Agenda of Planning and Environment Committee

Planning and Environment Committee

17 November 2020

Planning and Environment Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 22 September 2020, commencing at 1:46pm.

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr David Benson-Pope

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Robert West, Acting GM City Services; Anna Johnson, City Development Manager; Emma Christmas, Senior Planner; Ros MacGill, Manager Compliance Solutions; Peter Hanlin, Team Leader – Animal Services Scott MacLean, Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation; Ashley Reid, Parks and Recreation Planner; Nicola Pinfold, Group Manager Community and Planning; Clare Sullivan, Team Leader Civic; Simon Pickford, GM Community Services; Simon Drew, GM Infrastructure Services

Governance Support Officer Lauren McDonald

1 Public Forum

1.1 North East Valley Primary School

North East Valley Primary School pupils Rae and Te Atua along with their teacher Kaitrin McMullan spoke on their school project, studying the environmental impacts of polystyrene packaging. The students read two poems and provided some of the key facts on the impact of polystyrene on the environment. They presented councillors with a planter box made from polystyrene packaging. They also offered some solutions to reduce the amount of polystyrene used, including a Council ban on its use and inclusion of polystyrene in recycling material collections.

The students and Ms McMullan responded to questions from councillors.

2 Apologies

There were no apologies.

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Chairperson David Benson-Pope/Mayor Aaron Hawkins):

That the Committee:

Confirms the agenda with the following addition and amendment:

In regard to standing order 21.1, that standing order 21.4 Option C be adopted in relation to moving and seconding and speaking to amendments.

Item 7 - Update on the Variation 2 to the 2GP to be taken as the first report of the meeting.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/021)

4 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Chairperson David Benson-Pope/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Notes the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/022)

Part A Reports

7 Update on Variation 2 to the 2GP

Cr Hall withdrew from the item.

A report from Community and Planning and City Development provided an update to the Committee on the revised notification date for Variation 2 to the 2GP of 3 February 2021.

City Development Manager, Anna Johnson and Senior Planner, Emma Christmas spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 02:38 p.m. and returned to the meeting at 02:41 p.m.

Moved (Chairperson David Benson-Pope/Cr Mike Lord):

That the Committee:

a) Notes that the notification date of Variation 2 to the 2GP will be 3 February 2021.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/023)

5 Animal Services Annual Report to the Department of Internal Affairs

A report from Customer and Regulatory Services to the Department of Internal Affairs outlined the operations of the Dunedin City Council’s Animal Services Unit for the year ending 30 June 2020.

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Rachel Elder):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Animal Services annual report to the Department of Internal Affairs.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/024)

6 Review of the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 1998
	A report from Parks and Recreation sought approval to commence the public consultation process required by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977. The report also sought approval of the Statement of Proposal to replace the original 1998 plan with the proposed Draft Truby King Reserve Management Plan (the Draft Plan).
	Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation, Scott MacLean and Parks and Recreation Planner, Ashley Reid spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Marie Laufiso): That the Committee: a) Approves the Statement of Proposal, Draft Truby King Reserve Management Plan and Public Submission Form and the commencement of the public consultation process required by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977. b) Notes that the Hearings Committee will hear submissions and, following the hearing of submissions, will make a recommendation to the Planning and Environment Committee under a covering report from staff. If there are no requests to be heard, then staff will report back directly to the Planning and Environment Committee on the outcome of the public consultation. c) Notes that the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee may appoint members if required. Motion carried (PLA/2020/025)

8 Planning and Environment Committee Forward Work Programme

A report from Civic provided the updated forward work programme for the 2020-2021 year.

Moved (Chairperson David Benson-Pope/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Planning and Environment Committee forward work programme.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/026)

9 Actions from resolutions of Planning and Environment Committee meetings

A report from Civic detailed the open and completed actions from resolutions of Planning and Environment Committee meetings from the start of the current triennium (October 2019).

Moved (Chairperson David Benson-Pope/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Planning and Environment Committee meetings.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/027)

10 Items for Consideration by the Chair

There were no items for consideration by the Chair.

The meeting concluded at 3:07pm.

..............................................

CHAIRPERSON

Planning and Environment Committee

17 November 2020

Planning and Environment Activity Report for the Quarter Ending 30 September 2020

Department: Community and Planning and Customer and Regulatory Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updates the Committee on activities including city development, resource consents, building services, alcohol licensing, environmental health, animal control and parking enforcement for the three months ending 30 September 2020.

2 Satisfaction results have not been included in this report due to an operational issue with the Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS). The issue has now been resolved and results for the next quarter will be available for reporting.

3 Some highlights for the quarter covered by this report include:

· Numbers of building and resource consents received over the quarter have increased significantly. Building consent numbers are up 20% on the five-year average, with demand for inspections also up. Resource consent numbers are up 7% on the average for the last nine years, with a 25% increase on requests for new subdivision consents compared to the same period last year.

· Significant progress was made toward getting Variation 2 to the 2GP ready for notification. This deals with housing capacity and focuses on changes required to address the shortfall in medium-term housing capacity that has been identified as a result of significant changes to Dunedin’s growth rate.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Planning and Environment Activity Report for the three months ending 30 September 2020.

BACKGROUND

Activities

4 The Community and Planning group of activities work with other agencies to set the direction for managing Dunedin’s built and natural environment and is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources through its administration of the functions of the Council under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

5 Regulatory Services contributes directly to the Safe and Healthy City outcome which is part of the Social Wellbeing Strategy, and enhances personal safety in relation to building services, animal services, health licensing, the sale and supply of alcohol and parking enforcement.

Residents’ Opinion Survey

6 The Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) is the principal mechanism by which the Council measures residents’ satisfaction with a wide range of its activities.

7 The ROS was temporarily suspended during the July to September 2020 quarter due to an operational issue. As a result, satisfaction result data is not available for this quarter. ROS resumed in October 2020, and results will be available for reporting in the next quarterly report.

DISCUSSION

Value and Efficiency

Resource Consents

8 Resource consent processing in the period ending 30 September 2020 reflects an upswing from the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown. In the quarter ending 30 September 2020, 272 applications were processed and 99% met the statutory timeframe. The number of applications processed in the previous two quarters averaged 204.

9 The graph below shows processing over the last five years. The red line shows the number of applications granted each month. It shows in the last quarter a continued upswing from the lower numbers during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The January and December low points reflect the summer holiday periods and this fluctuation is normal. The blue line shows the percentage meeting the statutory deadline. It ranges from 89% to 100%.

