Agenda of Planning and Environment Committee

Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee will be held on:

Date: Tuesday 2 November 2021

Time: 1.30 pm (or at the conclusion of the previous meeting)

Venue: Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin – Mayor and Councillors

Audio Visual Link – Members of the Public

https://youtu.be/GOesB-G16YM

Sandy Graham

Chief Executive Officer

Planning and Environment Committee

PUBLIC AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

Senior Officer Robert West, General Manager Corporate and Quality

Governance Support Officer Rebecca Murray

Rebecca Murray

Governance Support Officer

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Rebecca.Murray@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

Planning and Environment Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee held via Zoom Audio Visual Link on Tuesday 21 September 2021, commencing at 1:00 pm.

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 Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

Robert West, General Manager Corporate and Quality; Ros MacGill, Manager Compliance Solutions; Andrea Farminer, Heritage Advisor; Simon Pickford, General Manager Community Services; Simon Drew, General Manger Infrastructure and Development; Jeanette Wikaira, Manahautū – General Manager Māori, Partnerships, Policy – Māori Partnerships & Policy; Claire Austin, General Manager Customer and Regulatory; John Christie, Manager Economic Development; Clare Sullivan, Manager Governance

Governance Support Officer Lauren McDonald

1 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum held.

2 Apologies

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Accepts the apology from Cr Lee Vandervis.

Motion carried

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Committee:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration

Motion carried

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 (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Jules Radich):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register, and

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

Motion carried

5 Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 Planning and Environment Committee meeting - 3 August 2021

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Committee:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on 03 August 2021 as a correct record.

Motion carried

Part A Reports

6 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 since the beginning of the triennium, October 2019.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Planning and Environment Committee meetings to 21 September 2021.

Motion carried

7 Planning and Environment Committee Forward Work Programme

A report from Corporate Policy provided an update of the Planning and Environment Committee forward work programme for the 2020-2021 areas of activity, progress and expected timeframes for decision making across a range of areas of work.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Notes the Planning and Environment Committee forward work programme to

21 September 2021.

Motion carried

8 Animal Services Annual Report to the Department of Internal Affairs

A report from Customer and Regulatory Services provides operational details of the DCC Animal Services Unit for the year ending 30 June 2021. The report is provided annually to the Department of Internal Affairs, in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996.

Ros MacGill, Manager Compliance Solutions responded to questions.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Committee:

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

Motion carried

9 Dunedin Heritage Fund Activity Report 2020-2021
	A report from Planning provides an update on progress of the Dunedin Heritage Fund (the Fund); the outcomes from the recent internal review of the Fund and a summary of the grants allocated in the 2020-2021 financial year ($763,855). Dr Andrea Farminer, Heritage Advisor spoke to the report and responded to questions. Members spoke in recognition of the expertise, experience and professionalism brought by Dr Farminer to her role as Heritage Advisor and thanked her for her service to Council and the Dunedin heritage community.
	Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker): That the Committee: Notes the Dunedin Heritage Fund Activity Report 2020-2021. Motion carried
10 Items for Consideration by the Chair
	There were no items of consideration raised.

Resolution to exclude the public

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Planning and Environment Committee meeting - 3 August 2021 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

C2 Confidential Actions from Resolutions at Planning and Environment Committee Meetings

S6(a)

The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 6.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

Motion carried

The meeting concluded at 1:32 pm.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

Planning and Environment Activity Report for the period to 30 September 2021

Department: Customer and Regulatory and City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on progress towards achieving levels of service for the City Development, Resource Consents, and Regulatory Services activities for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 September 2021, as provided in Attachments A and B.

2 As this is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

Notes the update reports on the City Development, Resource Consents, and Regulatory Services activities as provided in Attachment A and Attachment B.

DISCUSSION

3 The 10 year plan sets out the activities undertaken by Council. Each activity has levels of service that describe what Council will provide to the community, along with measures and targets used to assess the level of achievement in delivering those activities. Council reports on its achievement of all levels of service through its Annual Report.

4 Attachments A and B report on progress towards achieving the levels of service, measures and targets as detailed in the 10 year plan for City Development, Resource Consents, and Regulatory Services, for the three months to 30 September 2021. Information on specific areas of work is also provided for each activity. This is a new approach to quarterly reporting. It is an iterative process, where improvements and/or changes will be made to the reports as they are identified. Consolidated budget information for each activity will be reported to the Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee.

