Te Kaunihera o Tai Tokerau ki te Raki

 

 

AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Thursday, 21 May 2020

Time:

10.00 AM

Location:

Held Electronically via

Microsoft Teams

 

 

Membership:

His Worship the Mayor John Carter - Chairperson

Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Cr David Clendon

Cr Dave Collard

Cr Felicity Foy

Cr Mate Radich

Cr Rachel Smith

Cr Kelly Stratford

Cr Moko Tepania

Cr John Vujcich

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name

Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)

Declaration of Interests

Nature of Potential Interest

Member's Proposed Management Plan

Hon Mayor John Carter QSO

Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme

Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program

 

 

Carter Family Trust

 

 

 

Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Waipapa Business Association

Member

 

Case by case

Warren Pattinson Limited

Shareholder

Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer

Case by case

Kerikeri Irrigation

Supplies my water

 

No

Top Energy

Supplies my power

 

No other interest greater than the publics

District Licensing

N/A

N/A

N/A

Top Energy Consumer Trust

Trustee

Crossover in regulatory functions, consenting economic development and contracts such as street lighting.

Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Ann Court Trust

Private

Private

N/A

Waipapa Rotary

Honorary member

Potential community funding submitter

Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa

Owner Shareholder

Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)

Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa

Financial interest

Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)

Declare interest and abstain from voting.

Flowers and gifts

Ratepayer 'Thankyou'

Bias/ Pre-determination?

Declare to Governance

Coffee and food

Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage

Bias or pre-determination

Case by case

Staff

N/A

Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!

Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.

Warren Pattinson

My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff

 

Case by case

Ann Court - Partner

Warren Pattinson Limited

Director

Building Company. FNDC is a regulator

Remain at arm’s length

Air NZ

Shareholder

None

None

Warren Pattinson Limited

Builder

FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer.

Apply arm’s length rules

Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa

Owner

Any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.

Would not submit.                                                                               Rest on a case by case basis.

David Clendon

Chairperson – He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust

None

 

Declare if any issue arises

Member of Vision Kerikeri

None

 

Declare if any issue arrises

Joint owner of family home in Kerikeri

Hall Road, Kerikeri

 

 

David Clendon – Partner

Resident Shareholder on Kerikeri Irrigation

 

 

 

David Collard

Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited

45% Shareholder and Director

 

 

Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust

Council delegate to this board

 

 

Felicity Foy

Director - Northland Planning & Development

I am the director of a planning and development consultancy that is based in the Far North and have two employees.

Property owner of Commerce Street, Kaitaia

 

I will abstain from any debate and voting on proposed plan change items for the Far North District Plan.

 

 

 

I will declare a conflict of interest with any planning matters that relate to resource consent processing, and the management of the resource consents planning team.

 

 

 

I will not enter into any contracts with Council for over $25,000 per year. I have previously contracted to Council to process resource consents as consultant planner.

Flick Trustee Ltd

I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.

 

 

Elbury Holdings Limited

This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.

This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight and Allen Bell Drive.

 

Foy Farms Partnership

Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm on Church Road, Kaingaroa

 

 

Foy Farms Rentals

Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 7 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.

 

 

King Family Trust

This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.

These trusts own properties in the Far North.

 

Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16

I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends

 

 

Shareholder of Coastal Plumbing NZ Limited

 

 

 

Felicity Foy - Partner

Director of Coastine Plumbing NZ Limited

 

 

 

Friends with some FNDC employees

 

 

 

Mate Radich

No form received

 

 

 

Rachel Smith

Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust

Trustee

 

 

Mid North Family Support

Trustee

 

 

Bay of Islands Amateur Swimming Club

Committee Member

 

 

Property Owner

Kerikeri

 

 

Friends who work at Far North District Council

 

 

 

Kerikeri Cruising Club

Subscription Member

 

 

Rachel Smith (Partner)

Property Owner

Kerikeri

 

 

Friends who work at Far North District Council

 

 

 

Kerikeri Cruising Club

Subscription Member

 

 

Kelly Stratford

KS Bookkeeping and Administration

Business Owner, provides book keeping, administration and development of environmental management plans

None perceived

Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts

Waikare Marae Trustees

Trustee

Maybe perceived conflicts

Case by case basis

Bay of Islands College

Parent Elected Trustee

None perceived

If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making

Karetu School

Parent Elected Trustee

None perceived

If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making

Māori title land – Moerewa and Waikare

Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder

None perceived

If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making

Sister is employed by Far North District Council

 

 

Will not discuss work/governance matters that are confidential

Gifts - food and beverages

Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage

Perceived bias or predetermination

Case by case basis

Kelly Stratford - Partner

Chef and Barista

Opua Store

None perceived

 

Māori title land – Moerewa

Shareholder

None perceived

If there was a conflict of interest I would step aside from decision making

Moko Tepania

Teacher

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe.

Potential Council funding that will benefit my place of employment.

Declare a perceived conflict

Chairperson

Te Reo o Te Tai Tokerau Trust.

Potential Council funding for events that this trust runs.

Declare a perceived conflict

Tribal Member

Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa

As a descendent of Te Rarawa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rarawa Council relations.

Declare a perceived conflict

Tribal Member

Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa

As a descendent of Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Council relations.

Declare a perceived conflict

Tribal Member

Kahukuraariki Trust Board

As a descendent of Kahukuraariki Trust Board I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Kahukuraariki Trust Board Council relations.

Declare a perceived conflict

Tribal Member

Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi

As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations.

Declare a perceived conflict

John Vujcich

Board Member

Pioneer Village

Matters relating to funding and assets

Declare interest and abstain

Director

Waitukupata Forest Ltd

Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets

Declare interest and abstain

Director

Rural Service Solutions Ltd

Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services

Declare interest and abstain

Director

Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust

Potential funder

Declare interest and abstain

Partner

MJ & EMJ Vujcich

Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets

Declare interest and abstain

Member

Kaikohe Rotary Club

Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects

Declare interest and abstain

Member

New Zealand Institute of Directors

Potential provider of training to Council

Declare a Conflict of Interest

Member

Institute of IT Professionals

Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council

Declare a Conflict of Interest

Member

Kaikohe Business Association

Possible funding provider

Declare a Conflict of Interest

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

Far North District Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

will be held electronically via Microsoft Teams on:

Thursday 21 May 2020 at 10.00 AM

Order Of Business

1          Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer 11

2          Apologies and Declarations of Interest 11

3          Deputation. 11

4          Mayoral Announcements. 11

5          Confirmation of Previous Minutes. 12

5.1             Confirmation of Previous Minutes. 12

6          Reports. 21

6.1             Request for Financial Assistance for Kawakawa Community Owned Under Veranda Lighting Scheme  21

6.2             Kawakawa Water Treatment Plant - Health and Safety at Work Act (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 Compliance Audit 28

6.3             Speed Limit Bylaw Review. 31

6.4             Options Report - Parks and Reserves Regulation. 163

6.5             Options for controlling and regulating trade in public places. 173

6.6             Options Report - Vehicle Crossings Regulation. 180

6.7             Elected Member Report 186

6.8             Climate Change Roadmap - Proposed Position of Sustainability Programme Co-ordinator and Implementation Funding. 193

7          Public Excluded. 197

7.1             Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded. 197

7.2             Arvida Development Agreement Update. 197

7.3             Projected Variations to Performance Targets. 197

8          Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer 198

9          Meeting Close. 198

 

 


1            karakia timatanga – opening Prayer

2            Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive Officer or the Team Leader Democracy Support (preferably before the meeting).

It is noted that while members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

3            Deputation

No requests for deputations were received at the time of the Agenda going to print.

4            MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS  

·           Three Waters

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

5            Confirmation of Previous Minutes

5.1         Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number:           A2880641

Author:                    Marlema Baker, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser:             Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

 

Purpose of the Report

The minutes are attached to allow Council to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record of previous meetings.

 

Recommendation

That Council confirms the minutes of the Council meeting held 07 May 2020 as a true and correct record.

 

 

1) Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings.  The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meetings are attached.

Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meetings.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Attachments

1.       2020-05-07 Council Meeting Minutes - A2882268  


 

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

This is a matter of low significance.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

There are no implications for Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example, youth, the aged and those with disabilities).

This report is asking for minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

   MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE
Held Electronically, Via Microsoft Teams
ON
Thursday, 7 May 2020 AT 10:00 am

 

PRESENT:              Mayor John Carter (HWTM), Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Cr David Clendon, Cr Dave Collard, Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Mate Radich, Cr Rachel Smith, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr Moko Tepania, Cr John Vujcich

IN ATTENDANCE:      Mike Edmonds (Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson), Adele Gardner (Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson), Belinda Ward (Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board)

STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke (Chief Executive Officer), Andy Finch (General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management), Dean Myburgh (General Manager District Services), William J Taylor, MBE (General Manager Corporate Services), Darrell Sargent (General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy)

1            karakia timatanga – opening Prayer

His Worship the Mayor commenced the meeting and Cr Collard recited the Council prayer.

2            Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Nil

3            Deputation

Nil

4            MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS   

·      Three Waters: discussions happening at Local and Central Government.

·      Resource Management Act 1991: proposal changes.

·      Civil Defense: involved in welfare as a consequence of COVID-19 and the drought,

·      His Worship the Mayor: commends the efforts of Civil Defense, Iwi Leaders and Local Authority staff in the North for dealing with issues as a consequence of COVID-19.

·      Northland Business Leaders: aware of challenges and are working hard to address them and support each other.

·      Significant challenge areas: Farming and Tourism.

·      Rates Relief: acknowledges staff for giving assistance and support to people in our community.

5            Confirmation of Previous Minutes

5.1         Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 5.1 document number A2878315, pages 12 - 22 refers

Motion  

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That Council confirms the minutes of the Council meeting held 23 April 2020 as a true and correct record subject to the decision regarding item 6.2 - Draft Far North Holdings Limited Statement of Intent 2020 to 2023 being reworded as follows:

a)    that Council direct the Chief Executive to provide the following feedback to Far North Holdings Limited prior to 30 April 2020, for their 2020-2023 Statement of Intent:

i.     The accounting policies need to advise that additional disclosures are required to meet the needs of the Shareholder’s reporting requirements.

ii.    The reference to a ‘Statement of Expectations’ be removed from the Statement of Intent as the Shareholder has not yet made any decisions in relation to the new sections of the Local Government Act 2002.

iii.   The Board membership section of the Statement of Intent identifies which members will be retiring, when, and that all appointments will be in line with Council policy.

iv.   That Far North Holdings Limited provide quarterly financial and risk reports to the Assurance, Risk and Finance Committee.

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith and John Vujcich

Against:           Crs Kelly Stratford and Moko Tepania

carried 8/2

 

6            Reports

6.1         Terms of Reference for Portfolios

Agenda item 6.1 document number A2866360, pages 23 - 29 refers

Motion  

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Rachel Smith

That Council adopt the terms of reference template for the following Portfolios: Te Ao Maori, Climate, Economic Development/CCO, Communications, Transport, Waters.

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Nil

carried 10/0

 

6.2         Terms of Reference for the Infrastructure Committee - Adjustment of the Financial Delegation for Tenders and Contracts

Agenda item 6.2 document number A2859172, pages 30 - 35 refers

Motion  

Moved:       Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That Council adopt the amended Terms of Reference for the Infrastructure Committee to approve tenders and contracts up to $3,000,000.  

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Cr Mate Radich

carried 9/1

 

6.3         Amendment to Local Government Financing Agency documentation

Agenda item 6.3 document number A2877958, pages 36 - 541 refers

Motion  

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council:

a)      adopt the amended documents provided by the Local Government Funding Agency; and

b)      authorise 2 elected members to sign as required.

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Nil

carried 10/0

 

6.4         Ground Lease of 28 Matai Bay Road, Karikari to Fire & Emergency NZ

Agenda item 6.4 document number A2863216, pages 542 – 550 refers

Motion  

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a)      approve the public consultation process is commenced on the granting of a new 33-year ground lease to Fire & Emergency NZ on 2,467.5 square meters of land at 28 Matai Bay Road, Karikari being part Lot 103 DP 54644, being 1.0390ha and part Record of Title NA4C/203 and vested in Far North District Council as a recreation reserve.

b)      approve the public consultation includes submissions on the classification of the 2,467.5 square meters of land subject to the lease as Local Purpose (community building) reserve and the balance as Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

c)      approve the Te Hiku Community Board is appointed to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation process and to make recommendations to the Council in respect of granting the lease and the reserve classification.

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Nil

carried 10/0

 

6.5         Emerging Risk - Fresh Water Resilience

Agenda item 6.5 document number A2857068, pages 551 - 554 refers

Motion  

Moved:       Cr John Vujcich

Seconded:  Cr Moko Tepania

That Council approves the addition of the “Fresh Water Resilience” risk onto the Organisational Top Risks Dashboard.

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Nil

carried 10/0

 

6.6         Far North District Council Climate Change Road Map

Agenda item 6.6 document number A2870762, pages 565 - 568 refers

Motion  

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council approve the attached Far North District Council Climate Change Roadmap.