10 The period ending 30 September 2020 has continued a busy trend for Resource Management Act (RMA) complaints. The total for 2020 is presently 43% above the average for 2012 to 2019 period. RMA complaints typically cover a range of issues. The main reasons for lodging an RMA complaint were, earthworks, election signage, and damage to trees and vegetation.

11 More detailed information on resource consents and other work undertaken by the Resource Consents team can be accessed via this link: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning.

Building Services

12 Building consent applications received in the months of July, August and September 2020 have each reached six-year high levels. This has contributed to the volumes for the first nine months of the 2020 year (2,098) now tracking slightly higher than this time in 2019 (2,083). Similarly, high numbers of site inspections have been undertaken with September 2020 being the third highest monthly volume in the past six years.

13 Despite the high volumes coming through, consents are being processed within the statutory timeframe. However, this may come under pressure if current volumes continue for the next four weeks. Pressure is also being seen for plumbing and drainage inspections which are currently being booked seven to eight days out.

14 Value of consents for the nine months to 30 September 2020 is $211.1 million (The comparable figure for 2019 was $237.4 million). Building consent application numbers for new dwellings for the same period were 240 (2019 = 243).

15 Percentage of building consent applications processed within the statutory timeframe over the past quarter to 30 September 2020 was 98.7%. The average time to process the applications over the three-month period was approximately 12 working days.

16 Percentage of Code Compliance Certificate requests processed within the statutory timeframe over the quarter to 30 September 2020 was 99.5%.

Alcohol Licensing

17 The number of applications for alcohol licences and managers certificates received are returning to normal levels following the COVID-19 lockdown. Application numbers for special licences remain low due to uncertainty around social distancing and numbers of people allowed at gatherings.

Environmental Health

18 The percentage of food premises with an ‘A’ Grade remains constant at 88% to 90% over the last 12 months. Overall food safety in Dunedin food premises remains at a very high standard.

19 There has been an increase in noise complaints over the past quarter ending 30 September 2020, compared to the same period in 2018 and 2019. The majority of these noise complaints were in North Dunedin and the Central Business District.

Animal Services

20 Compared to the same period in 2019 there has been a reduction in the number of dog related requests for service. This could be due to fewer dogs being left unattended with more dog owners working from home during the increase in COVID-19 alert levels.

Parking Services

21 There has been a decrease in parking infringement numbers compared to the same period in 2019. This can be attributed to increased working from home due to the increase in COVID-19 alert levels.

22 The increase in customer requests for parking enforcement and blocked vehicle entrances in July 2020 is attributed to people returning to work following the COVID-19 lockdown.

Eco-Design Advisor

23 Opoho Sustainability Circus was attended by the Eco-Design Advisor (EDA). This was an opportunity to engage with the public about the Eco-Design Advice service provided by DCC.

24 The HEAT kits (Home Energy Audit Kits) initiative is progressing with all items now purchased and catalogued for 20 kits. Science Communication students are completing projects on the HEAT Kits. Once completed the kits will be launched and used by the EDA, Enviroschools, community advisors and social agencies. Half of the kits will be available for community use from the library. The Student Army has also expressed interest in the kits and are looking at providing a service where they show the community how to use them.

25 There has been increase in the number of customers visited who are eligible for the Warmer Kiwi Homes subsidies related to heating and insulation. This has contributed to an increase in members of the community with a community services card using the eco design advisor service.

26 The decrease in new customer service requests for August and September (as indicated in the graph below) is attributed to the increase in COVID-19 alert levels in August 2020, as well as an increase in temperature.

Major Initiatives

27 The following section provides updates on the current status of the initiatives and is not confined to the quarter ending September 2020.

Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) - Appeals

28 Mediation for the second group of the 2GP appeals began on 30 July and is expected to be completed in early December 2020. Topics in this round of mediation have included hazard facilities, service stations, reverse sensitivity, commercial, campus, residential strategic, network utilities, and biodiversity and coastal character.

29 Most appeals included in this round of mediation have been resolved. These require consent memorandums to be drafted and lodged with the Environment Court before the end of the year. Other consent memorandums will be held until appeals on related topics or provisions have been resolved. When consent memorandums are signed by the Environment Court, they are issued to the DCC as a consent order and this change is then incorporated into the 2GP.

2GP – Variation 1

30 Variation 1 of the 2GP covered minor clarifications to the wording of provisions to ensure they function as intended; substantive amendments to fix identified problems or gaps within a small number of provisions; and mapping amendments to make minor adjustments to zone or mapped area boundaries where boundaries are in the wrong place. There were eight submissions in total, with 27 points in support and 14 points seeking amendment. The Variation 1 hearing took place on 5 June 2020.

31 The decisions on Variation 1 were notified on 18 July 2020 and the appeal period closed on 28 August 2020. No appeals were lodged with the Environment Court, therefore all Variation 1 changes to the 2GP are now deemed operative.

2GP - Growth Planning and Variation 2

32 Variation 2 (housing capacity) was initiated by Council on 12 February 2019. Its focus is on adding medium-term housing capacity to address a shortfall that was identified as a result of significant changes to Dunedin’s growth rate. Initial work on a revised Future Development Strategy (update to the Spatial Plan) has also started. This project will re-look at housing needs for the long term (30 years) and will be formally initiated in 2021.

33 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) requires that the DCC changes the 2GP to increase development capacity for housing as soon as practicable. This could include applying residential zoning to new areas (greenfield development) or amending rules and other provisions to increase the density of housing enabled in existing residential zones.

34 The project is being led by City Development, but involves close collaboration with infrastructure teams, particularly 3 Waters, to ensure all options are assessed in terms of impacts on the 3 Waters infrastructure network and identification of any necessary priority infrastructure upgrade projects in the 10 year plan. All options are also being evaluated in terms of potential impacts on the transportation network.

35 The project also involves:

• An update to population projections, which will inform assessments of housing demand as well as being incorporated into the key assumptions for the next 10-year plan. This has been completed in conjunction with work on the significant forecasting assumptions for the next 10-year plan.

• Research on housing preferences. This has been completed and shows a stronger demand for attached housing types (such as duplexes, townhouses, and apartments) than previous surveys. This will inform work on Variation 2.

• A community questionnaire about future housing, which has been completed.

• On-going discussions with key stakeholders including developers, surveyors, Housing New Zealand, ORC, Aukaha, Ministry of Education and Utility companies.