5 The Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) is used by Council to measure achievement of some of its levels of service, and the results from the survey are shown in the attached activity reports. Respondents of the survey are asked to rate their satisfaction levels for some activities on a scale of 1-10 from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.

6 The survey is carried out on a continuous monthly basis, with the aim of getting 100 responses each month. This provides a sample size of around 1,200 for the year, with a quarterly sample size of around 300 residents. A sample size of 300 has an expected margin of error (at the 95% confidence interval) of ± 5.7%.

NEXT STEPS

7 An update report for the six months to 31 December 2021 will be presented at the first Committee meeting in 2022.

Signatories

Author:

Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions

Paul Henderson - Building Solutions Manager

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Authoriser:

Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Community and Planning Activity Report	34
⇩b	Regulatory Services Activity Report	39

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

DCC Archive Update

Department: Business Information Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to update Council on plans to relocate Dunedin City Council Archive (‘the DCC Archive’) to a storage facility that meets Archives New Zealand (“ANZ”) Standards for maintenance of a public archive mandated under the Public Records Act 2005

2 The Archive is of significant cultural importance, and many of the documents are original and unique which, if lost or damaged, would be a significant loss to the city and New Zealand, and could affect some operations of the Council.

3 The Archive is currently stored in the Lower basement of the Civic Centre, but the facilities do not meet the ANZ Standards for maintenance of a public archive mandated under the Public Records Act 2005.

4 Staff are working on an option to relocate the Archive which will meet ANZ Standards, staff have been working with Archives and Records Association of NZ: Te Huinga Mahara (“ARANZ”) on this piece of work.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

Notes the DCC Archive Update report.

BACKGROUND

5 ARANZ have made several submissions to council, most recently as part of 10 Year plan submissions in May 2021, regarding the condition of the City Archive and the need to rehouse the Archives in a suitable facility.

6 Renovation work has been carried out to one of the rooms in the current facility to mitigate the short-term risk of water damage, along with suitable Archive material being moved offsite to a secure facility. However, a long-term solution needs to be found.

7 A submission from Otago Museum to the 10 Year Plan sought support from Council to contribute $5m towards a joint purpose-built regional archives and collection store, which would house the DCC Archive, and cover the storage needs of Toitū, Otago Museum, and the Hocken/University of Otago.

8 As a result of these submissions, the following resolution was passed at the Council 10 Year Plan meeting held 31 May 2021.

Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

Notes that staff would continue to work with Archives & Records Association of New Zealand (ARANZ) and other stakeholders to accommodate the city archives.

Motion carried (CNL/2021/001)

9 Requirements of an Archive facility are:

· Archives are stored in a dedicated area, separate from public spaces, which allow for ongoing access by authorised users

· Archives are stored in areas that meet preservation needs of their format

· The building in which archives are stored must comply with the New Zealand Building Code that applied at the time of construction and associated codes and standards and be appropriate for use in storing archives.

· The building in which archives are stored must have adequate drainage systems to prevent flooding

· Dedicated storage areas for archives must be protected against the external climate

· Dedicated storage areas for archives must be protected against internal hazards e.g., piping systems, vermin or fire caused by an electrical fault

· A building maintenance programme must be in place

DISCUSSION

10 Staff have had discussions with Otago Museum staff to find out further information on their proposal for a regional archives and collections store. This option is not being considered at this time due to cost, and the likely timeline through to completion of this project.

11 Staff have undertaken further work to develop options to rehouse the DCC Archive and have provided updates to ARANZ. This work has been done in collaboration with Library Services, Property Services, and DCC’s Executive Sponsor to the Public Records Act (2005).

12 A preferred location for the archive has been identified in Upper Basement of the Dunedin City Library. The space appears to meet ANZ standards, and further detailed design work is underway to determine the timeline for this project and estimated costs.

13 The detailed design work will also include an engineering assessment to ensure that the floor meets engineering strength requirements.

OPTIONS

14 As this is an update report there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

15 Staff will continue to work on detailed design for the preferred location for the Archive keeping ARANZ updated on progress.