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a)   adopt the Far North District Council Climate Change Roadmap. 

b)   include the indicative costs, as outlined in the Climate Change roadmap for years 2022-24 in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan for further consideration (consultation if appropriate). 

c)   request regular updates on progress on implementation on the climate change roadmap actions. 

d)   seek external funding opportunities to help achieve the goals in the roadmap within minimal rating impact.

e)   seek guidance and direction from Central Government regarding how Council should respond to potential loss and damage to existing property from climate change effects such as sea level rise. 

and that the CEO be asked to report back on the financial implications of (f) at the next full Council meeting:

f)    allocate $125,000 for Climate Change in the 2020/21 Annual Plan to undertake actions. outlined in the roadmap for year one, and to also include the permanent employment of a Sustainability Programme Manager (1.0FTE). 

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Cr Mate Radich

 

The amendment becomes the substantive motion.

That Council:

a)    adopt the Far North District Council Climate Change Roadmap. 

b)    include the indicative costs, as outlined in the Climate Change roadmap for years 2022-24 in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan for further consideration (consultation if appropriate). 

c)    request regular updates on progress on implementation on the climate change roadmap actions. 

d)    seek external funding opportunities to help achieve the goals in the roadmap within minimal rating impact.

e)    seek guidance and direction from Central Government regarding how Council should respond to potential loss and damage to existing property from climate change effects such as sea level rise; 

and that the CEO be asked to report back on the financial implications of (f) at the next full Council meeting:

f)     allocate $125,000 for Climate Change in the 2020/21 Annual Plan to undertake actions. outlined in the roadmap for year one, and to also include the permanent employment of a Sustainability Programme Manager (1.0FTE). 

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Cr Mate Radich

carried 9/1

 

Meeting Adjourned 12:00pm

Resolution  2020/23

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That the meeting of Council be adjourned

Carried

 

Meeting resumed at 12:12 pm

7            Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Motion  

Moved:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Dave Collard

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

7.1 - Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

7.2 - Panguru Flood Mitigation Road Rising - Additional Budget Request

s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

7.3 - Progress Update on Northland Water Storage and Use Project Report

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

 

In Favour:       His Worship the Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against:           Nil

carried 10/0

8            karakia whakamutunga – closing prayer         

Cr Tepania closed the meeting with a karakia.

9            Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 1:01 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 21 May 2020.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


6            Reports

6.1         Request for Financial Assistance for Kawakawa Community Owned Under Veranda Lighting Scheme

File Number:           A2850080

Author:                    Aaron Reilly, Lighting & Transport Operations Specialist

Authoriser:             Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

 

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval for Council to provide financial assistance to the Kawakawa Business and Community Association (KBCA) for the cost of electricity supply to the community owned Under Veranda Lighting Scheme.

Executive Summary

·      Council has been approached by the Kawakawa Business and Community Association (KBCA) for financial assistance for the electricity supply of the community Under Veranda Lighting (UVL) Scheme in Kawakawa.

·      UVL is not unique to Kawakawa.

·      Council does not own the lights.

·      Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015/25 specifically excluded UVL; this position is not covered under Council’s Streetlighting Policy #4110.

·      Council provided financial assistance (by way of a grant) for electricity supply for the lighting scheme to the KBCA in 2016.

·      The community lighting scheme provides safety and security benefits not only business owners and their premises, but also the general walking public in the Kawakawa Central Business District (CBD), therefore a pragmatic approach has been considered to ensure the scheme continues.

 

Recommendation

That Council approves a financial contribution of $6,720 (GST exclusive) to the Kawakawa Business and Community Association (KBCA), for the cost of electricity supply to the Kawakawa Community Lighting Scheme, to be funded from the Eastern Amenity Development Levy Fund.

 

 

1) Background

Council has been approached by the Kawakawa Business and Community Association (KBCA) for financial assistance for the existing Community Lighting scheme, installed in privately owned verandas. The basis of the request is that the scheme is costly for business owners and time consuming for the KBA to administer. The lights not only provide security type lighting to privately owned shop fronts, but also provide lighting for pedestrian traffic using the footpath within the CBD which the KBA views as a public amenity function paid for by businesses.

It is likely that the KBCA may be unable to continue to pay for the electricity for the scheme, which may result in the power supply to the lights being switched off resulting in a safety issue for business owners and pedestrians in Kawakawa.

2) Discussion and Options

The scheme consists of approximately 29 x 58w fluorescent bulbs and is controlled (switched on and off) by the streetlight circuit.  The balance of the Under-Veranda Lights (UVL) that are not part of the scheme, are presumably wired into the individual buildings and the electricity is paid for by each business owner with their standard monthly electricity bill.

Councils Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015/25 specifically excluded UVL (refer to attachment 1); this position is however, not currently covered within Councils Street Lighting Policy #4110.

UVL is not unique to Kawakawa and it is a district wide issue. Installations also exist at Kerikeri, Kaikohe, Kaitaia and Moerewa. To date, Council has maintained the position that the lights are not a Council owned asset, and therefore will not pay for operating costs associated with the lighting. 

In 2016, a grant of $6,720 (GST exclusive) was provided to the Kawakawa Business and Community Association (KBCA) for the electricity supply. This was funded from the Eastern Amenity Development Levy Fund and was approved as a one-off by the GM of Infrastructure and Asset Management at the time.

The BOI-Whangaroa Community Board identified lighting in the Kawakawa CBD as a priority within the Amenity Lighting section of their Strategic Plan. A report went to their meeting in February 2019 (refer to attachment 2), recommending that Council do nothing and this item be removed from the Strategic Plan on the basis that this is consistent with Council’s current position on the matter and at the time Council had not been approached for further financial assistance.

The Board moved an amendment to the recommendation, as detailed below:

6.1         Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board 2018-19 Lighting Projects

RecommenDation

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

a)      approves the installation of one new amenity light in Nisbet Park, Moerewa to be funded from the 2018/19 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa New Amenity Light budget at an estimated cost of   $5,995 excluding GST.

b)      approves the removal of the following four lighting projects from the Strategic Plan:

1.    James Street, Russell

2.    Whangaroa Road, Whangaroa

3.    Kawakawa Business Area

4.    Main Street (SH10), Kaeo

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded:  Member Manuwai Wells

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

a)      approves the installation of one new amenity light in Nisbet Park, Moerewa to be funded from the 2018/19 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa New Amenity Light budget at an estimated cost of         $5,995 excluding GST.

b)      approves the removal of the following four lighting projects from the Strategic Plan:

1.    James Street, Russell

2.    Whangaroa Road, Whangaroa

3.    Kawakawa Business Area

4.    Main Street (SH10), Kaeo

c)      recommends to Council that if the Kawakawa Business and Community Association requests further financial assistance for the under veranda lighting in the future that the request be considered on its merits by the General Manager of Infrastructure and Asset Management,         subject to available budget

The amendment became the substantive motion.

Resolution  2019/1

Moved:       Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded:  Member Manuwai Wells

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

a)      approves the installation of one new amenity light in Nisbet Park, Moerewa to be   funded from the 2018/19 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa New Amenity Light budget at an       estimated cost of $5,995 excluding GST.

b)      approves the removal of the following four lighting projects from the Strategic Plan:

1.    James Street, Russell

2.    Whangaroa Road, Whangaroa

3.    Kawakawa Business Area

4.    Main Street (SH10), Kaeo

c)      recommends to Council that if the Kawakawa Business and Community Association     requests further financial assistance for the under veranda lighting in the future that   the request be considered on its merits by the General Manager of Infrastructure and   Asset Management, subject to available budget

Carried

The following options have been considered as a result of the 2019 request for financial assistance:

Option 1 – Do nothing

This may result in the power supply to the lights being turned off (if the KBA does not continue to raise sufficient funds). This could present a significant safety and personal security issue for the business owners and pedestrians of Kawakawa.

Option 2 – One off Contribution (recommended)

Offer a one-off contribution of $6,720 (GST exclusive) to the KBA, without prejudice, which is equal to approximately two years electricity costs for running the system.  Risks in this option include similar UVL schemes seeking similar entitlement across the District (e.g. Kaikohe and possibly Kaitaia & Kerikeri etc.).

Reason for the recommendation

Option 2 represents a pragmatic approach to supporting the KBCA to continue to run the community lighting scheme which provides safety and security benefits not only to business owners and their premises, but also the general walking public in the Kawakawa CBD.

The KBCA have managed to ensure that is members maintain a sense of ownership and a ‘buy in’ to the scheme. The cost of maintenance and electricity supply (up until 2016) has been paid for by the members of the KBCA. 

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The cost of Option 2 is $6,720 (GST exclusive).

The expenditure is budgeted and if approved, will be met from the Eastern Amenity Development Levy Fund.  The funds available are $78,816.79.

The Amenity Development Levy Fund was levied a number of years ago, specifically for CBD development in the Eastern/Northern/Western wards.

There are no further ongoing operational costs associated with this recommended option, although this option does have the potential to set a precedent for other similar schemes around the district.

Attachments

1.       Attachment 1 LTP 2015.25 - Kawakawa Business Association for Community Lighting Scheme - A2850385  


 

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

Low.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Policy #4110 Street Lighting.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

This lighting scheme is specific to Kawakawa and this is covered in Discussion and Options section of this report.

This issue is a district wide issue that requires Council’s position on the matter to be covered in Streetlighting Policy #4110.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

There are no implications that are specific to Māori.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.

BOI-Whangaroa CB – Refer to Discussion and Options section of this report.

Kawakawa Business and Community Association (KBCA) and their members – The request for assistance has been received from KBCA has triggered this report.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

Refer to Financial Implications section of this report.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

Attachment 1: Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015/2025

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

6.2         Kawakawa Water Treatment Plant - Health and Safety at Work Act (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 Compliance Audit

File Number:           A2844466

Author:                    Dominique Thelemaque, Project Manager – Water and Wastewater

Authoriser:             Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

 

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval for unbudgeted expenditure of $195k for the urgent completion of identified Health and Safety Non-Compliance issues following the Hazardous Substances Audit at Kawakawa Water Treatment Plant.

Executive Summary

·      In December 2019 a Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 compliance audit was undertaken on the Kawakawa Water Treatment Plant (KWTP).

·      The KWTP failed this audit and it is now required to upgrade the Kawakawa site as a matter of urgency to comply with the Regulations.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)    approves unbudgeted capital expenditure of $195k to cover the cost of the required compliance work to meet the obligations of the Health and Safety at Work Act (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 for the Kawakawa Water Treatment Plant.

b)    approves the direct appointment of Broadspectrum to undertake the identified work under urgency.

 

 

1) Background

The KWTP supplies potable water to the towns of Kawakawa and Moerewa. The KWTP is located at the end of Reservoir Road, Kawakawa. The plant comprises several individual buildings including the chemical house, filter gallery, filters, sedimentation tanks flash mixer, clear water reservoir and sludge decanting tank. These units were constructed in 1971 with the exception of the sludge decanting tank.

In December 2019 a compliance audit was undertaken to verify that the KWTP complied with the HSWA (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017. The test certifiers looked at what controls and documentations were available and what would be required to ensure that the entire water treatment plant complied with these regulations.

The test certifiers identified that the KWTP did not fully comply with the regulations and that additional work and new equipment was required to ensure the plant fully complied.

As a temporary measure, the test certifiers allowed for emergency works to be put in place. This was to allow the KWTP to continue operating.

The work that must be completed before a follow up compliance audit can take place includes:

1)      construction of a new fire-retardant wall for increasing the separation distance between the chemical storage areas.

2)      replacing all existing PVC pipework with High Density Polyethylene (HDPE).

3)      updating all existing electrical fittings.

4)      construction of a new engineered concrete slab for a new above ground tank.

5)      fitting seismic restraints to all above ground storage tanks.

6)      double containment for new chemical storage tanks and leak monitoring devices to be installed.

7)      prepare updated as built drawings and process and instrumentation diagrams (pids).

8)      install an additional fire door.

9)      installing ventilation openings in the chlorine room.

10)    lining of the chlorine room ceiling with a chlorine gas resistant and fire-retardant material.

11)    install auto shut off valve to the chlorine delivery line.

2) Discussion and Options

Option One - Do nothing.

If approval is not provided to undertake the required identified work, then there is a risk that Work Safe will impose a fine of up to $450,000.

Option Two - Approve the additional funding for works to be completed (recommended).

Council approves the unbudgeted expenditure so that implementation of the identified work can be undertaken. Council’s obligation under the Health & Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 is to ensure that the KWTP plant is fully compliant and safe for the operators to use.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The works identified above require an additional budget of $195k. Renewals funding of $86k can be applied to the project overall leaving $109k to be funded from loan.

Attachments

Nil

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

Report is of low significance.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and Hazardous Substances Regulations 2017.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

Project is of local relevance.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

No implications for Maori.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.