• Ongoing monitoring as required by the NPS-UD.

36 Variation 2 will be notified in February 2021.

Dunedin Heritage Trust Fund

37 The Dunedin Heritage Fund committee met in August for one funding round in the quarter ending 30 September 2020, allocating $198,000 in heritage grants across the city. The heritage projects supported across the city included the following:

Address	Name	Grant Amount	Support for
100 King Edward Street	Mayfair Theatre	$20,000	3D scan and architectural drawings
415 Moray Place	First Presbyterian Church of Otago	$5,000	Renewal of seismic strengthening
48 Fitzroy Street	-	$15,000	Replacement of traditional slate roof
48 Heriot Row	-	$2,000	Replacement of heritage fencing
14 Ferntree Drive	Ferntree Lodge	$20,000	Fire protection and upgrade
5 Aberafon Street, Middlemarch	Strath Taieri Historical Society	$1,000	Drainage upgrade to protect museum
412A High Street	-	$20,000	Retrofit double-glazing, fanlight and timber repairs
31 Albany Street	Playhouse Theatre	$40,000	Replacement of roof to protect building
1 Vogel Street	-	$30,000	Restoration of facade and reinstatement of canopy
144 Hillside Road	-	$20,000	Restoration of building exterior
20 Braemar Street	Dunedin Gasworks Museum	$20,000	Installation of historic Braemar Street Cottage to GM site
7 Montpellier Street	-	$5,000	Restoration element of historic fencing (former High Street School)

Heritage

38 The Annual Dunedin Heritage Awards were held on Tuesday 20 October 2020 at Toitū Otago Settlers Museum and attended by a range of building owners and architects.

39 Work on the District Plan Heritage Schedule data collation project is now 80% complete; staff anticipate its completion in early 2021. The Heritage Schedule information will be available for staff and public access when complete. It has been designed to widen the present heritage information available to owners, developers and researchers, to enhance understanding and knowledge of Dunedin’s key heritage places.

Biodiversity

40 The September 2020 round of the Biodiversity Fund had 21 applicants seeking $73,416.26, nearly twice the available funding of $40,000. The fund continues to receive increasing numbers of applicants overall with a record 37 applicants over the two rounds in 2020, and higher proportions of private landowners and first-time applicants. Applications included projects for native forest revegetation, fencing, wetland restoration, and plant and animal pest control.

Te Ao Tūroa

41 Ahead of the September 2020 Council meeting, the Te Ao Tūroa Partnership provided feedback on and endorsed the concept of a ‘Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance’ to replace the existing Energy Leaders Accord and help to progress city-wide emissions reduction efforts.

42 The Te Ao Tūroa Partnership also resolved to support a one-year trial of FutureFit, a gamified personal carbon calculator, to support household emissions reduction efforts as the city works towards the Zero Carbon 2030 target. A draft license agreement for the tool is currently undergoing due diligence.

43 The first trial of a Te Ao Tūroa summer studentship has been completed, producing a web and physical resource for sustainable flatting and developing a ‘Student Leadership Development’ programme at the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic, respectively.

44 Development of a ‘Volunteer Supervisor Training’ package will soon be underway, in partnership with the Department of Conservation, to train volunteer leaders who can facilitate volunteers in volunteer programmes, such as Dunedin’s War on Weeds and Trail Crew.

45 The Environment Envoy is progressing into its fourth year. In September 2020, a symposium presentation on ‘Environment Envoy: bridging between art and the natural world’ was given at the ‘Mapping the Anthropocene in Ōtepoti/Dunedin: climate change, community and research in the creative arts’, hosted by Dunedin School of Art.

46 The Environment Strategy will continue to support education and citizen science initiatives such as Town Belt Kaitiaki and Great Kererū Count.

47 The Te Ao Tūroa Partnership met on 9 November. In addition to discussing 10 Year Plan priorities, the group considered how the Partnership might be refocused to ensure the Te Ao Tūroa priorities are fit for purpose and align with Council’s Zero Carbon goals.

South Dunedin Future (SDF) Project

48 The SDF community engagement is progressing well, despite the challenges of the COVID-19 lockdown. This is outlined in the Community and Culture Activity report.

49 Work has also been progressing on the partnership project between DCC, ORC and MfE. The National Climate Change Risk Assessment was released in August 2020, which DCC staff contributed during its development. The first meeting of the Technical Advisory Group was also held. Topics discussed included the recent GNS report on groundwater research.

Mana Whakahono ā Rohe/Iwi Partnership Agreement

50 On 31 August 2020, a joint DCC Councillor mana whenua workshop was held to discuss partnership with mana whenua. A further workshop was agreed to be conducted in two parts:

· A strategic framework ‘101’, providing background on the framework and discussion on how ‘partnership’ might inform a future strategic framework, and

· a discussion on improvements to developing more meaningful strategic Te Tiriti o Waitangi principle priority indicators in the current 10-year plan.

51 Further workshop outcomes were reported to the 15 September 2020 Māori Participation Working Party.

52 On 29 October 2020, as part of DCC’s high-level strategic framework evaluation, DCC staff gathered feedback from senior mana whenua representatives on their perspectives on the current strategic framework. A range of feedback was received around potential improvements to the framework, considerations for governance arrangements (i.e. the Māori Participation Working Party) and other opportunities around capturing and using Māori data to inform decision making.

53 In August 2020, DCC Kaiwhakamāherehere Rachel Wesley departed the DCC to take on an external role. A replacement Kaiwhakamāherehere position was advertised in late August. An appointment is anticipated shortly.

Carbon Zero 2030

54 An update on the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 work programme was provided to Council on 25 May 2020. As highlighted in that report, focus areas for the work programme have been on:

· updating the Dunedin emissions profile using 2018/19 data;

· working with teams across the DCC to consider alignment of current and proposed activities with the Zero Carbon target, including feeding into the Climate 2030 Rapid Review, the DCC Emissions Reduction Plan refresh, and draft 10 Year Plan development;

· developing a draft Zero Carbon 2030 work programme and delivery structure for 2021/22 – 23/24; and

· early exploration of a draft Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance concept with potential partners and stakeholders.

55 The latter three focus areas continue to be a priority for staff. The aim is to ensure that Council is provided with the information needed to reflect its Zero Carbon 2030 target in the draft 10 year plan, should that emerge as a priority during deliberations.

56 An additional area of work is co-ordinating the 2019/20 DCC inventory development and reporting, under the Toitū carbonreduce programme.