Signatories

Author:

Prue Milbank - Archivist Digital Services

Graeme Riley - Chief Information Officer

Authoriser:

Robert West - General Manager Corporate and Quality

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 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	☐	☐	☐

Maintaining the DCC Archive is important to supporting the cultural heritage of Dunedin

Māori Impact Statement

The are no known impacts for Mori

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report responds to submissions made as part of 10 Year Plan, and to a Council resolution

Financial considerations

Costs for the preferred storage of the Archive are yet to be estimated, but it is expected these can be met within existing budgets

Significance

This report is considered of low significance in relation to the Significance and Engagement Policy

Engagement – external

Archives & Records Association of New Zealand (ARANZ) have been involved in the proposed storage of the Archive, and will continue be involved in this project

Engagement - internal

There is ongoing internal engagement with BIS, Property Services, Library services, and DCC’s Executive Sponsor to the Public Records Act (2005).

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest

Community Boards

No are implications for Community Boards

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

Initiation of Variation 3 - minor improvements to the 2GP

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval to initiate a variation to the Second Generation District Plan (2GP) - Variation 3 - minor improvements.

2 This approval is required under Clause 16A of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and is delegated to the Planning and Environment Committee.

3 Regular monitoring and review of the 2GP has identified a number of areas where minor improvements to the plan are required including minor improvements to rules, minor adjustments to zone boundaries, and additions to scheduled items or areas. These improvements will be undertaken as part of Variation 3.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

Approves the initiation of Variation 3 – minor improvements.

BACKGROUND

4 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) notified the 2GP on 26 September 2015. In total, 83 appeals to the 2GP were lodged with the Environment Court, and these are being resolved through informal meetings and Environment Court-assisted mediation. Until appeals are resolved, the 2GP cannot be made fully operative.

5 On 29 November 2019, the DCC notified Variation 1 - Minor Amendments. This variation is fully completed as there were no appeals on Variation 1 decisions.

6 On 3 February 2021, the DCC notified Variation 2 - Additional Housing Capacity. Variation 2 comprises a number of discrete changes to the 2GP that will add additional housing capacity into the plan, through specific rule and policy changes and through rezoning specific sites.

7 Approval to initiate a variation to the District Plan is required under Clause 16A of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Schedule 1 of the RMA also sets out the process for Council to follow to publicly notify the proposed variation (Clause 5) and approve the variation following any amendments (Clause 17). Approval to initiate and notify a variation to the District Plan is delegated to the Planning and Environment Committee.

DISCUSSION

8 Regular monitoring and review of the plan since the 2GP was notified has identified areas requiring improvement. It is proposed that Variation 3 will address a number of matters, which were identified through engagement with consultant planners, development professionals, and other DCC teams (such as resource consents and transport) or through work on Variation 2 and in appeal discussions.

9 Proposed improvements to be investigated as part of Variation 3 include:

a) Addition of heritage buildings and items in A1.1 Schedule of Protected Heritage Items and Sites of the 2GP. This will give protection to heritage buildings and items which have been subject to a heritage covenant under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 since the 2GP was notified.

b) Addition of Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBVs) in A1.2 Schedule of Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value of the 2GP, where sites that meet ASBV criteria on public land (administered by DOC or DCC) are not currently scheduled.

c) Minor amendments to the performance standards for vegetation clearance in Section 10 Natural Environment to ensure they are clear and straightforward to administer, monitor and enforce.

d) Addition of Significant Trees in Schedule 25.3 Significant Trees, following an assessment of trees nominated for protection since the 2GP was notified.

e) Minor amendments to some performance standards, for example, the outdoor living space performance standard for residential activities to make it easier to administer the standard and provide more flexibility in how outdoor living space is provided, especially for multi-unit development and on sloping sites.

f) Minor zone or overlay boundary changes requested by landowners, for example to correct split-zoned sites, where staff have assessed these as appropriate to meet the Plan’s objective.

g) Matters raised through appeals that were out of the scope of the appeal process but are considered appropriate to consider in the Plan, for example, an amendment to the height limit for pou whenua up to 9m.

h) Minor amendments to definitions, to clarify which definition some activities fall into, for example, medical imaging and blood-testing centres.

i) Minor amendments to definitions to clarify the activity of certain emerging types of health practices.

10 Variation 3 will be limited to minor improvements. More significant changes would be considered as part of more comprehensive future plan changes or variations.