·    The towns of Moerewa and Kawakawa.

·    Far North Waters

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

Additional budget is required to complete the H&S work that was not identified as part of the original scope due to legislation changes during the project

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

6.3         Speed Limit Bylaw Review

File Number:           A2870967

Author:                    Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

Authoriser:             Darrell Sargent, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

 

Purpose of the Report

To confirm new speed limits as set out in the Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area Recommendations Report (Attachment 1) and make amendments to the Far North District Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 to implement new speed limits on the highest priority roads.

Executive Summary

·        This report and attachments set out all the matters that the Road Controlling Authority must consider when setting a new speed limit, including the results of consultation and recommended speed limits to be implemented

·        The information provided meets the requirements of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017; Land Transport Act 1998; and Local Government Act 2002 to enable Council, in its capacity as Road Controlling Authority to confirm the new speed limits

·        This report recommends the confirmation of proposed speed limits to enable contracts and maintenance schedules to be agreed for the installation of new signage prior to changes in the Bylaw being made.

·        Amendments to the Bylaw, including identification of the operative date, will be the subject of a separate agenda item and report.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)      in its capacity as Road Controlling Authority, pursuant to Section 22AB(1)(d) of the Land Transport Act 1998, confirm new speed limits set out in the Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area, as set out in Attachment 1 - “Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area – Recommendations Report”.

b)      defers making amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 set out in Attachment 1 “Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area – Recommendations Reportuntil signage to make the new speed limits enforceable is installed.

 

 

1) Background

Council is a Road Controlling Authority (RCA) within the Far North District and has a statutory role in managing the district’s local roads (except State Highways), including the setting of speed limits. 

This statutory role as an RCA is set out under the Land Transport Act 1998, which also enables Council to make a Bylaw that fixes the maximum speed of vehicles on any road for the safety of the public, or for the better preservation of any road (Section 22AB(1)(d)).

The Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 sets out the matters that must be considered by the RCA when setting speed limits, including community consultation.  Section: 156 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the process for community consultation.

As part of the national Road Safety Strategy, now known as Road to Zero: A Road Safety Strategy for New Zealand 2020-2030, the Far North District (Council) is undertaking a rolling review of speed limits across the district.  The Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area is the first area being reviewed as part of an ongoing rolling review of speed limits in the Far North.  

Council approved a consultative procedure and adopted a Statement of Proposal in accordance with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Special Consultative Procedures) at its meeting on 22nd August 2019.   

2) Discussion and Options

Following the identification of the Speed Review Area, a detailed Technical Report (Attachment 2) was produced.  The Technical Report identified all the matters that the RCA must consider when setting a speed limit, except community feedback.

The information in the Technical Report was utilised to propose new speed limits within the review area and to prepare a Statement of Proposal in accordance with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Community feedback was sought through a consultation process consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

The proposed changes to speed limits, within the Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area, were notified on 21st October 2019 with the submission period closing on 22nd November 2019.  Submitters wishing to present their submission and additional information were provided with an opportunity to do so on 4th December 2019 at Council Chambers.

Following the hearings and the collation, and assessment of all written submissions, additional speed assessments were undertaken on roads and in areas where submissions sought outcomes that were different from that proposed.  As part of this assessment a Senior Road Safety Engineer drove every road within the review area.

The additional assessments undertaken have resulted in some changes to the originally proposed speed limits.

Matters to consider

The purpose of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 is to give effect to a nationally consistent and evidence-based approach to speed management and to provide a mechanism for RCA’s to set speed limits for roads in their jurisdictions.

Section 4.2(2) of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 requires a range of matters that the RCA must consider when setting a speed limit.  All matters to be considered are set out in the attached Report “Regional Speed Limit Review Technical Report – Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area” (Attachment 2).  This Report was made available to the public on Council’s website as part of the notification process.

Consultation

In accordance with Section 83 of the LGA 2002, a Statement of Proposal setting out the proposed new speed limits; the reasons for them; and how to make a submission was made publicly available on Council’s website and at Council offices, service centres and libraries. 

In addition, the following was published on Council’s website:

·      A Technical Report setting out all the matters that were considered when setting the proposed speed limits

·      Background information, including frequently asked questions about speed limits.

Public notices were placed in relevant media and several press releases were made available to local and regional news publications.  A notification of the proposed new speed limits, and how to make a submission, was included in Council’s newsletter to all households accompanied by the August rates demand.  Staff and several Councillors also attended the BOI A & P Society show at Waimate Showgrounds, which included extensive information and displays about the proposed speed limit changes.

The public submission period opened on 21st October 2019 and closed at 5pm on 22nd November 2019.  Hearings were held on 4th December at Council Chambers in Kaikohe.

Council received a total of 175 submissions. The attached Report, Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area – Recommendations Report” (Attachment 1), sets out the consultation process, submissions and recommended decisions on speed limits in detail.  The background technical information and matters that the RCA must consider (except public feedback) is set out in the attached Report “Regional Speed Limit Review Technical Report – Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area” (Attachment 2).

All submissions have been read and considered, along with the other matters that the RCA must consider in recommending new speed limits; set out in Attachment 1.

Implementation

There are several factors that are required to ensure that any amendments to speed limits in the Bylaw are legally enforceable:

·      The Speed Limit must be set in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.  This has been achieved through the speed limit review process (including the associated consultation process)

·      New speed limit signage must be installed in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017

·      Speed limit signage must match the operative speed limits set out in the Speed Limits Bylaw.

In addition to signage, some engineering work may also be required to ensure that the adopted speed limit is self-explaining.  In many cases, this additional engineering work is not required for speed limit enforceability; but is required to ensure maximum compliance with the new speed limits and to maximise the road safety benefits.  This is a key principle in the Speed Management Guidance and the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.

The attached Report, “Regional Speed Limit Review Implementation Costs – Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area” (Attachment 3) provides detailed information on signage and engineering requirements, including costs.

Given the extensive nature of implementing the new speed limits, the Road Controlling Authority is requested to confirm the new speed limits at this meeting.  This will enable the bylaw to be amended and made operative in conjunction with the completion of new signage installation.  This will enable new signage to be installed within existing road maintenance contracts as far as possible.

Options

Option 1 (recommended)

Council, in its capacity as the Road Controlling Authority, adopts the Recommendations Report and confirms the proposed new speed limits without making amendments to the bylaw.

The current Covid-19 emergency has meant that, at the time of preparing this paper, staff are unable to obtain the location information required to produce the final amendments to the Bylaw maps at the legally required accuracy.

This option enables Council to confirm the new proposed speed limits and ensure that the necessary signage is installed within existing budgets and work programmes.  This option will require additional Council resolutions to make the required amendments to the bylaw at a time when signage installation is known.

Option 2:

Council, in its capacity as Road Controlling Authority, may adopt the Recommendations Report and make the amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw as set out in the Recommendations Report.

This option is not recommended as making the amendments would require Council to confirm a date when the new speed limits become operative. 

There is some uncertainty as to when new signage required for legal enforcement of the new speed limits can be installed.  Contractors will need to be engaged to undertake the work within existing work programmes as far as practicable.  Staff requires the certainty of new speed limits to be confirmed by Council before engaging contractors.  The impact of Covid-19 on the required implementation work is also currently uncertain.

Option 3:

Council, in its capacity as Road Controlling Authority, may decline to adopt the Recommendations Report. 

This option is not recommended.  The new speed limits set out in the Recommendations Report meet the core requirements of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017; Land Transport Act 1998; National Speed Management Guidance 2016; and the National Road Safety Strategy.  The proposed speed limits have also been the subject of community consultation.

Next steps

Once the proposed speed limit changes have been confirmed, NTA staff will incorporate the installation and removal of the required signage into existing maintenance and renewal contracts as part of the 2020-2021 financial year budgets.

Once there is certainty that all signage will be completed, an additional paper will be put before Committee and Council to make the appropriate amendments to the bylaw and identify the date when the new speed limits come into force.

Work will commence on the initial review process for the Kaitaia-Awaroa and Kohukohu-Broadwood catchment areas.  These catchment areas are programmed to be reviewed next as they include roads that have the highest risk ratings in Northland.  The Bay of Islands – Kerikeri area will follow the Kaitaia-Awaroa-Kohukohu-Broadwood review.

Reason for the recommendation

The recommendations are consistent with the outcome of a public consultation process undertaken in accordance with Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

The two-stage process of confirming proposed speed limits first, then making amendments to the bylaw at a later stage, ensures that all legal requirements to make the bylaw enforceable (including signage) can be co-ordinated appropriately.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Cost estimates and budgetary issues are set out in Attachment 3 “Regional Speed Limit Review Implementation Costs – Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area”.  The estimated overall cost to undertake the recommended changes to implement new speed limits within the review area is $190,000 to $300,000.

The expected life of a speed limit sign is 7-years.  The average remaining effective life of speed limit signs within the review area is less than 4-years.  Most of the new signage will be replacing existing signs.  As such, this work can be undertaking by bringing forward current renewal funding and thereby minimising additional expenditure. 

Some signage work can be undertaken within the current financial year, however, most signage work will need to be undertaken in the 2020-2021 financial year. The Annual Plan for 2020-21 will, need to be amended to bring the budget forward if that is the preferred option.

Completion of some recommended engineering work to ensure a high level of compliance with new speed limits will require new LTP funding.

Attachments

1.       FNDC Bylaw Waimate speed Review Attachment 1: Recommendations Report - A2870961

2.       FNDC Bylaw Waimate speed Review Attachment 2: Technical Report - A2870959

3.       FNDC Bylaw Waimate speed Review Attachment 3: Implementation Costs - A2870960  


 

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

Significance has been determined as “Low” under Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

·    Land Transport Act 1998;

·    Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017;

·    Local Government Act 2002;

·    New Zealand Road Safety Strategy 2020-2030.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

The catchment of the speed limit review fell mostly in the Bay of Islands/Whangaroa ward.  The only exception was the review of the speed limits outside of a school in the Te Hiku Ward.  As this is the first tranche of a district wide review of speed limits the outcome and process followed for this review will influence the future reviews.  Therefore, this report has district wide relevance.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

The recommended amendments have no direct implications for Māori.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.

A public consultation process was undertaken in accordance with Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Consultation and the outcomes of that consultation are set out above and in the attached reports.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There is an initial implementation cost to install new signage and remove older signage.  This cost is estimated at between $190,000 and $300,000 and is provided for in the 2020-2021 Financial Year (Road Safety Improvements).  There are longer term budget implications for the Long-Term Plan.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Speed Limit Review

Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area

Recommendations Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Table of Contents

·         Table of Contents  2

·         1                                                                                                                                                                                           Overview  4

·              1.1                                                                                                                                                            Purpose and Scope  4

·              1.2                                                                                                         Implementation of recommended speed limits  5

·         2                                                                                                                                                                                      Delegations  5

·         3                                                                                                                                               Community Consultation Process  5

·              3.1                                                                                                                                                                           Notification  5

·              3.2                                                                                                                                                                                Hearings  6

·              3.3                                                                                                                                                               Hearing Summary  6

·         4                                                                                                                                                                  Submissions Overview  7

·              4.1                                                                                                                                               Submissions Out of Scope  7

4.1.1          Speed limits in other areas  7

4.1.2          Enforcement 8

4.1.3          Climate Change  8

·              4.2                                                                                                                                                            Other issues raised  8

4.2.1          Crashes occur on State Highways  9

4.2.2          Dust 9

4.2.3          Maintenance and Upgrade  9

4.2.4          70kph Speed Limit 10

4.2.5          Attainable Speed Limits  10

4.2.6          European Speed Limits  11

·              4.3                                                                                                                                   Statutory Consultee Submissions  11

4.3.1          Automobile Association (AA) 12

4.3.2          New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) 12

·         5                                                                                                                                                                      School Speed Zones  14

5.1.1          General Submissions on School Zones  14

5.1.2          Oromahoe School 15

5.1.3          Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate campus) 15

5.1.4          Springbank School – Waimate North Road  16

5.1.5          Te Rangi Aniwaniwa – Quarry Road, Kaitaia  17

·         6                                                                                                                                                                            Significant Roads  18

·              6.1                                                                                                                                                         Waimate North Road  18

6.1.1          Community Feedback – Waimate North Road  18

6.1.2          Waimate North Road Analysis  19

6.1.3          Recommendation  20

·              6.2                                                                                                                                                                        Waiare Road  20

6.2.1          Community Feedback - Waiare Road  21

6.2.2          Analysis – Waiare Road  21

6.2.3          Recommendation  22

·              6.3                                                                                                                                                                           Wiroa Road  22

6.3.1          Community Feedback – Wiroa Road from State Highway 10 to Kerikeri Airport 22

6.3.2          Community Feedback – Wiroa Road from Kerikeri Airport to Waiare Road  22

6.3.3          Analysis – Wiroa Road from State Highway 10 to Kerikeri Airport 22

6.3.4          Analysis - Wiroa Road from Kerikeri Airport to Waiare Road  23

6.3.5          Recommendation  24

·              6.4                                                                                                                                                                Te Ahu Ahu Road  24

6.4.1          Community Feedback – Te Ahu Ahu Road – State Highway 10 to Old Bay Road  24

6.4.2          Community Feedback – Te Ahu Ahu Road – Old Bay Road to State Highway 1  24

6.4.3          Te Ahu Ahu Road Analysis  25

6.4.4          Recommendation  25

·         7                                                                    Summary of submissions received and recommendations (road by road) 25

·         Appendix 1:  Recommended Speed Limit Maps  42

·         Appendix 2:  Technical Report Okaihau – Kaeo – Waimate North Review Area  45

·         Appendix 3:  Statement of Proposal 46

·         Appendix 4 – Traffic Note 37 and 56 Variable Speed Limits Outside Schools  47

 


 

1    Overview

Far North District Council (Council) is a Road Controlling Authority (RCA) within the Far North District and has a statutory role in managing the District’s local roads (except State Highways), including the setting of speed limits.  This statutory role as an RCA is set out under the Land Transport Act 1998, which also enables Council to make a bylaw that fixes the maximum speed of vehicles on any road for the safety of the public, or for the better preservation of any road (Section 22AB(1)(d)).