57 Priorities for the next year will include the development of a Climate Policy for the DCC (building off the existing Carbon Management Policy), and introduction of mandatory climate impact assessments into Council reporting. These initiatives will have both mitigation and adaptation elements.

Capital Projects

Waterfront Revitalisation

58 The project is on hold following the Council decision in May 2020 to withdraw from the PGF process and to put the project on hold until economic conditions improved. The offered $20 million funding towards Stage 1a was not taken up.

59 The Council will receive a report on the timing and funding for the City to Waterfront bridge connection as part of the 10 Year Plan process in December 2020.

Urban Design

60 The work programme for this period has included designing/construction for the staged development at Te Rauone Reserve and co-ordinating with Port Otago Limited during construction of breakwater facilities. Urban design support and advice was provided during the preliminary redevelopment of George Street and The Tertiary Precinct. Other work includes developing a city-wide residential character assessment to help decision making during variation 2 and rezoning to meet density goals.

61 The team has also contributed to the following projects: the Central City Plan: George Street Project, Tertiary Streets, North East Valley Cycleway Project, South Dunedin Library and Community Complex, and Peninsula Connection.

OPTIONS

62 As this is an update report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

63 Key areas of focus for the next quarter include:

· Progressing the appeals on the 2GP and progressing Variation 2 on growth for housing.

· Further stakeholder engagement on George Street with the refreshed Central City Advisory Group as the detailed design is developed.

· Continuing community engagement on South Dunedin Future.

· Finalising Zero Carbon-related inputs into Council’s draft 10 Year Plan deliberations, Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance development, and initial work on aligning some key DCC policy and processes with Council’s Zero Carbon ambitions (e.g. reporting templates; Carbon Management Policy refresh). Progressing the carbon 2030 Rapid Review of DCC activities.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Paul Henderson - Acting Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Authoriser:

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

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 Planning and Environment portfolio of activities support the outcomes of a number of strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

No specific implications for Maori. Pending the replacement of the DCC Kaiwhakamāherehere, staff are continuing to work with Aukaha to ensure a partnership approach with mana whenua.

Sustainability

This is an update report, there are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This is an update report, there are no implications for the LTP, although some measures are level of service performance measures that are annually reported as part of the LTP.

Financial considerations

The updates reported are within existing operating and capital budgets.

Significance

This report is assessed as being of low significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

This is an update report, no external engagement has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

This is an update report, no internal engagement has been undertaken. Input to the major initiatives and project updates has been provided by teams within Regulatory Services and Community and Planning Groups.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards, although aspects of the report may be of interest to them.

Planning and Environment Committee

17 November 2020

Workplan for Reserve Management Plan reviews 2019-2027

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present the forward work programme for the review of all reserve management plans (RMPs) that are administered by Parks and Recreation Services (PARS).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the reserve management plan review forward workplan.

BACKGROUND

2 Dunedin City Council (DCC) is the administering body appointed under The Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) to control and manage reserves within the city for the particular purpose for which those reserves were classified.

3 Section 41 of the Act requires the administering body to prepare and approve RMPs for the reserves under its control, management or administration. The purpose of an RMP is to provide for and ensure the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, and preservation for a reserve as per its classification. DCC currently has 16 RMPs.

4 Section 41(4) of the Act requires the administering body to keep RMPs under continuous review so that the plan is adapted to changing circumstances or in accordance with increased knowledge.

5 Where a local authority is appointed as the administering body, that local authority can approve RMPs for reserves under its control, management or administration.

6 Provided the requirements of Section 41 of the Act are met, an RMP may cover more than one reserve. An RMP that covers more than one reserve can cover reserves of a single classification or reserves of several classifications for which the local authority is the administering body. These RMPs that cover more than one reserve are called Omnibus Reserve Management Plans. An example of an omnibus RMP is the Hill Reserves Management Plan that applies to 13 Council reserves on the first line of hills surrounding the urban core of Dunedin City. This is to ensure consistency in terms of management of these reserves.

7 The reserve or reserves covered by an RMP must be sufficiently described for a member of the public to recognise them individually. The reserves should be mapped in adequate detail with legal descriptions and references to how the land became a reserve. The RMP must also provide details of the classification of each reserve and the source documentation showing how the classification was decided.

8 The DCC has already taken a streamlined approach to reserve management planning which provides a coherent overview of all reserves managed by Council and reduces repetition and duplication of costs. This is achieved through having a General Policies document to cover day to day decisions about reserves, with RMPs for individual or groups of reserves where greater planning detail is required. There are currently three groups/types that make up the DCC suite of RMPs. These are: general policies, omnibus, and individual reserve management plans. Reserves currently managed under each group are listed in Attachment A.

DISCUSSION

9 Many of the existing RMPs have not been reviewed for some time. The proposed plan is to retain the current suite of general policies, omnibus, and individual RMPs. This structure allows a consistent approach to the day to day decisions about management of these reserves.

10 The process of reviewing the DCC RMPs has commenced, with the draft Truby King RMP being approved for public consultation by the Planning and Environment Committee at its meeting on 22 September 2020. The review of the General Policies and Signal Hill RMPs is also now underway.

11 PARS will take a consistent approach in RMP review methodology, which will involve early engagement with iwi, Community Boards (where appropriate), and community stakeholder groups.

12 The work programme envisages that several RMPs reviews will be in progress at any given time, and PARS staff estimate that each RMP will take 12 months to review. Timelines will vary slightly dependant on the reserve, and PARS will refine their estimates as staff become more experienced in the review process.

13 Factors that have influenced the order of priority for the management plan reviews include age of the current RMPs, relevance of existing management policies in the current context, and alignment with the PARS Strategy. The order of priority and indicative timeline is found at Attachment A.

14 The General Policies document adopted in 2005 requires updating. As the General Policies document incorporates policies that apply to all reserves, this review is a priority and has commenced. This will allow for a consistent approach to reserve management and removes the need for policies to be repeated in each subsequent management plan.

15 As part of the plan two new RMPs will be created to recognise their unique characteristics and values – Mosgiel Memorial Reserve (covering Mosgiel Memorial Gardens, Mosgiel Memorial Park, and Peter Johnstone Park), and the Octagon Reserve.

16 As part of the plan two individual RMPs will be retired and amalgamated into an omnibus plan or general policies – Waikouaiti Domain Management plan 1986 and Sports Ground Management Plan 1999.