11 Further consultation with regular plan users and key stakeholders will occur before Variation 3 is lodged. Participants will be advised that any suggested improvements must fit within the general scope of Variation 3 – minor improvements and be considered a priority to address. The Resource Consents Hearings Panel will also have the opportunity to input on areas requiring potential minor improvements, given their experience with the Plan.

OPTIONS

Option One – Approve the initiation of Variation 3 – minor improvements – Recommended Option

12 Under this option, the DCC will initiate work on Variation 3, to make minor improvements to the 2GP to address issues identified through regular monitoring and review of the plan.

Advantages

· Potential for improved protection for recently identified heritage buildings, areas covered by QEII covenants, Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value and significant trees.

· Potential cost savings to plan users where corrections can reduce consenting requirements

· Potential administrative savings to resource consents team where resource consents become easier to process

Disadvantages

· City Development resource will need to progress Variation 3 alongside other priority work.

Option Two – Do not approve initiation of Variation 3 - minor improvements

13 Under this option, minor issues identified by plan users will need to be addressed through future more comprehensive variations or plan changes.

Advantages

· City Development resource can be committed to progress other priority work.

Disadvantages

· Recently identified heritage buildings, areas covered by QEII covenants, Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value and significant trees would not be protected under the 2GP until a future comprehensive plan change is initiated on these topics.

· Other minor improvements to the plan would not be considered until future comprehensive plan changes are initiated on these topics.

NEXT STEPS

14 If initiation of Variation 3 is approved, staff will undertake further consultation with key stakeholders, including iwi authorities, to explore and identify issues or topics for inclusion in Variation 3.

15 Identified issues will be evaluated using the process outlined in Section 32 of the RMA. This evaluation stage also involves further engagement with stakeholders and iwi.

16 When the Section 32 analysis is complete and change proposals identified, staff will seek approval from the Planning and Environment Committee or Council to formally notify the variation for public submissions and then further submissions.

Signatories

Author:

Suzie Ballantyne - Team Leader, Planning

Authoriser:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

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 also 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	☐	☐	☒

Variation 3 will contribute to a number of strategic outcomes by improving protection for heritage, biodiversity and amenity outcomes and other minor improvements to the plan.

Māori Impact Statement

The Resource Management Act requires consultation with iwi authorities prior to notification of the variation.

Sustainability

This variation will contribute to sustainability outcomes through improved protection of heritage buildings and biodiversity areas in the 2GP.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

Staff costs for plan changes are managed within existing budgets. The other expert and consultancy costs for plan changes are included in the district plan activity operational budgets.

Significance

This report is assessed as low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

This variation responds to matters raised through on-going engagement with plan users and key stakeholders. Further engagement with these parties will occur as part of the project.

Engagement - internal

The Resource Consents team and other departments involved in administering the 2GP have been consulted and will be involved in work on Variation 3.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks from this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest from this report.

Community Boards

Community Boards will have the opportunity to submit on Variation 3.

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

Rainbow Crossing

Department: Executive Leadership Team

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides the Committee with an assessment of the feasibility and costs of the installation of a rainbow pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Lower Stuart Street and Moray Place.

2 Mr Dudley Benson (the submitter) requested support from Council for the installation of a rainbow crossing at the Lower Stuart Street/Moray Place location, noting the crossing would be a visible statement that the LGBTQI+ presence in the city is welcome and valued.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

Approves the investigation and installation of a rainbow crossing into the City Centre Plan Creative Quarter or Cultural and Entertainment Quarter projects.

BACKGROUND

3 On the 15 June 2020, the submitter presented to the Planning and Environment Committee to request Council support for a rainbow pedestrian crossing at the Lower Stuart Street and Moray Place intersection. The submitter advised the crossing would reflect the colours of the LGBTQI+ community and that an endorsement from Council would signal Council support for the LGBTQI+ community.

4 The Planning and Environment Chairperson requested that staff discuss the proposal with the submitter and other stakeholders, and report to a Committee meeting as soon as possible.

5 In considering the development of a rainbow crossing in the city, it is important to ensure such a development meets DCC’s strategic priorities. There are relevant priorities across the Arts and Culture Strategy, Social Wellbeing Strategy, and the Spatial Plan. These priorities include using art to celebrate the city’s character, diversity, and individuality, and building a sense of unity and community pride through creative expression.