The Far North District Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 sets the speed limits on all local roads within the District, with the Schedules and maps in that Bylaw identifying the enforceable speed limits and where they apply.

Council undertook community consultation on proposed new speed limits within the Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area (Figure 1).  The proposed changes to speed limits were publicly notified in accordance with Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002; with feedback being sought from 21 October to 5pm, Friday 22nd November 2019.  Hearings were held on 4th December.

This Report brings together all the information that must be under Section 4.2(2) of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017, including:

·    Community feedback and recommendations (main body of Report)

·    Recommended Speed Limit Maps (Appendix 1)

·    Technical Information to be considered (Appendix 2 as a separate attachment)

·    Statement of Proposal as notified (Appendix 3 as a separate attachment)

·    Traffic Notes 37 and 56 (Appendix 4)

1.1    Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this Report is to provide all the information that the RCA is required to consider when setting speed limits under Section 4.2(2) of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.

The detailed technical information that was collated and considered when proposing new speed limits for public notification and community feedback forms part of the decision-making process and is appended to this Report.

This report meets the requirement of the Local Government Act (2002): Principles of Consultation (Section 82 and 82A).  The report provides:

·    A summary of the feedback received

·    A discussion of the issues raised by submitters, either individually; or collectively where there are similar themes.

·    The recommendations arising from the feedback, including the reasons for the recommendations.

Feedback is acknowledged in this report; but may not be specifically referenced within the body of this report due to the similarity of the decisions requested, reasons given, and the volume of submissions received.

 

 

 

1.2    Implementation of recommended speed limits

There are a number of factors that are required to ensure that a speed limit is legally enforceable:

·    The Speed Limit must be set in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.  This has been achieved through the speed limit review process (including the associated consultation process).

·    New speed limits signage must be installed in accordance with Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 and relevant standards

·    Speed limit signage must match the operative speed limits set out in the Speed Limits Bylaw

Once the recommended speed limits are confirmed, Council will prepare an implementation plan to ensure that new speed limits are legally enforceable.

2    Delegations

Speed Limits within the District are set by the RCA.  The RCA is responsible for decisions relating to feedback on proposed speed limits.  The Speed Limits Bylaw is made under Section 22AB(1)(d) of the Land Transport Act.

3    Community Consultation Process

The Far North District Speed Limits Bylaw is made pursuant to the Land Transport Act 1998.  Section 22AD (1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 states that Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies.  Section 156 (LGA) sets out the consultation requirements when making or amending a Bylaw.

·    The Local Government Act 2002 provides the process for consultation

·    The Land Transport Act 1998 and the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 identifies who must be consulted.

The proposed changes to the Speed Limits Bylaw was assessed against the requirements of Section 156 of the LGA 2002.  This assessment determined that the proposed changes would; or would likely to have; a significant impact on the public.  The significance of the proposal relates to the wide-ranging proposals to change speed limits within the affected catchment area.  These proposed changes would have the potential to impact on all road users to some degree.

Given the significance of the proposed changes, it was determined that consultation should be undertaken in accordance with Section 83 of the LGA 2002 – special Consultative Procedures.

3.1    Notification

A Statement of Proposal (Appendix 3) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002 and notified in local media and on Council’s website.  In addition:

·    The full Statement of Proposal and supporting technical information was made available on Council’s website

·    Press releases relating to the review and proposed speed limit changes were featured in local media

·    Key Stakeholders and Statutory Consultees (Refer Section 8.10 of Appendix 2) were notified directly

·    A detailed summary of the proposed changes for each road was sent to all ratepayers as part of a Council newsletter that accompanied rating information

·    Information, including the Statement of Proposal and Technical Information was made available at Council offices and service centres

·    An information / Drop in stand, attended by key staff was held at the Bay of Islands A&P Show at the Waimate Showgrounds (Located within the review area)

3.2    Hearings

Section 83(1)(d) and (e) of the LGA 2002 requires the Local Authority to provide an opportunity for persons to present their views to the local authority in a manner that enables spoken (or New Zealand sign language) interaction between the person and the local authority, or any representatives to whom an appropriate delegation has been made.

The community was provided with an opportunity to provide written submissions between 21 October and 22 November 2019.  All submitters were asked to indicate if they wished to be heard in person to support their submission.

A total of 6 people presented their submissions at a formal hearing on 4th December, held in Council Chambers, Kaikohe.

The Hearing was attended by full Council in their capacity as the Road Controlling Authority.  Key Northland Transportation Alliance Staff, who are responsible for recommending decisions to the RCA were also in attendance.

3.3    Hearing Summary

A range of issues were expanded upon by submitters at the hearing.  Most of those issues have been addressed throughout this Report in some detail.

Sophie Bliss (Submitter SLBOKW 19/41) was generally opposed to the proposed changes in speed limits and provided detailed information relating to road safety issues, including information from Europe (refer 4.2.6).

Careless driving and poor driving skills were identified as key reasons for fatal and serious injury crashes.  The submitters view was that changing the speed limits did not address this issue.  Enforcement, or lack of enforcement was also highlighted, and the submitter questioned how the new speed limits would be enforced (refer 4.1.2).

The submitter requested that Council focus on logistics and maintenance issues (refer 4.2.3) and spend ratepayer money in that area, rather than on reviewing speed limits.

The submitter also raised specific issues relating to dust (refer 4.2.2).

Alex Hansen (Submitter SLBOKW 19/60) raised specific issues relating to Okokako Road (refer Tables in Section 7), Te Ahu Ahu Road and Waimate North Road (refer Section 6).

Okokako Road was identified as a 2.8km no exit road that was also utilised for walking, particularly by children and stock movement.  A lower speed limit would therefore be appropriate.

The submitters primary concern related to lowering the speed limit on Te Ahu Ahu Road and how this may re-direct vehicles onto Waimate North Road, which is a winding and more dangerous road.  This submitter suggested a further lowering of the speed limit along Waimate North Road (refer Section 6). 

The submitter also raised some issues relating to Puketona Junction, which lay outside of the review area and principally relates to State Highways.  The submitter suggested a small extension to the 60kph zone around Puketona Junction.  This matter is noted; but is outside the jurisdiction of Council as an RCA (refer 4.1.1).

Keith Hawkins (Submitter SLBOKW 19/  ) lives at 547 Waimate North Road and provided additional evidence of crashes and near misses he had observed on Waimate North Road.  In addition, the submitter provided some historical context about roads in the area (refer Section 6).

The submitter noted that, since Waimate North Road had been sealed, it has become a commuter route between Kerikeri and Kaikohe.  This has had an impact on the safety of local people who used to walk along the road.  The submitter believes that the road was never suitable as a 100kph road.

Reducing the speed limit further than proposed would help retain the historical context of the road (1st vehicular traffic road in New Zealand) and the surrounding area.

Vision Kerikeri (Submitter SLBOKW 19/136) focussed on speed limits in the Kerikeri area; specifically, Kapiro Road and Kerikeri Road.  Vision Kerikeri raised issues relating to ongoing development in the Kapiro Road area.  The submitter also noted that Kapiro Road is an east-west oriented road and is subject to sun strike and visibility issues as the sun rises and sets.

The matters that Vision Kerikeri raised have been noted, however, they relate to roads outside of the current review area (refer 4.1.1).  These issues will be addressed when the Kerikeri area is reviewed in late 2020.

John Sanderson (Submitter SLBOKW 19/43) focussed on Kerikeri Road, which is outside of the current review area (refer 4.1.1).  The submitter requested that the 50kph zone on Kerikeri Road be extended to a point past the markets.  It was noted that, when the markets are active, a temporary speed limit of 50kph is often imposed.

The submitter pointed out that traffic travelling toward Kerikeri often backs up where the speed limit currently transitions from 80kph to 50kph.  The submitters view is that Kerikeri Road from the Markets to the roundabout with State Highway 10 should also be lowered.

The submitter expressed an opinion that 60kph – 70kph on Kerikeri Road is too fast.

Robert Vincent Thompson (Submitter SLBOKW 19/165) discussed Ngawha Springs Road, noting that it should be included within the speed review (refer 4.1.1).  The submitter also discussed views on the current NZTA reviews on the Puketona-Paihia Road.  It should be noted that the speed review for Puketona-Paihia Road is being conducted by NZTA as the road is a State Highway (refer 4.1.1.1).

The submitter was supportive of the proposed speed reductions generally.

Submitter SLBOKW 19/106, representing Te Arangahnui requested a wide range of changes to the proposed speed limits across the review area.  The main submission did not provide specific reasons for the suggested changed (refer Tables in Section 7).  Dust was raised as a significant issue (refer 4.2.2).

4    Submissions Overview

4.1    Submissions Out of Scope

Out of scope submissions seek changes to speed limits that are outside of the Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area; are seeking non-speed related decisions, for example, road maintenance; or seek solutions that are beyond Council’s legal mandate, for example, enforcement issues.

The main out of scope issues are set out below.  Specific submission numbers are not quoted to avoid confusion as often submissions also included comments and feedback that were both in and out of the scope of the review.

4.1.1    Speed limits in other areas

Submissions seeking a change in speed limit in areas outside of the review area are out of the scope of the current review and associated consultation.  In order to make a legal change to a speed limit outside of the current review area; additional technical assessments would be required, as well as a separate consultation process.  Submissions relating to areas outside the current review area, where Far North District RCA has jurisdiction have been retained on file for later consideration.

Prioritising speed reviews is primarily based on crash risk.

4.1.1.1    State Highways

Some submitters requested speed reviews to be undertaken on parts of the State Highway network, including, but not limited to:

·    State Highway 1 north of Kaitaia

·    State Highway 1 near Kawakawa

·    State Highway 10 near Puketona

Council is an RCA for local roads only.  This excludes State Highways, which are administered by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA).  NZTA have embarked on a review of speed limits on portions of the State Highway Network and are following a similar community consultation process to FNDC.

All submissions relating to the State Highway network has been noted and passed through to the NZTA Speed Limits Review Group.

4.1.2    Enforcement

Some submitters have raised the issue of enforcement.  The feedback received can be categorised into the following broad topics:

·    Without proper enforcement, lower speed limits won’t work

·    Lower speed limits will have a disproportionately high economic impact on lower socio-economic groups with more fines

Although speed limits are set by the RC, the responsibility for enforcing those speed limits is with the NZ Police.  Any fines, including speed camera fines, do not go to Council.  Nor do they go directly to the NZ Police. 

It is agreed that enforcement is a key component of ensuring compliance with speed limits and improving safety on our roads.  However, if the speed limit is neither safe, nor appropriate for the road environment, then, even with a good level of enforcement, safety outcomes will not be achieved.

NZ Police base their enforcement activities on risk, with the sole purpose of reducing serious and fatal crashes on our roads.  The NZ Police target drivers that are driving in an unsafe manner for the road environment or exceeding a safe and appropriate speed (proposed speed limits).  

4.1.3    Climate Change

The RCA is required to set speed limits in accordance with the legislation, rules and guidance of the day.  The legislation that enables Council as an RCA to set a speed limit is the Land Transport Act 1998.  Section 22AB(1)(d) states that the Road Controlling Authority may set a speed limit for the purposes of the safety of the public or for the better preservation of the road.

Current legislation does not allow the RCA to set a speed limit to better manage climate change.  Studies do show that a lower speed limit does lead to lower fuel consumption and associated emissions.  Some recent studies show that any increased costs associated with a longer journey time are offset by lower fuel and maintenance costs for commercial drivers.  It is therefore considered that positive impacts on climate impacting emissions and fossil fuel usage may be an outcome of proposed lower speed limits; but cannot be a principle reason for setting a speed limit.