17 Legal advice on the creation of new and retirement of current RMPs was sought to ensure that PARS follow appropriate processes.

1 OPTIONS 18 There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

19 Implement the schedule for review of the reserve management plans.

Signatories

Author:

Ashley Reid - Parks and Recreation Planner

Authoriser:

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Scott MacLean - Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Reserve Management Plan Review Schedule 2019-2027	57

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

Reserve Management Plans are reviewed in a prescribed process that involves the community and relates to a number of strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

PARS staff will present its RMP plan to the Maori Participation Working Party to seek advice on mana whenua partnership in this process

Sustainability

Sustainability is a major reason for having reserve management plans in place for reserves. The RMP process will help to identify aspects of reserves that are important and ensure the way they are managed means they are protected for future generations.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The recommendations from the reserve management plan reviews may result in changed levels of service.

Financial considerations

A budget for the review for PARS has been approved on an annual basis, reflecting the priority of the project.

Significance

This is considered low significance in terms of the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

External engagement will be extensive, as prescribed by the Reserves Act 1977 and by best practice principles.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement will be thorough as prescribed by the Reserves Act 1977 and by best practice principles.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The review procedure is prescribed by the Reserves Act 1977. The legal team were asked for an opinion on the process to retire previous reserve management plans and incorporating them into an omnibus plan.

Conflict of Interest

No known conflicts.

Community Boards

Community Boards will be notified as appropriate during the review of reserve management plans.

Planning and Environment Committee

17 November 2020

Reserves managed under each group type:

General Policies Document

Reserves Management Plan – General Policies 2005

Omnibus Reserve Management Plans

Ocean Beach Domain Management Plan 1992

Sports Ground Management Plan 1999

Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2006

Hill Reserves Management Plan 2006

Dunedin Town Belt Management Plan 2007

Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan 2010

Pukekura (Taiaroa Head) Reserves Management Plan 2013

Individual Reserve Management Plans

Waikouaiti Domain Management Plan 1986

Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 1999

Dunedin Botanic Garden Management Plan 2000

Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2003

Otago Boat Harbour Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2005

Okia Reserve Management Plan 2010

Mt Watkin / Hikaroroa Reserve Management Plan 2011

Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012

Proposed New Individual Reserve Management Plans:

Mosgiel Memorial Reserve Management Plan

Octagon Reserve Management Plan

Proposed Reserve Management Plans to retire (to be amalgamated into or covered by other RMPs):

Waikouaiti Domain Management Plan 1986

Sports ground Management Plan 1999

Review priority list and indicative timeline:

Reserve Management Plans in Order of Renewal	New Management Plan name	Timeline for Projects	Financial Year target

1. Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 1999	Truby King Reserve Management Plan 2021	Completed by April 2021	2020/21
2. Reserve Management Plan General Policies 2005	General Policies Management Plan for Reserves 2021	Aug 2020- Aug 2021	2020/21
3. Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2003	Signal Hill Reserve Management 2021	Aug 2020- Aug 2021	2020/21
4. Mosgiel Memorial Reserve MP 2021	Mosgiel Memorial Reserve Management Plan 2021	Jan 2021- Dec 2021	2020/21 2021/22
5. Ocean Beach Domain Reserve Management Plan	Ocean Beach Domain Reserve Management Plan 2021	Jan 2021- Dec 2021	2020/21 2021/22
6. Botanic Garden Management Plan 2000	Botanic Garden Management Plan 2022	May 2021- May 2022	2021/22
7. Dunedin Town Belt Management Plan 2007	Dunedin Town Belt Management Plan 2022	May 2021- May 2022	2021/22
8. Otago Boat Harbour Reserve Management Plan 2005 & Otago Harbour RMP 2006	Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2022	Dec 2021- Dec 2022	2022/23
9. Hill Reserves MP 2006	Hill Reserves Management Plan 2022	Dec 2021- Dec 2022	2022/23
10. Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan 2010	Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan 2022	May 2022- May 2023	2023/24
11. Okia Reserve Management Plan 2010	Okia Reserve Management Plan 2023	May 2022- May 2023	2023/24
12. Mt Watkin/Hikaroroa Reserve Management Plan 2011	Mt Watkin/ Hikaroroa reserve Management Plan 2023	Oct 2022- Oct 2023	2023/24
13. Pukekura Reserve Management Plan 2013	Pukekura Reserve Management Plan 2024	Feb 2024- Feb 2025	2024/25 2025/26
14. Hereweka/ Harbour Cone Reserve Management Plan 2012	Hereweka/ Harbour Cone Reserve Management Plan 2025	Feb 2024- Feb 2025	2024/25 2025/26
15. Octagon Reserve Management Plan	Octagon Reserve MP 2025	Unassigned

Planning and Environment Committee

17 November 2020

St Clair - St Kilda Coastal Plan mid-engagement update

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to update the Planning and Environment Committee on the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project and to highlight emerging themes of community feedback and coastal management plan implications ahead of the draft St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan being delivered to Council in the first quarter of 2021.

2 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan engagement process is approaching completion, with many different groups and individuals from across the city being involved – more than 1000 individuals have provided feedback so far.

3 The feedback received to date shows emerging themes concerning coastal protection, environmental enhancement, improving access and safety, and safeguarding coastal amenities and recreational opportunities.

4 Feedback has centred on values that seek little to no new infrastructural (hard) protection measures and a focus on achieving a regenerated, more natural, safe, and accessible coast for the future. People have expressed their pride in this coast, their concern at its degradation, and that they want its care improved.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan mid-engagement update.

BACKGROUND

5 Coastal management works at the St Clair – St Kilda coast have been the subject of much public and professional scrutiny. The current shoreline reflects a variety of past decisions made to address issues on a case-by-case basis. Such decisions have culminated to produce changes at the coast such as the incremental seaward advance of infrastructure and the exposure of hazardous materials along the coast. The beach has been relocated seawards, which has had impacts on the coast more regularly than it otherwise would be.

6 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan is DCC’s effort to establish a basis for change, a holistic and community-oriented plan that sets out practical steps for transition and the establishment of a vision for this much-loved coast.

7 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan, like the broader South Dunedin Future work programme under which the project sits, draws on guidance from the Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Guidelines. These guidelines set out an iterative planning cycle that can be used to help local government plan for the effects of climate change while engaging communities in this process (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Adaptive planning cycle – Coastal Hazards and Climate Change; Guidance for Local Government, 2017.