6 The DCC’s Art and Creativity in Infrastructure (ACII) policy intends for creative elements in DCC infrastructure to be considered and developed with reference to Dunedin’s strategic priorities. The policy helps to embed a creative perspective in Dunedin’s infrastructure decision-making and action, a key priority for the city’s art and culture strategy.

7 The ACII policy requires all proposals to be assessed against the DCC Significance and Engagement Policy in determining which art and creativity proposals should be integrated into infrastructure, including:

· The importance of the project and its location

· The likely community interest in a proposal

· A proposal’s likely consistency with the DCC’s Strategic Framework and previous Council decisions

· A proposal’s financial impact.

DISCUSSION

8 Rainbow pedestrian crossings can be a creative way in which local governments can display support for the LGTBQI+ community. Rainbow crossings in Karangahape Road, Auckland and Cuba Street, Wellington have received positive feedback from LGBTQI+ advocates and the general public.

9 Conversely, there is national and international discourse that suggests rainbow crossings can also divide the LGBTQI+ community particularly if the implementation of a rainbow crossing is seen to be led by well-meaning local councils enthusiastic about inclusivity. There are also potential issues related to the disabilities sector and in particular the visually impaired when considering the development of a rainbow crossing.

10 Staff have recently been contacted by an organisation that has approval to install a rainbow crossing in a prominent Dunedin location. The details of this crossing are expected to be announced in early November 2021.

11 What these viewpoints suggest is that to ensure the development of a rainbow crossing is widely supported, further community consultation is required. In addition, given that we have recently been advised of the installation of a rainbow crossing at a Dunedin location, there are now broader considerations to be taken into account. Considerations such as, do we require a further rainbow crossing and where is the best location for a rainbow crossing.

Rainbow Crossing at Lower Stuart Street and Moray Place Intersection

12 While there are broader aspects to the installation of a rainbow crossing to be considered, staff have undertaken an initial exploration of the submitters proposal for a rainbow crossing at the Lower Stuart Street and Moray Place intersection.

13 For this initial piece of work, staff considered the proposed location in terms of traffic and safety concerns, the cost of installing a rainbow crossing and support from businesses for a rainbow crossing at the proposed intersection.

14 Discussions were held with Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) and businesses located at the Lower Stuart Street and Moray Place intersection.

15 The Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004 enables road controlling authorities to install roadway art and sets out the requirements for this. These are:

· Roadway art must not resemble or be similar to a traffic control marking/device or mislead road users about the meaning of any traffic control device.

· The road controlling authority must manage speeds so that the travel speed of vehicles (except in emergency situations) is not more than 30km/h at all times.

16 This rule also applies to projected images onto the road – anything “applied (put on, cover with, spread) or attached to the road surface”. This rule does not apply to art on the footpath.

17 The submitter suggested the intersection of Lower Stuart Street and Moray Place for the rainbow crossing as a safe space for LGBTQI+ people within the central city precinct and an area where there are LGTBQI+ friendly and queer-owned businesses.

18 This proposed intersection is included as part of the recent Speed Limit Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 11, where the speed limit will be reduced to 30km/h. However, reducing the speed limit does not guarantee that 30km/h will be the maximum travel speed.

19 If 30km/h or lower speeds can’t be achieved at all times, the markings become non-complying and must be removed.

20 To achieve travel speeds that are lower than 30km/hr at all times, effective speed management measures like raised intersections and tables and ongoing speed monitoring measures will have to be installed. This would cost approx. $80,000 to $120,000 to install.

21 Due to the high volume of buses that travel through the intersection Moray Place/Lower Stuart St, a raised intersection/table would not be suitable in this location. A raised intersection/table would:

· Impact the bus users experience and safety,

· Cause noise pollution from buses traveling over them,

· Result in high maintenance cost both for the bus operators and the DCC for maintenance of the raised tables/intersections and the roadway art placed on the road surface (high wear due to buses).

22 A rainbow crossing would be more suitable at an intersection or a mid-block crossing that is not on a frequent bus route and in a low speed and people friendly environment.

23 Installation costs of a rainbow crossing is approx. $10,000 – 40,000. This is based on Wellington and Auckland costs. Waka Kotahi co-funding is not expected.