4.2    Other issues raised

Some submitters raised specific speed related issues that need to be specifically addressed.  These issues raised by submitters were utilised to either oppose the lowering of speed limits generally; or justify a different speed limit.

4.2.1    Crashes occur on State Highways

One submitter stated that the Northland District Health Boards Briefing Paper on Fatal and Non-Fatal Motor Vehicle accidents in Northland identifies that the overwhelming majority of fatal crashes from 2013-2018 are on State Highways in Northland.

The submitter is correct in that many fatal and serious crashes do occur on our State Highways.  Council does not have jurisdiction to set speed limits on State Highways as this is the responsibility of the NZ Transport Agency.

The speed reviews are based on a number of risk factors, including Personal Risk (number of vehicles vs crashes), Collective Risk (based on the km driven), and Infrastructure Risk (road and roadside hazards).  These risks, and a range of other factors are considered when identifying a safe and appropriate speed for any given road.

Mapping of speed related crash statistics for the 10-year period from 2008 to 2018 (refer Technical Review Report) show the distribution of fatal, serious and minor crashes across all roads in the review area.  It should be noted that the definition of a serious crash is where one or more persons have spent 3 days or more in hospital as a result of the crash.  The mapping also only captures speed related crashes that have been reported through NZ Police and NZTA.

Anecdotal evidence suggests a significant number of speed related crashes are not reported, with farmers or local people pulling cars from ditches, particularly on unsealed roads.

Managing speed and setting a safe and appropriate speed limit that reflects the road environment is one component in reducing the number of these crashes.   

4.2.2    Dust

Dust is an issue on our unsealed roads, and this is reflected in several submissions.  Submissions either support lower speed limits as a way of controlling dust.

Dust generated on unsealed roads is influenced by both speed and the number / weight of wheels on the road.  For example, a large logging truck traveling at 80kph will generate significantly more dust then a car travelling at the same speed.  Likewise, a logging truck travelling at 60kph will generate less dust than if it were travelling at 80kph. There are other factors that have a significant influence on dust, including weather, road geometry and road surface materials.

Dust reduction is a potential outcome of a reduced speed limit.  However, under the Land Transport Act 1998 (which restricts the purpose for a speed limit Bylaw), dust is not a principal reason for setting a speed limit.

The focus of the speed limit review is to identify and set a safe and appropriate speed that reflects the road environment, which includes, among other factors, dust generation.    

4.2.3    Maintenance and Upgrade

Some submitters stated that Council should expend more effort on road maintenance rather than lowering speed limits.  It was also noted that Council should upgrade or improve the roads instead of lowering speed limits.

4.2.3.1    Maintenance

Roading currently consumes one third of Council’s overall Operating Expenditure (this excludes capital expenditure).  In addition, Council receives additional subsidised funding from the government, which effectively triples Council budget for most road maintenance.

Council has an extensive road maintenance programme.  However, the local road network in the Far North is extensive and includes a very high portion of unsealed roads. 

4.2.3.2    Upgrading and widening roads

Submitters that have opposed the lowering of speed limits have stated that Council should widen or upgrade roads so that they are better quality, instead of lowering the speed limit.

Whilst upgrade and widening work may be desirable or planned; it is necessary to ensure that our speed limits reflect the current road environment.  As roads are upgraded, speed limits can be revisited.

Upgrading roads comes at a significant financial cost.  Council has a limited budget available for maintaining and upgrading our road network, even with government subsidies.  Given the costs involved, it is necessary to prioritise which roads should be upgraded over time.  Consideration needs to be given to a range of maters, including:

·    The strategic nature of the road, for example, roads providing an efficient east-west linkage.

·    The economic benefits of upgrading the road, for example reduced travel times.

·    Other road priorities, including sealing unsealed roads

Once a road is identified for an upgrade, the time required to secure finances (including government subsidies), complete planning and design work and undertake the upgrades is typically in the 2-5 year timeframe, depending on the size and nature of the work to be undertaken.  In most cases, it is cost prohibitive to upgrade the full length of a road to a consistent 100kph standard.  Therefore, any upgrade work is normally undertaken in a staged manner over a several years.

Recommendations within this Report do identify some strategic roads where improving safety and upgrading the road should be considered over the medium to long term.

4.2.4    70kph Speed Limit

Some submitters, including the Automobile Association have suggested that some roads have a speed limit of 70kph set on them.  The Automobile Association submission requests that a 70kph speed limit apply to most unsealed roads as that is a speed that is attainable on those roads (refer 4.2.4 below on attainable speeds).

The RCA must work within a hierarchy of legislation, national rules and guidance documents when setting speed limits.  The RCA may set a 70kph speed limit.  The National Speed Management Guidance 2016 and the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 discourage 70kph zones, except in exceptional circumstances.

The Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 requires additional sign-off at a national level when setting a 70kph speed limit.

Consistent with the above documents, 70kph zones will only be used where there is clear evidence that both 60kph and 80kph are inappropriate.  Where there is an existing 70kph zone, consideration will be given to the benefits of changing that speed limit to 60kph or 80kph.

4.2.5    Attainable Speed Limits

The Automobile Association (AA) makes a general comment in its submission that a safe speed as totally dependent on the current state of the road. On a recently graded road with copious loose gravel, a maximum speed of 50 kph may be appropriate, but on a well-swept road with minimal loose gravel, speeds of 70 kph are safe.

It is noted that the speed review is recommending a 60kph speed limit on many unsealed roads.  This speed limit would seem appropriate, based on the AA example of different speeds on un-sealed roads.  It is also noted that 60kph is near the actual speed that most road users travel at on unsealed roads in the Far North District. 

On some sections of road (whether sealed or unsealed) a higher speed than the posted speed limit may be attainable.  Conversely, there will be other sections of the road where a much slower speed is required.

The purpose of the reviewed speed limits is to set a safe and appropriate speed for the road as whole, having consideration to the road geometry and the wider road environment and its principle uses.  The safe and appropriate speed is intended to promote a safer driving environment for all road users, including other traffic, pedestrians and cyclists where appropriate.

4.2.6    European Speed Limits

One submitter presented detailed information on European speed limits at the Hearing with specific reference to the unlimited speed limit in Germany.  The submitter was opposed to the lowering of speed and as part of the evidence opposing the reduction, relied on both speed and fatality data from Germany.

It is noted that, in Germany the only “unlimited” speed limit is on the Autobahn (motorway) that has been designed and maintained to an exceptionally high standard.  It is also noted that there are sections of the Autobahn where a fixed lower speed limit applies due to the geometry of the road.  In all cases, the posted recommended speed limit on the Autobahn is 130kph.  Speeding tickets are also issued where a vehicle is travelling at a speed that is inappropriate for the conditions or the car itself.

Elsewhere in Germany, speed limits are generally 100kph and 50kph in urban areas.  Speed limits are strictly enforced by police and there is an extensive network of speed cameras.

The roads in Germany and Western Europe as a whole, are of significantly higher design standards than New Zealand roads.  Many of the main routes and arterial roads are dual carriageway.  In comparison, roads in the Far North are often unsealed, narrow and have significant curves.  Sealed roads in the Far North also tend to be relatively narrow with limited shoulder areas.

Comparison between New Zealand Roads and European Roads, including speed limits and relative crash and fatality rates is inappropriate as there are vast differences in the overall road environment.

4.3    Statutory Consultee Submissions

Section 2.5 of the Land Transport Rule:  Setting of Speed Limits 2017 sets out the persons or groups that must be consulted before setting a speed limit. In addition to the local communities that may be affected, the Rule requires the RCA to consult:

·    The Territorial Authorities that are affected by the proposed speed limits

·    The Commissioner of Police

·    The Chief Executive of the Automobile Association

·    The Chief Executive of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand

·    New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

·    Any other organisation or road user group that the RCA considers affected

All of the above Statutory Consultees were directly notified of the proposed new speed limits; were provided a full Statement of Proposal and advised of where additional information could be found.  The current review area is entirely contained within the Council’s Boundaries.

The notified Statement of Proposal identified two schools where Variable School Speed Zones were being considered.  A further school was identified as a result of community consultation.  To address these specific areas, the Ministry of Education and the two identified schools were consulted prior to notification.  The Ministry of Education and the individual schools were also directly notified of the proposed speed limits and provided a copy of the Statement of Proposal and where additional information could be found. 

The following Statutory Consultees provided no formal response:

·    The Commissioner of Police, including the Northland Area Commander

·    The Chief Executive of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand

It should be noted that, in addition to the Chief Executive of the Road Safety Forum, all local Road Safety Forum groups and their members were notified of the proposed changes and provided an opportunity to make a submission.  Submissions from these groups or individuals are summarised in the tables below.

4.3.1    Automobile Association (AA)

The AA was consulted through the Chief Executive and the Northland Branch.  The submission received stated that:

At the AA Northland District Council meeting on 19 Nov, the majority of our board members were in support of the proposed Far North speed review programme, with the one proviso that 60 km/h should be increased to 70 km/h for rural unsealed roads. While these are unlikely to be subject to intensive speed monitoring, councillors who frequently drive on unsealed roads felt that under certain road conditions (e.g. well-swept, little loose material), speeds in excess of 60 could be safely achieved.

The general support of the AA is noted.  The issues noted by the AA are addressed specifically in 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. 

4.3.2    New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

A summary of the NZTA submission and the response is set out below:

NZTA Submission

The Agency's submission is focused on assisting Council with alignment of the proposals with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule and the intent of the Speed Management Guide, and on achieving national consistency (ie alignment with the information provided to RCAs by the Agency) for speed limits across all RCAs.

The proposals generally align very well with the information provided by the Agency.  It is clear that generally 60km/h speed limits are proposed for unsealed roads and 80 for rural sealed roads. 

Old Bay Road (IRR 1.97) and Waiere Road from SH10 to Upokorau Road (IRR 1.82) are sealed roads with SAAS of 60km/h that are proposed as 80km/h, but that seems to be to ensure consistency to the above approach in the context of the broader network. Fundamentally these roads have IRR well higher than 1.6 that allows 80km/h to be safe, so will require monitoring to identify if safety improvements are required to maintain the proposed 80km/h speed limit safely. 

 The following sealed roads have high IRR so won’t be safe at 80, and also have very low travel speeds that would justify a lower, safer speed limit.  The Agency disagrees with the proposed 80km/h speed limits for these roads and recommends safe and appropriate speed limits of 60km/h:

·      Waipapa West Road (IRR 1.88; mean speeds 45-49) and northern end of Ness Road (IRR 2.06; mean speed 35-39)

·      South end of Waimate North Road (winding; IRR 1.87; mean speeds 40-44)

·      Waipapa West Road (IRR 1.88; mean speeds 45-49)

·      Valencia Lane (winding; IRR 1.93; mean speeds 40-44)

·      Montrose Road is noted in MegaMaps as unsealed (IRR 2,25; mean speeds 35-39) – however using the IRR calculator in MegaMaps still gives an IRR of 1.82 if sealed, so still not achieving the 1.6 required for 80 to be safe.

 Other observations are:

·      Pataka Lane could be 40km/h (mean speeds are less than 30)

·      Poplar Lane is rural in nature rather than an urban 50km/h arterial environment - table 1.4 of the Guide does not provide for 50km/h speed limits in rural environments - recommend 40km/h (mean speeds are 30-34).

Roads in the top 10% of high benefit speed management opportunities

The government has tasked all Road Controlling Authorities to accelerate the implementation of the new Speed Management Guide, focusing on treating the top 10 percent of the network which will result in the greatest reduction in death and serious injury (DSi) as quickly as possible (refer 2018-21 Government Policy Statement page 12).

Three of the most significant of the top 10% DSi saving network lengths in the District are included in this area (Waiare, Wiroa and Te Ahu Ahu Roads), and have been addressed by the current proposals. 

The other top 10% local roads within the Far North District are Russell-Whakapara Road; Otiria Road; Kaitai-Awaroa Road Ahipara Road; and Kaitai-Awaroa Road.  Addressing speed on these roads has been assessed to address over 7 DSi each ten years and contribute to the 319 DSi saving annually through addressing the top 10% across the country. The Agency encourages Council to treat these top 10% corridors with safe and appropriate speed limits as quickly as possible.

School Speed Zones

The Agency does not believe either of the school zones proposed will meet the specific warrant requirements of the general 40km/h school speed zone approval gazette notice New Zealand Gazette, 21/4/2011, No. 55, p. 1284 (see Traffic Note 37) and disagrees with these proposals:

·      For Springbank School the number of pupils walking to school is not clear from the description, but generally the risk would appear to be a turning traffic risk in and out of the gates.  60km/h is the Safe System speed for this risk; and will be delivered with the permanent 60 speed limit proposed. Mean speeds are currently 55-59km/h, which will drop marginally with the new speed limit, but 40km/h will not be achieved in this rural environment if a variable 40 was operating without some reasonably significant traffic engineering measures (not detailed in the proposal).  Therefore, the requirements of the general gazette approval for the proposed 40km/h variable speed limit will not be met, meaning the speed limit will not be legal or enforceable.