8 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan involves stepping through this process to develop a technically robust and pragmatic plan that is informed by the community’s aspirations and values for the coast. It enables the community to understand the issues and constraints and to contribute in a meaningful way to the planning process.

DISCUSSION

9 This project seeks to address the risks to this coastal environment and provide direction and clarity to ensure that the coast does not degrade further. The goal is for Council and the community to create and sustain a resilient and valuable public asset for the city.

10 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project is a complex and multidisciplinary project. It involves developing management options (pathways) for three distinct yet inter-connected sections of coast (Figure 2) – namely St Clair, Middle Beach and St Kilda Beach. These areas have key differences in terms of coastal processes, land-use and risk - meaning that some options are likely to be suitable at some parts of the coast, but not others.

Figure 2: Coastal management zones for the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan.

Progress Towards Management Options

11 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project is now progressing from vision/ objective setting phase towards the development of preferred management options (pathways) for the coast. The framework below (Figure 3) helps to explain this process and the steps involved. It also shows when and how the community provides input to the process.

12 The figure below relates to Middle Beach (Kettle Park landfill), similar frameworks are used for St Clair and St Kilda Beaches.

Figure 3: Decision-making framework for Middle Beach (Kettle Park landfill) - Shown in orange is the continuous link with the community. Multi-criteria decision-making analysis (MCDA) is about making decisions when multiple criteria (or objectives) need to be considered together, in order to rank or choose between the options available.

13 This decision-making framework (Figure 3) demonstrates that through the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan process Council and the community are moving from objective setting towards developing a preferred option, or set of management pathways, for the coast. These management pathways will be made up by a sequence of proposed management interventions and commitments that will support in transitioning towards a practical management approach.

Engagement Process

14 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan engagement process has been underway since March 2020 and is ongoing (completion in early 2021). There are three distinct phases of engagement. The project has adhered to a engagement strategy and plan that aligns with Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Guidelines.

- Phase 1: “What matters most” - Collate Community Values and share information about “what is happening” (Complete)

- Phase 2: “What can be done” Part A - Introducing and determining the broad approaches for management (Completed by Dec 2020)

- Phase 3: “What can be done” Part B - Consultation on the Draft Coastal Plan (due to start in March 2021)

15 Throughout the project emphasis has been placed on providing varied and accessible ways for people to have their say. It has been important to capture feedback from a broad demographic across the city.

16 In light of COVID-19, engagement methods and timeframes were adapted to meet Alert Level guidelines and to provide appropriate time for the community to give feedback. The level of community input achieved so far is promising, particularly when considering the timing of the engagement with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic.

17 Since March 2020 the following methods of gathering feedback have been used:

· Drop-in sessions – these have been open to the public to provide opportunities for people to learn about the project and voice their feedback.

· Community workshops – Interactive group sessions for the community to share feedback with each other and understand challenges and opportunities for the coast.

· Stakeholder meetings (1:1 or in groups). These meetings have included business owners (St Clair Esplanade), home owners and recreational groups along the coastal strip.

· Online – Surveys and an interactive ideas wall have been available on the DCC webpage for the community to provide feedback.

· Printmaking sessions - these sessions provide an opportunity for the community to reflect on the challenges the coast is facing and to share their aspirations for the coast through creative expression.

· On-site conversations at St Clair Esplanade, Marlow Park and John Wilson Ocean Drive. DCC staff have spent several days gathering feedback, talking to individuals and families about what they love about the coast and what they might like to see change.

· School visits, presentations and workshops. These sessions have involved education around coastal processes and management approaches. This has been an opportunity to draw youth voice and values into the plan. Primary, secondary and tertiary students have been involved.

18 To promote the events and attract people there have been posters in the area, media releases, letters to stakeholders, regular contact with people who has asked to be kept in touch, social media posts and staff presence in the area throughout the project.

19 The project has reached more than 6000 members of the community and has resulted in feedback from more than 1000 individuals to date. Roughly half of the feedback has been received online.

20 As part of the engagement process staff have reviewed past feedback relating to the management of the St Clair – St Kilda Coast (dating back to 2007). This feedback is also being considered when developing the plan.

Feedback Themes

21 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan aims to set out a vision and a set of viable management interventions that can be adopted sequentially through time to align with the overarching values agreed with the community. The engagement methods described above have been used to capture community values and help DCC understand what the community might view as a strong outcome for the coast. The overarching themes of feedback are described below:

· A resilient coastline that serves to protect to the inland area from the effects of coastal storms and sea level rise

· A safe, accessible and connected coastal strip

· A more naturally functioning environment that favours wildlife

· Protection of coastal amenities and recreational opportunities at the coast, including equitable transition for any facilities that might need to be relocated in the future.

22 These themes relate to item 3 of the adaptive planning cycle (see above Figure 1) and help to set the objectives/ and vision for the plan. Feedback received through the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan process will also be used by the DCC Parks and Recreation team when updating the Ocean Beach Domain Management Plan. Community feedback will inform not only the vision for the beach, but also the reserve along the Ocean Beach Domain.

23 The feedback received from the community will be used to define specific management options that are aligned with the community values. For example, a plan that transitions Kettle Park in a manner that mitigates risk from the landfill and sustains a coast for people to enjoy.

Collaboration

24 There is national interest in this project and its outcomes. The project offers a unique opportunity for academics and tertiary students to learn from and add value to the process. To date, six departments from the University of Otago have been involved in the project. These include Physical Geography, Human Geography, Marine Science, Science Communication, Economics and Philosophy. Academics and students from these departments have been supporting the project team with:

· Coastal monitoring of the beach and dunes, with a focus on understanding how the sand dunes might be made more resilient to erosion

· Understanding community engagement in climate change adaptation policy

· Values articulation – providing space for creative expression in engagement (printmaking sessions)

· Rational decision-making and ensuring that community values are being suitably accounted for when developing management approaches and options

· Coastal modelling – developing an improved understanding of how waves interact with the shoreline and the effects on sediment transport.

25 The collaborative process with local academics and students will enhance the project while providing opportunities for shared learnings in climate change adaptation planning and engagement.

OPTIONS

26 Not applicable.

NEXT STEPS

27 Phase 2 of the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan engagement process will be completed, with the draft plan delivered to Council, in early 2021.

28 The draft plan will then be shared with the community for final review. Short-term investment proposals will then be actioned through the Annual Plan and the 10-Year Plan processes.