24 Staff also met with owners and managers of 14 businesses situated around the proposed intersection:

· Thirteen supported some form of rainbow crossing.

· The majority supported a large-scale crossing rather than a smaller version.

· Supporters mentioned that the public safety of those using the crossing was important to them.

· One opposed the proposal.

OPTIONS

Option One – Integrate a rainbow crossing into the City Centre Plan (Recommended Option)

25 This option is to integrate the investigation and installation of a rainbow crossing into the City Centre Plan Creative Quarter or Cultural and Entertainment Quarter projects.

Advantages

i. There is an opportunity for broader community consultation as part of the City Centre Plan project.

ii. The costs of a rainbow crossing could be planned for and incorporated into the budget for the City Centre Plan project.

iii. The speed requirements under the Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004 could be more easily managed in a pedestrian-friendly location.

iv. Lower bus traffic volume would mitigate concerns about impact on user safety, noise pollution, and ongoing high maintenance costs.

v. The rainbow crossing could be integrated into a larger body of creative activations within the Central City Plan.

Disadvantages

· This is not the preferred option of the submitter.

Option Two – Implement a rainbow crossing at the Moray Place/Lower Stuart St intersection

26 This option is to install a rainbow crossing at the intersection Moray Place/Lower Stuart Street.

Advantages

i. This is the preferred option of the submitter.

Disadvantages

ii. A raised intersection and tables, and ongoing speed monitoring measures would be needed in order to comply with the Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004; the estimated cost of these would be $80,000 - $120,000.

iii. Costs for roadway art of $10,000 - $40,000 are not budgeted for in current work programmes.

iv. The costs of traffic monitoring, and ongoing maintenance are not budgeted for in current work programmes.

Option Three – Do not implement a rainbow crossing

27 This option is to not progress with a rainbow crossing.

Advantages

i. No costs will be incurred.

Disadvantages

ii. Does not demonstrate support for the LGBTQI+ community.

NEXT STEPS

28 Officers will progress the Committee’s preferred option.

Signatories

Author:	Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)
Authoriser:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

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 also promotes the social 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 project contributes to the Arts and Creativity in Infrastructure Policy and Public Art Framework

Māori Impact Statement

The DCC is relatively new to understanding and developing a strong Treaty partnership with mana whenua. While it is important that the DCC builds strong, and inclusive relationships with diverse Dunedin communities, it is also important to acknowledge that the DCC’s Treaty obligations and partnership with Māori is still maturing and remains a priority for the DCC.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

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

The proposal is not included in the 10 year plan or Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

The recommended option would allow the costs for a rainbow crossing to be incorporated into the City Centre Plan Creative Quarter and/or Cultural and Entertainment Quarter Precinct projects.

Significance

assessed as low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with Waka Kotahi, LGBTQI+ community, and business community in the vicinity of the proposed crossing location.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with Transport and Creative Partnerships.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Any health and safety risks associated with a rainbow crossing would be managed through the design and installation process.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

Dunedin Parking Roadmap Work Plan

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents a high-level work plan showing how the recommendations from the MRCagney Dunedin Parking Roadmap will be progressed during the 2022 calendar year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

Notes the Dunedin Parking Roadmap Work Plan.

BACKGROUND

2 Council approved the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport (SFDT) Programme through the 10 Year Plan process. As part of the SFDT programme, a central city parking management (CCPM) project was included.

3 The Dunedin Parking Roadmap produced by MRCagney to support the development of parking management strategy work was presented to Council on 31 May 2021. At that meeting Council resolved:

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

c) Request staff develop a work plan for the implementation of the recommendations in the MRCagney Dunedin Parking Roadmap.

d) Notes that the work plan would be reported to the 3 August 2021 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (11).

Against: Crs Carmen Houlahan and Jules Radich (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 2

4 A copy of the MRCagney Dunedin Parking Roadmap is available on the Dunedin City Council (DCC) website at:

https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/823606/Dunedin-Parking-Roadmap.pdf

DISCUSSION

5 The Dunedin Parking Roadmap’s main recommendation was to develop a Parking Management Policy. The Policy would guide the supply and management of parking to ensure it meets community needs, aligns with the city’s strategic objectives, and supports businesses and visitors to the city.