·      For Te Rangi Aniwaniwa there is no mention of active mode activity in the description, which is the primary purpose of the ‘urban’ 40km/h variable speed limits outside schools.  Mean speeds on the sealed roads around the airport are 60-64 which would justify a 60km/h speed limit (rather than the 80 assessed by Megamaps), which would address the turning traffic risk at the school and be appropriate for the unsealed section to the south.  Again, the requirements of the general gazette approval for the proposed 40km/h variable speed limit will not be met; meaning the speed limit will not be legal or enforceable.  Council has consulted on a speed limit change for this area, I believe the consultation expectations of the Rule have been met and a permanent 60km/h speed limit (as a legal alternative) could be set as part of the current process.  This would provide an improvement over the current 100km/h limit.  Please note the minimum length of a 60km/h limit is 500m.

All other proposals are supported by the Agency, and we compliment the Council on its proactive approach to speed management, and the extent of the changes proposed.

Responses to NZTA Submission

Specific responses to speed limits on roads identified in the NZTA submission are set out in the Tables in Section 7 of this Report, alongside a summary of submissions received by the wider community.  Recommendations relating to School Zones are set out in Section 5.

The NZTA comments relating to the Top 10% of roads are noted, and the following response is provided by way of clarification:

The Far North RCA acknowledge that the government has tasked RCA’s with accelerating the implementation of the Speed Management Guide, and the requirement to address the top 10% High Benefit roads as quickly as possible.  The NZTA Submission has identified the relevant roads in the District.

The Far North RCA is focussed on the highest benefit roads.  However, there are also a number of areas where there is a strong community desire to address speed limits.  This desire arises from a perception of road safety, but is primarily driven by rapid development, particularly in the Kerikeri area.  The RCA has therefore developed a prioritisation matrix that gives priority to the highest risk roads, but also takes account of community concerns.

Pro-actively managing speed limits in rapidly developing areas enables the Road Controlling Authority to manage longer term risk, rather than taking an entirely re-active approach.

To resolve the competing priorities of current risk; growing risk due to development; and community concerns; a wider, more wholistic approach to managing speed limits was considered appropriate.   A catchment-based approach that centres around the highest benefit roads was adopted.

The catchment wide approach takes an initial focus on high benefit roads; but also extends the review area out to a logical catchment area.  This reduces the number of anomalies in speed limits (for example, where a sealed high-risk road has a reduced speed limit, and an unsealed poor-quality side road retains a 100kph speed limit); and enables the road Controlling Authority to address wider community issues.

The Far North RCA has developed its draft forward work programme as part of a regional approach to speed limit reviews, consistent with the Northland Transportation Alliance delivery model.  The forward work programme sees the additional roads identified by NZTA and their catchments prioritised in the ongoing review programme.

5    School Speed Zones

There is a total of four schools within the speed review area.  The Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate Campus) was not identified in the original Statement of Proposal as the School is private and does not appear on the Ministry of Education School Database.  However, the School was identified by a submitter.

5.1.1    General Submissions on School Zones

The Ministry of Education is the governments lead advisor on the New Zealand education system and has a responsibility for all education property owned by the Crown.  The Ministry of Education submission supported the proposed Variable School Speed Zones outside Springbank School and Te Rangi Aniwaniwa and a reduction in the speed limit from 100kph to 60kph outside Oromahoe School.

One submitter did not support the proposed School Zone speed limit regime on the basis that it is too confusing.  Drivers must read the sign, interpret it, check the time and then decide whether or not it applies.  The submitter continued to note that the present regime at other schools (40kph "when children are present") makes far more sense, takes no time to work out, and causes less inconvenience to motorists.  More education needs to remind the public that passing a stopped school bus is 20kph and many are still flying past at 60-80kph.

It is unclear what the differences between the present regime at other schools, and what is proposed at Springbank and Te Awanawanui Schools are.  It is assumed that the submitter is referring to the difference between a static sign and the electronic flashing signs that show the variable speed limit at the appropriate time.

Variable School Speed Zones are now common throughout New Zealand, particularly in urban areas.  Electronic signage, where appropriate, provides a clear statement as to the speed limit that is in force at the time.

The governments “Road to Zero: NZ’s Road Safety Strategy 2020-2030 identifies the lowering of speed limits adjacent to education facilities as a priority.  The target is for all urban schools to have a speed limit of 30kph or 40kph and rural schools, a minimum of 60kph.  This is to be achieved through variable or permanent speed limits.

5.1.2    Oromahoe School

Oromahoe School is a rural school catering for Years 1 to 8 and has a current roll of 131 students. 

Oromahoe School is located at the end of Oromahoe School Road.  The School gate is located within a cul-de-sac at the end of the road.  Oromahoe Road is approximately 400m long and is very narrow and unsealed.  There is limited shoulder width and there are one lane bridges.  There are no pedestrian facilities along the road.

The school drop-off area does not meet the requirements of both NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56 (Appendix 4) which provides guidance as to when Variable School Speed Zones are appropriate.  As such, a School Speed Zone was not proposed for this School.

Submitters generally supported a lowering of the speed limit, with submitters seeking 50, 60 or 80kph speed limits.  Submitters noted that a lower speed limit of 60kph would be good for children.

An additional site visit was undertaken by a Senior Road Engineer.  The road was further reviewed with consideration of the Governments newly released “Road to Zero” Strategy.

Oromahoe Road was found to be approximately 400m long and utilised as an access road.  Given the narrow, unsealed character (including single lane bridge and lack of shoulder for pedestrians) it was considered that 40kph would be more appropriate to align with a school speed zone.  A further lowering of the speed limit to 40kph would have an insignificant difference in travel time, compared to the originally proposed 60kph limit.

It is recommended that Oromahoe School Speed Limit be addressed by a permanent 40kph speed limit along the length of Oromahoe School Road to better align with the character of the road and the location of Oromahoe School.  The lower speed limit should be accompanied by appropriate school signage. 

5.1.3    Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate campus)

The Statement of Proposal did not identify Kaikohe Christian School as it did not appear in the Ministry of Education’s school database.  A submitter identified the School as needing a lowered speed limit at the Hearing.

Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate Campus) is a private school that caters for up to 36 students from Year 1 through to Year 8.  The School is set back from the road and there are facilities for students to be dropped off within the school grounds. All students arrive at the school by bus.

The School is located at 421 Te Ahu Ahu Road, near the intersection with Waimate North Road.  The school is not obvious from the road. 

The school drop-off area does not meet any of the requirements of NZTA Traffic Note 37 or 56 (Appendix 4) which provides guidance as to when Variable School Speed Zones are appropriate.

The speed limit outside the School is 100kph.  However, signage has been installed stating 40kph when children are present.  This signage is advisory only and has no current legal enforceability.

The recommendations in this Report is to reduce the permanent speed limit on Te Ahu Ahu road to 80kph.  A 40kph variable speed limit outside of the school would not meet the requirements of Traffic Note 37 (Appendix 4) and as such, will not be legally enforceable. 

The reduction of the permanent speed limit along Te Ahu Ahu Road to 80kph will reduce the overall speed of vehicles approaching the school. 

Although a permanent 60kph speed limit is consistent with the governments “Road to Zero” Strategy; a permanent reduction to 60kph for a 500m length from 100m to the east of the intersection with Waimate North Road through to a point (approximately 300m) to the west of the school is not expected to achieve an appropriate level of compliance.

The Road to Zero Strategy seeks a 60kph speed limit outside rural schools and educational facilities.  However, standards are yet to be prepared with respect to this component of the Strategy.  Given the overall circumstances of the Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate Campus) it is considered appropriate to further review the speed limit outside the school as soon as appropriate standards are developed and made clear.

It is recommended that Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate Campus) Speed Limit be addressed by the permanent 80kph speed limit as notified for Te Ahu Ahu Road.  Additional signage and road markings should be installed to make the approaches to the school clear to the motorist.

The speed limit outside the school will be further reviewed as the standards for implementing Road to Zero Policy is made clear. 

5.1.4    Springbank School – Waimate North Road

Springbank School is an independent co-educational school that caters for Year 1 – 13 students with a junior, middle and senior school.  The current roll of the school is 190.  Most students are dropped off by either car or bus, although some local students do walk to school. 

The school is located on Waimate North Road approximately 500m south of State Highway 10.

The current speed limit outside the school is 100kph.  However, signage has been installed stating 40kph when children are present.  This signage is advisory only and has no current legal status and therefore unenforceable.

There were 14 submitters generally in support of lowering the speed limit along the section of road that incorporates the school.  Several submitters sought an extension of the proposed 60kph permanent speed limit. 

The Principal of Springbank School supported the Variable School Speed Zone; but noted that the proposed 60km/hr speed limit would ensure a good level of safety for the school's families (and local residents) without significantly affecting road users' travel time.

NZTA noted that the primary risk appeared to be a turning traffic risk in and out of the gates, and that this risk could be appropriately addressed with the 60kph permanent speed limit.  NZTA believes that the requirements of the general gazette approval for the proposed 40km/h variable speed limit will not be met, meaning the speed limit will not be legal or enforceable.

An additional site visit was undertaken by a Senior Road Engineer.  The road was further reviewed with consideration of the Governments newly released “Road to Zero” Strategy and the submissions received. 

The additional review confirmed that only some of the requirements of NZTA Traffic Note 37 would be met by the School.  A lower speed limit of 40kph would not be achieved without some significant engineering work to match the road to a lower speed limit. 

The additional review agreed with the comments of NZTA in so far as a permanent 60kph speed limit would address the risk posed by the school drop off system. 

Additional school signage would go some way to ensure drivers awareness of the school location and that children may be present.  A permanent 60kph speed limit matches the road environment and is consistent with the Road to Zero Strategy.

It is recommended that the Springbank School Speed Limit be addressed by a permanent 60kph speed limit as part of the wider reduction in speed limits along Waimate North Road (set out in the tables below).  Appropriate school signage should also be installed.     

5.1.5    Te Rangi Aniwaniwa – Quarry Road, Kaitaia

Te Rangi Aniwaniwa is a rural school that caters for Year 1 to 13 students with 162 students and 30 staff members.  All students arrive by bus or car.

Te Rangi Aniwaniwa is located on Quarry Road, near the Kaitaia Airport.  Although the School is outside of the Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Speed Review Area; the Ministry of Education has identified this school as a priority for introducing a Variable School Speed Zone.

The School, along with the Ministry of Education was consulted prior to proposing a Variable School Speed Zone. Te Rangi Aniwaniwa did not provide a formal submission.

NZTA noted that Mean speeds on the sealed roads around the airport are 60-64 which would justify a 60km/h speed limit, which would address the turning traffic risk at the school and be appropriate for the unsealed section to the south.

It was NZTA’s view that the requirements of the general gazette approval for the proposed 40km/h variable speed limit will not be met; meaning the speed limit will not be legal or enforceable.  However, NZTA noted that the consultation expectations of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 have been met and a permanent 60km/h speed limit (as a legal alternative) could be set as part of the current process.  This would provide an improvement over the current 100km/h limit.

An additional site visit was undertaken by a Senior Road Engineer.  The road was further reviewed with consideration of the Governments newly released “Road to Zero” Strategy and the submissions received.

It is noted that, whilst the full length of Quarry Road is not part of the current review, there is a clear expectation that the speed limits along this road will be reviewed in the near future.  The Megamaps dataset, which is utilised as an initial basis for speed reviews assesses the sealed section of Quarry Road as 80kph.  Having not undertaken a detailed assessment, it is considered likely that a 60kph speed limit would be proposed for the unsealed section of Quarry Road.  As such, having a 60kph permanent speed limit would not create a long-lasting anomaly.

The minimum length of a 60kph speed limit is 500m.  A permanent speed limit of 60kph can therefore be implemented from the end of the seal to the south of Te Rangi Aniwaniwa to a point north-west of the Kaitaia Airport entrance.  Vehicles approaching the school from the unsealed section of the road are expected to be travelling at a speed significantly slower than the current 100kph speed limit.  A permanent 60kph speed limit will encourage the maintenance of a slower speed past the school, rather than an acceleration.

Extending the 60kph zone to a point north west of the Airport entrance has the added benefit of slowing traffic to and from the Airport.

It should be noted that there is an option to defer the lowering of this speed limit until the wider review of the area has been undertaken.  However, it is considered that the speed related issues outside the School are significant and delaying the change is not recommended.

It is recommended that the Te Rangi Aniwaniwa Speed Limit be addressed by a permanent 60kph speed limit extending from the end of the seal on Quarry Road through to a point 50m to the north west of the Kaitaia Airport entrance.  Appropriate school signage should also be installed.

