the councils’ share of the investigation be shared using a population-based model, with the two regional councils contributing $18,750 each.

Risk assessment and legal compliance

19 Risk: Public perception that change is inevitable as a result of this investigation.

Response: Water services are a core function of local authorities, and the proposed investigation may generate concern and uncertainty. It is therefore essential that the investigation is approached without prejudice. The first stage – an Indicative Business Case – is designed to inform the discussion, and does not in itself constitute a decision to change how water is managed in Otago and Southland.

20 Risk: Public perception that the investigation process is not independent.

Response: The Government’s Three Waters Review will continue alongside the proposed Otago and Southland investigation. The Otago and Southland working group is committed to an independent process, taking account of further analysis and/or policy changes arising from the Three Waters Review.

Significance and engagement

21 Completing an Indicative Business Case is unlikely to trigger Significance and Engagement Policies as adopted by councils to comply with section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002.

22 Any future work on three waters collaboration will be evaluated for significance and engagement if and when it is commissioned.

Communication

23 The work outlined in this paper may elicit media interest. Council communications officers have prepared information for media alongside this paper.

OPTIONS

24 No options.

NEXT STEPS

25 Council Chief Executives were initially advised that funding decisions would be communicated by the Minister for Local Government early in April 2020, but this has been delayed by the measures taken to manage the outbreak Covid-19. A decision is now expected to be communicated in May 2020.

26 If Otago and Southland’s application is successful, a procurement process will commence to appoint a suitable business case provider. The Indicative Business Case is expected to take approximately eight months, to be completed by December 2020.

27 Once the business case is completed, it will be brought back to Councils for information and to consider potential next steps. Funding for any future work will be considered as part of 2021 Long Term Plan processes.

28 If the funding application is not successful, Otago and Southland councils remain committed to exploring avenues for collaborating on three waters services. Alternatives to the Government-funded process will be progressed if required.

Signatories

Author:

Scott Campbell - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The subject of this report promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

Investigating the current state of water services in Otago and Southland and whether a collaborative approach to water services delivery could benefit Otago and Southland communities and the environment is consistent with the goals and objectives of Dunedin’s strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua will be involved in the investigation.

Sustainability

The investigation will consider whether a collaborative approach to water services delivery could benefit Otago and Southland communities and the environment, and include consideration of implications for environmental and economic sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The investigation has no immediate implications for the 10 Year Plan, Annual Plan, Financial Strategy or Infrastructure Strategy. Once the Indicative Business Case is completed, it will be brought back to all participating councils for information and to consider potential next steps. Funding for any future work will be considered during development of the 10 Year Plan 2021-31.

Financial considerations

The Dunedin City Council’s contribution to the investigation is estimated to be $58,378, which will be met from existing budgets.

Significance

The investigation is considered low in terms of the Dunedin City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Any future work on three waters collaboration will be assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy if and when it is commissioned.

Engagement – external

The investigation will involve external engagement, including with staff from other Otago and Southland local authorities, staff from the Department of Internal Affairs and representatives of mana whenua and Community Boards as appropriate.

Engagement - internal

The investigation will involve internal engagement within the 3 Waters Group and with staff from other activity areas as required.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Undertaking the investigation presents no identified legal or health and safety risks. Public perception risks that may arise as a result of the investigation are addressed, with responses, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this report.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

Community Boards will be informed of the investigation.

Chairperson	Cr Jim O'Malley
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Jules Radich
Members	Cr Sophie Barker	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Rachel Elder	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Doug Hall	Cr Carmen Houlahan
	Cr Marie Laufiso	Cr Mike Lord
	Cr Chris Staynes	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Mayor Aaron Hawkins