6 The Roadmap also included seven operational recommendations that could be implemented to improve parking management in Dunedin. The seven operational recommendations are:

· Develop a wayfinding signage plan for the city centre.

· Develop a business case for investment in parking technology.

· Develop a plan for collection of relevant data to inform decision making.

· Talk to car share operators about the potential of establishing a car share operation in central Dunedin.

· Build relationships with businesses to help with communication and collaboration.

· Start reducing lease parking from DCC off-street parking sites.

· Apply for funding from the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) contestable fund for EV charging facilities in the Great King Street car park.

7 Further information about the seven operational recommendations is provided in Attachment A.

8 Well managed parking is an important element of an integrated transport system. The Parking Roadmap recommendations need to be aligned with other SFDT projects, the Central City Plan (CCP) and the New Dunedin Hospital (NDH).

9 The parking management work is complex and inter-related. For example, decisions on implementing parking wayfinding will need to consider travel route changes under the CCP, potential decisions on a new car parking building for the NDH and changes to traffic routing under other SFDT projects. It will also require engagement with external parking providers to establish how they can be incorporated into a parking wayfinding system, and whether their car counting systems can transmit real-time parking data.

10 The Parking Roadmap recommendations will be implemented under the $9.5M CCPM project. A project of this scale and complexity requires careful consideration and planning. The remainder of the 2021 calendar year will focus on finalising the CCPM project management plan and securing project resources. Project management documents that are still being developed include: quality and risk assurance, stakeholder engagement, budget and cost management, and detailed project timelines.

11 A high-level project timeline for the 2022 calendar year is provided in Attachment B. The proposed timing is contingent on Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) funding decisions and the ability to procure technology expertise.

12 Staff will focus on progressing four of MRCagney’s recommendations in the 2022 calendar year, including the three recommendations that are focused on gathering, analysing and modelling data, reviewing technology options, and developing a wayfinding plan. These three recommendations are closely interlinked and need to be considered as one package of work.

13 The data and technology workstreams will provide information on how people use parking in Dunedin, how demand changes during the day and where there are localised parking issues. Capturing quality parking information, which will include data to understand the impact of Covid 19 on tourism and travel behaviour, will provide a foundation for future parking management policy work and public engagement.

14 The fourth recommendation currently being progressed is to consider how leased parking from DCC off-street parking sites could be used more efficiently. Decreasing the amount of leased parking could provide more short-term parking in the city. Limiting the hours of leased parking to the hours of the working week could provide additional short-term parking outside of working hours. More information about how leased parking is being used is required before recommendations are developed. Staff will conduct occupancy counts at off-street parking sites in early 2022 and will survey people that lease parks to better understand their needs.

15 The remaining three recommendations have been incorporated into other workstreams or have already been investigated:

a) The recommendation to build relationships with business will be incorporated into the wider SFDT and CCP work. This approach will ensure that parking engagement is built into decision making for the central city upgrades and other SFDT projects. A CCPM stakeholder engagement plan is being developed to identify stakeholders and determine how and when stakeholders will be consulted on through the CCPM work.

b) Staff have spoken with two car share operators about establishing a car share operation in Dunedin. There are several commercial, regulatory and infrastructure matters that need to be considered before a car share operator could establish in Dunedin. Car sharing will be further considered during the development of the parking management policy.

c) Staff have reviewed the recommendation to apply to EECA to fund charging facilities in the Great King Street car park building. There is currently one EV charging station in the Great King Street building. Staff will consider what EECA funding applications could best support Dunedin’s zero carbon targets and will ensure there is a strategic approach to EV charging infrastructure across the city. Decisions to implement further EV charging in DCCs parking buildings will be considered as part of the parking management policy work.

OPTIONS

16 This is a report for noting. There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

17 CCPM project updates will be provided through Committee quarterly activity reports.

18 Waka Kotahi NZ is expected to release national guidance on parking management in the next few months. This guidance will provide national direction on policy development and selecting parking technology. This guidance will be incorporated into the CCPM project planning.

Signatories

Author:

Simon Spiers - Team Leader - Regulation Management

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	MRCagney Recommendations Detail	67
⇩b	2022 Workplan for MRCagney Recommendations	74

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, economic 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	☐	☐	☒

The delivery of the recommendations will contribute to the Integrated Transport Strategy and the Environment Strategy by providing a resilient travel network and promoting travel choices. It will contribute to the city’s zero carbon goals.