6    Significant Roads

Following the consideration of submissions received, NTA Staff undertook additional site visits to further assess submitters views and the road environment. All recommended speed limits are set out in the Tables in Section 7 of this Report.  Additional detail as to the reasons for recommendations have been provided for the following four roads as they form important links across the review area, or were subject to a number of submissions:

·    Waimate North Road

·    Waiare Road

·    Wiroa Road

·    Te Ahu Ahu Road

6.1    Waimate North Road

It was originally proposed that the speed limit on Waimate North Road be reduced from 100kph to 60kph from State Highway 10 to a point 50m south of Amuri Road.  It was also proposed that the remainder of Waimate North Road have a speed limit of 80kph.

 

6.1.1    Community Feedback – Waimate North Road

A total of 14 submitters were supportive of a reduction in speed limit on Waimate North Road.  One submitter opposed any reduction in speed limit. 

Submitters supporting a lower speed limit suggested that the proposed 60kph speed limit be extended further along Waimate North Road.  The extended 60kph speed limit zones sought by submitters ranged from a relatively short extension through to extending the 60kph zone for the full extent of the Road.

Some submitters suggested extending the 60kph zone further to the intersection with Te Ahu Ahu Road as it is a high residential area.  One submitter suggested a speed of 50kph from SH10 to well past Springbank School.

The Principal of Springbank School supported the proposed 60km/hr speed limit and noted that it would ensure a good level of safety for our school's families (and local residents) without significantly affecting road users' travel time.

Several submitters stated that many stretches of the road are hazardous to drive as this is a winding road with few areas along the road to pull over.  There are a lot of trucks and vehicles with trailers as well as agricultural machinery. It was also noted that Waimate North Road was often used as a “rat run” to avoid other congested areas.

During the hearing, submitters seeking a lower speed limit along the full length of Waimate North Road provided additional information.  Waimate North Road is the shortest route between Kerikeri and Kaikohe.  It was thought that lowering of speed limits on other roads would push additional traffic along Waimate North Road, unless there was a more extensive lowering of the speed limit on Waimate North Road.

It was noted that since Waimate North Road was sealed, it has become more of a commuter route, and as a result, activities such as cycling, walking and horse riding has significantly reduced along this road.  One submitter expressed a view that Waimate North Road has never been suitable for a 100kph speed limit and that a much slower speed limit would be appropriate.

The scenic and historic nature of Waimate North Road was also emphasised, particularly in that it was the first public road to be open to vehicular traffic in New Zealand.  A higher speed limit is not considered conducive to the historic and scenic nature of the road.

One submitter requested that Waimate North Road/SH10 should have a round-about to stop traffic blocking the view.  It should be noted that this request is beyond the scope of this Review.  A round-about project at the location identified would be a project led by NZTA as it involves a State Highway.

6.1.2    Waimate North Road Analysis

All submissions were assessed, alongside evidence-based matters and relevant speed management guidance, legislation and engineering standards.  The following options were considered:

1.   Implement the speed limit change as proposed (60kph from SH10 to 50m south of Amuri Road)

2.   Extend the 60kph speed limit from SH10 to the intersection with Wiroa Road and the remainder 80kph

3.   Extend the 60kph speed limit from SH10 to Valencia Lane, with an 80kph zone from Valencia Lane to a point at approximately 660 Waimate North Road, reverting to a 60kph speed limit from that point to the intersection with Te Ahu Ahu Road.  

4.   Extend the 60kph speed limit for the entire length of Waimate North Road

 

 

Option 1

It is noted that Waimate North Road is subject to significant ongoing development for rural residential purposes from State Highway 10 through to Valencia Lane.  Valencia Lane itself is principally used for access to rural residential properties.

Submitters identified a strong community desire to extend the currently proposed 60kph zone further to the south of Amuri Lane.  However, the extent of such an extension varied among submitters.

A review of the road environment, as well as expected development, indicates that extending the 60kph zone to a point south of Valencia Lane would meet many of the submitters principle concerns, as well as the need to match the speed limit with the overall road environment.

Option 2

Extending the 60kph speed limit to the intersection with Wiroa Road would meet the majority of submitters concerns. 

If this option were pursued, it would be necessary to extend the proposed 60kph zone on Wiroa Road (currently proposed to extend a short distance to the west of the airport entrance) to a point approximately 50m to the west of the intersection with Waimate North Road.  This would provide continuity of speed limits and avoid changes in speed limits over a short distance, which is discouraged by the Speed Management Guidance 2016 document.

Waimate North Road, from Valencia Lane to Wiroa Road is a sealed, two lane road that has a generally straight alignment.  The safe and appropriate speed for this stretch of road is 80kph.  Lowering the speed limit from Valencia Lane through to Wiroa Road would not achieve a high level of compliance.  In the medium term, some engineering work would be required to match the road environment with the slower speed limit along this section of road.

Option 2 is therefore not supported in its entirety.  However, extending the 60kph zone through to Valencia Lane would ensure that speed limits did match the road environment to a much better extent. 

Option 3

Waimate North Road can be divided into three distinct zones:

State Highway 10 to Valencia Lane – where the road environment is winding in nature through to the southern part of this section where the alignment can be better described as curved.  This section of the road is characterised by significant rural residential activities, including Springbank School.  To the south of Valencia Lane, there is a distinctive change to a more rural environment.

Valencia Lane to approximately 660 Waimate North Road – where the road environment is generally straight with some curves.  The wider environment is open space and rural in nature with fewer direct accesses onto the road.

660 Waimate North Road to Te Ahu Ahu Road – where the road begins to descend from the Waimate Plateau toward Te Ahu Ahu Road.  The road is winding to torturous in its alignment and there are several one lane bridges along this stretch of road.

Option 3 would set three speed limits (two 60kph and one 80kph speed limit) along the length of Waimate North Road, with the boundaries of those speed limits indicating a clear change in the road environment.  The changes in speed limits are not expected to be confusing as they are associated with changes in the road environment, and as such are consistent with Speed Management Guidance 2016.

The overall length of the two 60kph and the 80kph zone are significantly longer than the minimum distance required for each speed zone and would therefore meet Speed Management Guidance standards.

Option 3 is the preferred option.    

Option 4

A few submitters requested that Waimate North Road be made 60kph for its entire length.  The overall rationale highlighted by submitters included the historic nature of Waimate North Road and the surrounding landscape.  The lower speed limit would enable the road to be promoted as a scenic route rather than a commuter and arterial route.

Submitters also highlighted that, since becoming sealed, Waimate North Road has become a higher speed commuter route between Kerikeri and Kaikohe.  The proposed reduction in speed along Te Ahu Ahu Road (which was supported) would have the effect of shifting more traffic onto Waimate North Road, which is an unwanted outcome.

Reducing the speed limit along the full length of Waimate North Road would result in a speed limit that does not reflect the road environment for a significant portion of the road and therefore would not be credible.  This is expected to lead to a high level of non-compliance.  

6.1.3    Recommendation

It is recommended that the proposed 60kph zone be extended from SH10 to an appropriate distance to the south of Valencia Lane.  An 80kph zone be set from Valencia Lane to a point at approximately 660 Waimate North Road and a 60kph speed limit from that point to the intersection with Te Ahu Ahu Road.  

6.2    Waiare Road

Waiare Road forms a connection from State Highway 10 to State Highway 1 and provides access to Puketi Forest.  The road is utilised by heavy goods vehicles, including logging trucks, tankers and tourist buses.  The road is also utilised by tourist vehicles such as campervans that are accessing Puketi Forest, as well as local traffic.

Waiare Road was considered in three sections:

·    Waiare Road from State Highway 10 to Upokorau Road (northern sealed section)

·    Waiare Road from Upokorau Road to 50m north of Puketi Road (unsealed Section)

·    Waiare Road from 50m north of Puketi Road to State Highway 1 (southern sealed section)

6.2.1    Community Feedback - Waiare Road

Two submitters supported a reduction in speed and eight opposed.  One submitter sought a speed limit of 80kph, although it is uncertain if this related only to the sealed sections or the road as a whole.

One submitter stated that the sealed section of this road can handle between 80kph and 100kph.

Submitters that supported the proposed speed limits highlighted that many sections of Waiare Road are hazardous to drive.  Speed limits should be reduced from 100kph to 60kph, especially where the road narrows and there is no shoulder.

Submitters also noted that the road is winding with few areas to pull over.  There are 3 one-way bridges; visibility of oncoming traffic is nil or limited on many corners; and vehicles are often trucks, or vehicles with trailers and agricultural machinery.

Eight submitters opposed the proposed lower speed limits, providing the following reasoning: 

·    The road is mainly straight and good visibility, it makes no sense to reduce the speed limit on this road (note: it is assumed this comment relates to the sealed sections).

·    The issue is not speed, it is that the road is too narrow.  Roads should be widened.

·    Reducing the speed limit won't affect crash or fatal crash occurrences as the problem is road surface and condition.  Widen and repair instead.

·    The North is known to be a low socio-economic area.  Reducing the speed will result in more fines, penalties and loss of demerit points, for families already struggling.

6.2.2    Analysis – Waiare Road

Waiare Road connects the Okaihau Settlement with State Highway 10 in the north.  Waiare Road winds along the southern boundary of Puketi Forest and provides access to the forest.  The northern section of the road that connects to State highway 10 is sealed and has two lanes with a marked centre line.  The sealed section gives way to unsealed road at Upokorau Road.  The unsealed road continues through to the intersection with Puketi Road, where the road becomes a two-lane sealed road again.

The unsealed section of Waiare Road is generally narrow, torturous and often has limited visibility.  The road follows a river and is cut into an embankment in places.  Where this occurs, there is no shoulder on either side of the road, and there are steep embankments.

A speed in excess of 60kph is unattainable on large parts of the unsealed part of the road.  Exceeding 60kph would require the utilisation of the entire carriageway, and given the limited visibility, such driving behaviour would be considered dangerous or reckless.

Crash data for Waiare Road indicate consistent reported crashes along the southern sealed sections of Waiare Road.  There is a medium to high personal risk of crashing on this road.  This indicates that the current speed limit of 100kph is inappropriate.

An 80kph speed limit on the sealed sections of Waiare Road would maintain consistency with other similar roads in the area and would better match the current operating speed on the road.

6.2.3    Recommendation

It is recommended that a speed limit of:

·    80kph be set on Waiare Road from State Highway 10 to Upokorau Rd (northern sealed section)

·    60kph be set on Waiare Road from Upokorau Rd to 50m north of Puketi Road (unsealed Section)

·    80kph be set on Waiare Road from 50m north of Puketi Road to State Highway 1 (southern sealed section)

6.3    Wiroa Road

Wiroa Road forms an important east-west linkage and commuter route from Kerikeri to Kaikohe, as well as providing access to Far North’s main Airport.  Wiroa Road was considered in two sections:

·    From the round-about intersection with State Highway 10 to 50m southwest of Kerikeri Airport Entrance

·    From 50m southwest of Kerikeri Airport Entrance to Waiare Road

6.3.1    Community Feedback – Wiroa Road from State Highway 10 to Kerikeri Airport

Two submitters supported the proposed new speed limit and six were opposed.

Submitters were opposed the speed reduction from 80km to 60km because it is the main route and it will make driving to Kerikeri from Okaihau slower.

Submitters suggested that the road needed widening instead of lowering the speed limit.  They also noted that it is very busy with commuters and every day local traffic. 

Most drivers travel at 100kph as it is safe to do so, and slow down for corners where it is not. This is no different from any other road and as such a reduction in speed limits is not supported.

6.3.2    Community Feedback – Wiroa Road from Kerikeri Airport to Waiare Road

Two submitters supported the proposed new speed limit and six were opposed.

Submitters stated that the road is a main thoroughfare with a lot of traffic, both commuter and heavy vehicle. Reducing the speed limit will not affect crash or fatal crash occurrences as the problem is road surface and condition. Council should widen and repair the road instead of lowering the speed limit.

One submitter did not support the reduction in speed limits because most drivers travel at 100kph as it is safe to do so, and slow down for corners where it is not safe. This is no different from any other road.

Submitters stated that a speed reduction from 100kph to 80kph will make driving to Kerikeri from Okaihau slower. Concern was also expressed that enforcement would adversely affect low income families.

 

6.3.3    Analysis – Wiroa Road from State Highway 10 to Kerikeri Airport

Wiroa Road from State Highway 10 to the Kerikeri Airport has a ‘safe and appropriate speed’ assessment of 60-70kph.  The current operating speed that most vehicles travel at is 60-80km/h.  Overall, the desired speed along this section of road is 70-90km/h, which is above, or at the upper end of both the ‘safe and appropriate speed’ and the current operating speed.  This variance indicates that lowering the speed limit is appropriate and will have an insignificant effect on travel times.

Wiroa Road from the roundabout at State Highway 10 to the Kerikeri Airport is characterised by rural residential and medium density commercial land uses. The overall environment has changed over time from a rural countryside feel to more of an urban feel.  This is based on growth in the number of dwellings and business that have direct access onto the road.