Signatories

Author:

Tom Simons-Smith - Coastal Specialist

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

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, 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	☒	☐	☐

Māori Impact Statement

A formally mandated representative of Ōtakou Runaka has been assigned to work alongside DCC staff on this project. It is important that future management actions align with the values of mana whenua whenever possible.

Sustainability

The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan will support the city in planning for the effects of climate change, improving the sustainability of coastal management practises at the coast. Environmental risks such as the Kettle Park landfill are being addressed through this process, with emphasis being placed on achieving sustainable outcomes for the area.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The management preferences that result from this process will, through time be fed into the Annual Plan and Ten-Year Plan processes as appropriate.

Financial considerations

The engagement process has been delivered within budget.

Significance

This report is Low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. There is a high-level of public interest being addressed through extensive community engagement.

Engagement – external

A wide range of stakeholders including residents, business owners, recreational groups and other interested parties have taken the opportunity to provide feedback. Stakeholders near the St Clair- St Kilda coast have been reached more directly.

Engagement - internal

All relevant parties with DCC has been engaged with as part of the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project. Engagement has taken place with staff across the organisation including 3 Waters, Transport, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Corporate Policy.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The project will identify actions to mitigate risks including, risk from coastal hazards including sea level rise, risk of exposure/ erosion of contaminated materials at the coast and liability/ reputational risks associated with failing coastal infrastructure.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

No implications for community boards.

Planning and Environment Committee

17 November 2020

Review of George Street Upgrade Project

Department: Community and Planning and Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Kobus Mentz of Urbanismplus has completed his independent review of the preliminary design and community engagement for the George Street upgrade project.

2 The review identified two design options that provide significant improvement over the existing road layout and the preliminary concept design. The two options involve the creation of a shared street, either being:

(i) a two-way design with the ability to convert to a one-way design in the future and

(ii) a one-way design with the potential to convert to a two-way design.

3 As part of the review process the criteria for assessing the options have been reconsidered in consultation with the Central City Advisory Group (CCAG) and amended. The staff team has assessed the full range of options set out in Mr Mentz’s report based on the revised criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the the findings of the independent review by Kobus Mentz of the Dunedin Retail Precinct (George Street upgrade) project.

b) Approves proceeding to detailed business case and developed design with a two – way shared street with flexibility to go to one-way for the Dunedin Retail Precinct George Street upgrade. (Option 1).

c) Revokes the Planning and Environment Committee resolution (PLA/2019/025) from 11 June 2019 which endorsed the preliminary design for the George Street – Central City Plan project.

BACKGROUND

4 The Central City Plan and George Street upgrade have been reported to Council on several occasions.

5 On 11 June 2019 the Planning and Environment Committee was presented with a preliminary design for George Street and resolved:

“Moved (Deputy Chairperson Damian Newell/Cr Aaron Hawkins)

That the Committee:

a) Endorses the preliminary design for the George Street – Central City Plan project

b) Notes the Activity Plan being developed by staff to encourage activation of George Street prior to and during the construction period

Division:

The Council voted by division.

For: Crs Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Damian Newell, Conrad Stedman, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson and David Benson-Pope (12).

Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained: Nil

The division was CARRIED by 12 votes to 1

Motion carried (PLA/2019/025)”

6 On 25 May 2020 Council considered an update on the preliminary design work on the George Street upgrade, and reconstituted a Central City Advisory Group to provide feedback throughout the detailed design and business case stages of this project.

DISCUSSION

Consultation and technical meetings (CCAG)

7 The review process involved a series of consultation and technical meetings held between 3 and 5 August 2020, which included:

· The Mayor and Councillors, Project Control Group, senior management and other Council staff.

· Central City Advisory Group (CCAG)

· Aukaha

· Chamber of Commerce, Retail/hospitality and property owner representatives.

Central City Advisory Group

8 The CCAG, reconstituted in June 2020, took part in the review process, through engagement sessions held on 4 August and 8 October 2020. The sessions focussed on establishing how the different design elements supported or detracted from achieving the objectives of the different stakeholder groups. Feedback from the CCAG is summarised in Attachment A.

9 Kobus Mentz briefed the CCAG on his interim findings on 8 October 2020. At that briefing session, members of the CCAG were invited to discuss what they agreed with or disagreed with in terms of the peer review and any aspects they felt were missing. After the meeting attendees were invited to respond to a questionnaire. Responses were received from 17 of the 25 members of the CCAG.

10 The questionnaire asked members:

· What they agreed with or disagreed with in terms of the peer review and any aspects they felt were missing.

· To rank from not important, somewhat important to very important - the level of importance they placed on several criteria. Mr Mentz had highlighted in his interim findings the need for these to be clarified in order to determining an appropriate design option.

· To rank four options for a George Street concept design from most to least preferred.

11 The results and full analysis from the survey are set out in Attachment B.

Independent review

12 In July 2020 Kobus Mentz of Urbanismplus was appointed to undertake an independent review of the project following concerns expressed by stakeholders about the impacts of the proposed design on the retail sector and a perceived lack of community engagement on the project.

13 The focus of the review was:

(i) to review the work done to date and assess whether the data supported the preliminary design (endorsed by Planning and Environment Committee in June 2019), and whether the preliminary design would create a successful retail precinct

(ii) to review the proposed engagement approach and

(iii) advise on how to make the proposed concept design into a successful retail precinct which meets the needs of the community, stakeholders and the Council.

14 The independent assessment report ‘Retail Quarter Upgrade Review’ drafted by Kobus Mentz is attached as Attachment C.

15 The review identifies potential issues with the design for the Farmers, Golden, and Edinburgh way blocks. Mr Mentz recommends a shared street designed so that it can convert from one-way to two way (or the other way round) depending on when an appropriate public transport service (ideally a bus service) through George Street can be provided.

16 He presents two possible options / pathways for the three central blocks. The options involve the creation of a shared street being either:

Pathway 1: Two-way design with an appropriate public transport service in George Street.

Pathway 2: One-way without public transport in George Street (but designed as two-way so that it can be converted to two-way once an appropriate public transport service is able to be provided).

17 Mr Mentz’s advice is that either of these options will provide a significant improvement over the existing layout. Mr Mentz suggested that the preference should be informed by the importance and feasibility of providing an appropriate public transport service (meaning a service using smaller buses with an environmentally-friendly fuel source) through George Street. He also commented that it may be more appropriate to retain 2-way traffic through the period of the Hospital re-build to provide more flexibility to deal with the traffic effects of that project.