Māori Impact Statement

Local Rūnaka will have the opportunity to contribute to the CCPM project.

Sustainability

Some of the recommendations will enhance sustainability by providing low carbon travel options, reducing transport congestion and eliminating paper waste from meters.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This project is included in the LTP.

Financial considerations

The funding for the CCPM project is included in the LTP.

Significance

The decision is considered low in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

MRCagney were engaged to provide advice on the work plan. External engagement was undertaken during the development of the Dunedin Parking Roadmap, including the Otago Chamber of Commerce, Southern District Health Board, University of Otago, Otago Polytechnic, Meridian Shopping Mall and Wilson Parking.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement was undertaken during the development of the Dunedin Parking Roadmap, including Parking Services, Finance, Urban Design, City Development and Communications.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known Legal or Health and Safety risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Well managed parking in the central city will have implications for the entire community. Community Boards will have the opportunity to contribute to the CCPM project.

Planning and Environment Committee

2 November 2021

2021 Annual Report to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Dunedin City Council, as a territorial authority, is required to prepare and forward an annual report to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (the Authority) pursuant to section 199 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act). This is required to be done within three months after the end of the financial year.

2 The Authority advises the format for the return as well as a questionnaire to be completed which provides them with the information they require to report to Parliament. The information required is a summary of the proceedings of the District Licensing Committee (the Committee).

3 The required documents have been completed and returned to the Authority. As this is an administrative report the summary of considerations is not required.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

Notes the 2021 Annual Report to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority.

BACKGROUND

4 Section 199 of the Act requires each territorial authority to submit an annual return and a summary of their proceedings within three months of the end of the financial year.

5 The Authority requires the annual return to be completed on a template (Attachment A). This return provides a breakdown of the applications dealt with by the Committee in the reporting year.

6 The questions put by the Authority provides an overview of the activities of the Committee during the past year (Attachment B).

DISCUSSION

7 The alcohol licensing activities in the city were disrupted by the nationwide Covid-19 lockdowns and the subsequent uncertainty of the short-term future for the hospitality sector has seen a decline in the number of applications received.

8 While the number of licensed premises is relatively constant there have been a number of on-licensed premises close including “Ratbags” and “Innocent Bystander” in the Octagon and the “Normanby Tavern” in North Dunedin. Six premises in the city are closed but their licences are still current which would allow a new licensee to begin trading immediately if they sought a temporary authority. There are also six premises that have suspended licences because they have not paid their annual alcohol licensing fee.

9 There has been an increase in the number of off-licence ‘remote sellers’ based in Dunedin. This style of licence is internet based: the licensee can operate from an office to take orders, but the alcohol is delivered from another location to the purchaser.

10 The Committee membership was reviewed and now comprises a Commissioner, three community representatives and two Councillors.

11 The majority of applications are straight forward and are able to be dealt with ‘on the papers’. However, the Committee met eight times to consider applications that were opposed by one or more of the regulatory agencies (Police, Medical Officer of Health or Licensing Inspector). One off-licence renewal was declined, and a special licence application was withdrawn. The remaining six applications were granted.

12 The Committee has a goal of meeting with the management of the regulatory agencies twice per year. However, because of the pandemic, only one meeting took place in the reporting year. This is an opportunity for the parties to discuss trends and agency goals and helps the Committee understand any issues affecting the agencies.

13 The Covid-19 lockdown in 2020 saw a move away from the more traditional paper-based application to an online system. While the process is still evolving it has seen greater efficiencies in the alcohol licensing activity and the majority of licensees and holders of manager’s certificates have welcomed the transition.

OPTIONS

14 As this is an administrative report there are no options or summary of considerations.

NEXT STEPS

15 The Annual Report will be uploaded to the Council website for public access.

Signatories

Author:

Kevin Mechen - Secretary, District Licensing Committee

Authoriser:

Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Annual Return to ARLA	77
⇩b	Responses to ARLA Questions Accompanying Annual Return	80

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on 21 September 2021	18

Author:	Rebecca Murray - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner
Authoriser:	Robert West - General Manager Corporate and Quality