18 Mr Mentz also makes a number of other recommendations relating to:

· a possible extension to upgrade Moray Place to the Octagon

· reduced number of streetscape elements (compared with preliminary design)

· parking

· provision of a public transport service

· location of bus stops

· traffic management techniques to improve safety at George St / Frederick St intersection

· design flexibility.

Multi-criteria analysis assessment criteria

19 Originally there were six criteria used to evaluate the options. These have been reconsidered as part of the review, with input from the CCAG and original design team.

20 Based on the feedback from Mr Mentz’s review and from the CCAG on their preferences, staff have amended both the list of criteria and how they should be measured to provide an appropriate framework to select a preferred option. The recommended changes are detailed in Attachment D.

21 The full list of criteria (as revised) is as follows:

(i) Safety (road users)

(ii) Opportunities for placemaking (space to provide for amenity features and activation)

(iii) Cycling / Micro-mobility

(iv) Overall network function

(v) Retail accessibility (support for passing trade by car, easy access to car parking areas/ buildings)

(vi) Ability to support appropriate public transport (e.g. electric buses) – options with two-way traffic movement will score higher based on this criterion

(vii) Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) – options that provide for passive surveillance will score higher based on this criterion

(viii) Flexibility of the design to adapt to future needs

(ix) Public acceptability.

22 Staff have undertaken an analysis of all the options identified through the independent review process using the above criteria. The results are shown in Attachment E and were used as the basis of the options analysis which follows.

OPTIONS

23 Three options relating to the George Street project are presented for Council’s consideration. None of the options are the same as the preliminary design from 2019.

24 The option of proceeding with the preliminary design endorsed by the Committee in June 2019 (which is referred to as Option D ‘One-way shared – Corridor severed’ on Page 17 of Mr Mentz’s report) is no longer considered feasible following the review. It was discounted based on the multi-criteria analysis.

25 On that basis, approval of any of the options below would require the revocation of the 2019 resolution.

Option One – Proceed to Detailed Business Case with two-way shared street with flexibility to go to one-way. Recommended option.

Advantages

· Can accommodate public transport services, e.g. bus services albeit of a different design than currently operates.

· Option preferred by 70% of the CCAG (70% of CCAG ranked this option as 1st or 2^nd preference).

· Streetscape will allow vulnerable users to access George Street more easily.

· Increased vehicle through movement may support retail passing trade by car.

· Easy access to carparking areas / buildings.

· Flexibility of design to adapt to future needs.

· Meets CPTED (Crime Prevention through environmental design) objectives.

Disadvantages

· More space is allocated to vehicle movement providing less opportunity to create people- focussed spaces.

· Less favourable for cycling and micro-mobility than one-way. This was shown in the CCAG feedback from representatives of disability groups.

· The ability to improve the safety of the five-way (George / Pitt / London Street) intersection is reduced, which may impact on the Funding Assistance Rates (FAR) available from NZTA.

Option Two – Continue to Detailed Business Case with one-way shared street, with flexibility to go to two-way

Advantages

· Second ranked option by CCAG (53% ranked this option as their 1st or 2nd preference).

· Flexibility of design to adapt to future needs, (including accommodating appropriate public transport services in the future).

· Safer than a two-way option, therefore may attract a higher FAR.

· Greater opportunities to create public amenity, than two-way option.

· Better provision for cycling and micro-mobility (e.g. scooters) than two-way option.

· Addresses safety issues at the five-way (Pitt / London / George Street) intersection.

Disadvantages

· Less potential for CPTED than the two way option, due to less through movement by vehicles.

· Accessibility to car parking and retail buildings is reduced (compared to two-way option).

· Reduced vehicle through-movement may impact on retail passing trade.

Option Three – Proceed to Detailed Business case with one-way and two-way shared street options (as above)

Advantages

· As for options 1 and 2 above.

· Stakeholders can continue to contribute to the options.

Disadvantages

· As for options above.

· Cost and time will increase due to evaluating two options, rather than one.

NEXT STEPS

26 If Council approves the recommended option to proceed to Detailed Business Case and Developed design with the two- way shared street, the next steps will be to:

(i) Brief NZTA on the Council decision regarding which options to be assessed further.

(ii) Initiate the detailed business case / developed design phase.

(iii) Continue discussions with mana whenua and stakeholders (including Central City Advisory Group and building owners / affected parties). These will be ongoing through the detailed business case stage.

27 The high level timeline for these activities is:

· November 2020: Options decided by Committee.

· January / February 2021: Project team start Detailed Design phase.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Authoriser:

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Stakeholder Feedback from CCAG/Stakeholder and broader Community Engagement	76
⇩b	CCAG Survey Feedback on preferences and options	81
⇩c	Urbanismplus (Oct 2020) George Street project review	84
⇩d	Assessment Criteria	105
⇩e	Multi Criteria Analysis (Staff Assessment)	107

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 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	☒	☐	☐

The George Street upgrade project contributes primarily to Council’s Spatial Plan and Economic and Social well-being strategies, by revitalising the environment of the retail quarter with a design based on sustainability principles. The project is a key element of the Central City Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua are involved in the project team for the George Street upgrade and involved all aspects of the project development and delivery. Mana whenua are also represented on the Central City Advisory Group.

Sustainability

Environmental sustainability is one of the principles underpinning the design, with rain gardens and planting incorporated into the design. Economic and social sustainability ensuing the continued visibility of George Street as a retail centre and as a place for social interaction are also key objectives of the project.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The 10 Year Plan provides $66.54M funding for the Central City Plan between 2021/22 and 2030/31 (including $23.53M for George Street in 2021/22 – 2023/24).

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are detailed in this report.

Significance

The significance of this report is assessed as low – medium in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy given the value of the project and the high degree of public interest.

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the Central City Advisory Group, a group of stakeholders convened to provide stakeholder feedback on the George Street part of the Central City Plan. Its members include representatives of Grow Dunedin Partnership; Chamber of Commerce; Aukaha; Disability sector; Generation Zero; Automobile Association; Heart of Dunedin; Youth Council; Hospitality Association.

Engagement - internal

Relevant staff and managers from Transport, City Development, Community and Planning and 3 Waters have been involved in the review process and analysis of the stakeholder feedback.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There is a risk that options which score lower on pedestrian safety may not achieve a full Funding Assistance Rating (FAR) from NZTA.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

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

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on 22 September 2020	18

Author:	Lauren McDonald - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Clare Sullivan - Team Leader Civic