Wiroa Road is part of a tourism byway for wineries and is the main access Kerikeri Airport, which is the Far North and Bay of Islands main airport.  As such, it is expected a high proportion of drivers will be unfamiliar with the road and the general surrounds.

Growth in the area will increase the urbanisation of Wiroa Road from State Highway 10 to the Airport, increasing the likelihood that this section of the road will become part of wider Kerikeri town. 

Adopting a more urban speed limit of 60kph is appropriate given the current and expected future road environment.  However, in adopting a 60kph speed limit from State Highway 10 to the Airport will require ‘engineering down’ to support the lower speed limit.  Engineering work can be staged; change speed limit to 60km/h now, programme the upgrades (footpath or shared path and kerb & channel) over the next 5-10 years.

It is also recognised that, in adopting a 60kph speed limit, there will be some inconsistency with the current 80kph speed limit along Kerikeri Road.  It is anticipated that, when reviewed, it will be recommended that Kerikeri Road be lowered to 60kph.  A permanent lowering of Kerikeri Road speed limit cannot be undertaken until an appropriate level of consultation is undertaken within the next 12 months.

6.3.3.1    Recommendation

It is recommended that the speed limit for Wiroa Road, from State Highway 10 to a point 50m west of Kerikeri Airport access be set at 60kph; and that Far North District Council plan for engineering interventions to match the road to a more urbanised road environment (engineer down).

6.3.4    Analysis - Wiroa Road from Kerikeri Airport to Waiare Road

Wiroa Road, from the Kerikeri Airport through to Waiare Road forms an important east west linkage between State Highways for those travelling or commuting between Kerikeri and Kaikohe.

With regard to increased travel times, the distance from Waimate North Road to Waiare Rd via Wiroa Road is approximately 7.5km.  Over 7.5km, the difference between travelling at a consistent 100kph and a consistent 80kph is approximately 45seconds. 

West of the Kerikeri Airport entrance, Wiroa Road quickly transitions into a more rural and remote rural environment.  Although some development is likely over time, the current District Plan does not give rise to any expectation of substantive development in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Wiroa Road from the intersection with Waimate North Road through to Waiare Road is one of the top 10% roads identified by NZTA with disproportionally high death and serious injury accidents.  A lower speed limit that better matches the road environment and the assessed safe and appropriate speed of 80kph is expected to have a positive impact on the number and severity of speed related crashes.

The operating speed on this section of Wiroa Road is approximately 90kph which is consistent with similar roads within the review area.  An 80kph speed limit would have little effect on the average driver that is travelling close to the operating speed.  However, research indicates that a lower speed limit will reduce the high-end speed, making the road safer for all users.

‘Engineering up’ is an option to increase the safe and appropriate speed to 100kph. NTA Staff do not support this option due to the high cost and the very limited benefits in terms of reduced travel times.

6.3.5    Recommendation

It is recommended that the speed limit for Wiroa Road; from 50m west of Kerikeri Airport access to Waiare Road be set at 80kph        

6.4    Te Ahu Ahu Road

Te Ahu Ahu Road forms an important east-west linkage between State Highway 10 and State Highway 1.  Te Ahu Ahu Road was considered in two sections:

·    State Highway 10 to Old Bay Road

·    Old Bay Road to State Highway 1

6.4.1    Community Feedback – Te Ahu Ahu Road – State Highway 10 to Old Bay Road

Seven submitters supported the proposed new speed limit; four submitters partially supported the proposal but sought a different speed limit; six submitters opposed any change.

Submitters opposed to the lowering of the speed limit requested that the speed limit should remain at 100kph to encourage traffic to use Te Ahu Ahu Road rather than the more winding Waimate North Road between Kerikeri and Kaikohe.

Those opposed also stated that the road was straight and had low residential volume and therefore should remain at 100kph.  Submitters noted that most of the road can easily be driven between 80 and 100kph, although there are areas where it is necessary to slow down to below 80kph.

Submitters supporting an 80kph speed limit stated that 80km is an appropriate speed for this road which has high volumes of traffic at times, school children and school buses and is used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders.  Submitters noted that it is extremely dangerous for walking at present with the 100km speed limit.

One submitter noted that the proposed speed limit could be lower than 80km from the Waimate North Road turn-off until Waikuku Road.  60 km would be preferable in this area due to the high volume of walkers, cyclists, tourists visiting Te Waimate Mission and school children walking to and from the bus stops.  The submitter also noted that in summer, there are many extra vehicles with tourists and cyclists stopping and turning around in this stretch of road.  This poses a real safety risk.

The submitter stated that many stretches of the road are hazardous to drive as it is a winding road with few areas along the road to pull over.  There are three one-way bridges. Visibility of oncoming traffic is nil or limited on many corners.  There are also a significant number of trucks and vehicles with trailers and agricultural machinery using the road.

6.4.2    Community Feedback – Te Ahu Ahu Road – Old Bay Road to State Highway 1

Eight submitters supported the proposed reduction in speed with a further two partially supporting the proposal.  Six submitters opposed a reduction in the speed limit.

Submissions supporting a lower speed limit included two submitters who sought a speed limit of 60kph; one submitter who sought 70kph; with the remaining supportive submissions seeking 80kph.

Overall, submitters made similar comments to the section of Te Ahu Ahu Road from SH10 to Old Bay Road.

Submitters opposing a lowered speed limit highlighted that Te Ahu Ahu Road from Old Bay Road is a main thoroughfare.  There is a lot of traffic, both commuter and heavy vehicles. Submitters believed that reducing the speed limit will not affect crash or fatal crash occurrences as the problem is road surface and condition and that the road should be widened and repair instead.

Submitters also requested that the speed limit remain at 100kph to encourage traffic to use Te Ahu Ahu Road rather than the more winding Waimate North road between Kerikeri and Kaikohe.

6.4.3    Te Ahu Ahu Road Analysis

A further review of Te Ahu Ahu Road has revealed similar issues for both sections of the road.  As such, the following assessment applies to the entire road.

Some submitters expressed concern that lowering the speed limit would have the effect of re-directing more traffic along Waimate North Road, which they considered undesirable for a range of reasons.  This specific issue is also addressed in Section 6.1 of this Report.

Te Ahu Ahu Road is one of the top 10% roads identified by NZTA with disproportionally high death and serious injury accidents.  A lower speed limit that better matches the road environment and the assessed safe and appropriate speed of 80kph is expected to have a positive impact on the number and severity of speed related crashes.

The operating speed on Te Ahu Ahu Road is approximately 90kph which is consistent with similar roads within the review area.  An 80kph speed limit would have little effect on the average driver that is travelling close to the operating speed.  However, research indicates that a lower speed limit will reduce the high-end speed, making the road safer for all users.

Given the proposed changes to speed limits on Waimate North Road, it is considered unlikely that drivers will be effectively re-directed onto Waimate North Road as a result of a lower speed limit on Te Ahu Ahu Road.  Waimate North Road is longer, more winding and lower speed limits at the northern and southern end of Waimate North Road have been recommended (refer 6.1).

It is noted that the Kaikohe Christian School (Waimate Campus) is located on Te Ahu Ahu Road near the intersection with Waimate North Road.  Speed limit issues for Kaikohe Christian School have been addressed in 5.1.3 (above) and recommendations do not give rise to any changes in the recommendation for Te Ahu Ahu Road as a whole.

‘Engineering up’ is an option to increase the safe and appropriate speed to 100kph. NTA Staff do not support this option due to the high cost and the very limited benefits in terms of reduced travel times.

6.4.4    Recommendation

It is recommended that the speed limit for Te Ahu Ahu Road be set at 80kph.

 

7    Summary of submissions received and recommendations (road by road)

All submissions have been read and considered before recommending new speed limits.  Submissions were broken down to comments on individual roads wherever possible.  Summary information is provided in the following tables, including:

·    Road name

·    Current posted speed limit

·    Proposed speed limit (as set out in the Statement of Proposal)

·    A summary of the feedback received

·    Northland Transportation Alliance Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

·    Recommended new speed limit

The summarised Northland Transportation Alliance Road Safety Engineer comments, and the resulting recommended speed limit, are made having considered:

·    The initial assessment of the road

·    Evidence based matters that are required to be considered under Section 4.2(2) of the setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 and set out in the ‘Technical Report Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area’; as referenced in the Statement of Proposal and published on Council’s Website.

·    Community feedback received during the consultation process

·    Additional site visits and assessments undertaken as a result of the community feedback received

 


Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Amuri Road

100

60

Amuri road is a Private Road

Confirmed as a Private Road – the RCA has no jurisdiction.  However, a 60kph speed limit is advised.

Nil

Bullman Road

100

60

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate.

60

Caprine Road

100

60

One submitter supported 80kph

Caprine Road is a very narrow, unsealed access road with little or no shoulder area.  Visibility is limited on parts of this road.  Further engineering assessment indicates that a 40kph speed limit is appropriate.  

40

Courthouse Lane

100

60

Four submitters sought 40kph, with one submitter each seeking a speed limit of 50, 60 and 80kph.  Lower speed limits were sought as dust is a major issue.  The road is also narrow with concealed driveways, and is utilised by horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians.

Courthouse Lane is a minor access road.  An 80kph speed limit would not reflect the narrow, unsealed road environment.  Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment.  Given the overall road environment, and its access role, 40kph speed limit can be supported.  

40

Daroux Drive

100

60

Support a lower speed limit of 40kph for car and pedestrian safety. Daraoux Road is narrow and cannot safely accommodate pedestrians and vehicles let alone trucks.  High numbers of truck movements from rural production activity causing safety issues.

Daroux Drive is a popular route for those walking with children, dogs and horses. There is a significant dust nuisance that causes a health hazard to those walking on the road and living nearby.  There are several proposed subdivisions that will increase traffic.

Daroux Drive is an unsealed access road.  Initial sections of Daroux Drive could sustain a 60kph speed limit.  However, within a short distance, the road becomes very narrow and of poor quality and resembles a farm track.

40kph speed limit can be supported for the length of Daroux Drive.

40

Glendale Heights

100

 

No feedback received

This is a private road

N/A

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Herbert Road

100

40

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate.

40

Ironbark Road

100

60

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate.

60

Jennings Road

100

60

60kph supported as children use the road. There are commercial orchards along Jennings Road with big trucks coming in daily these as well as school buses and children.

Proposed speed limit appropriate.

60

Jenkins Road

100

60

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate.

60

Kahikatearoa Lane

50

50

Two submitters supported the proposed speed limit.  Parking of trucks on the left-hand side of the road can be an issue at peak traffic times.

This is an urban commercial zone. Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

50

Karaka Road

100

40

One submitter supported the proposed speed limit but did not provide further comment.

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

40

Klinac Lane

50

50

Three submitters supported the proposal, with one submitter seeking a 30kph speed limit.

A 30kph zone would normally be set in a highly pedestrianised environment.  This is an urban commercial zone with limited pedestrian activity.  Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

50

Koranae Road

100

60

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate.

60

Koropewa Road

100

60

One submitter supported a lowering of the speed limit but sought a 50kph speed limit.

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment. 

60

Lodore Road

100

60

One submitter supported a lowering of the speed limit but sought a 80kph speed limit.

An unsealed road with a wide carriageway with gentle curves.  Consistency of speed limits on unsealed roads is a determining factor.

60

Lodore Road East

100

60

One submitter supported a lowering of the speed limit but sought a 80kph speed limit.

This is a short unsealed, straight road.  It has a narrow carriageway.

60

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Mangakaretu Road from Puketotara Rd to north of Tyree Rd (Sealed Section)

100

80

One submitter was partially opposed to a change of speed limit on Mangakaretu Road as a whole.  Supported 80kph on the sealed section of the road

The proposed 80kph speed limit relates to the sealed section of the road.  Proposed speed limit appropriate.

80

Mangakaretu Road from north of Tyree Rd to Puketotara Rd (Unsealed Section)

100

60

One submitter opposed the change of speed limit on the basis that a fixed 60kph is too slow.  Another submitter supported a 60kph speed limit.

A site visit re-assessed this road and it was considered that, a speed limit of 60kph was appropriate as the unsealed section is utilised largely for access only.

60

Manuwai Lane

100

40

Two submitters sought a speed limit of 50kph but did not provide further comment.

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment.  National guidance indicates that the speed limit for this road should either be 60kph or 40kph.  A site visit indicated that a 60kph speed limit is inappropriate for this road. 

40

Maritime Lane

50

50

Two submitters supported the proposed speed limit.

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

50

McLeod Road

50

60

Submitters sought speed limits of 50, 60 and 80kph.  The submitter seeking a 50kph speed limit noted blind corners and dangerous visibility issues due to trees on verge.

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment.  Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

60

Montrose Road

100

80

Three submitters sought a lower speed limit of 50kph and two sought 60kph.  Submitters highlighted dust as an issue and that the road is windy and unsafe at higher speeds. 

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment.  Montrose Road is an unsealed, winding access road and a speed limit of 60kph is consistent with other unsealed roads of similar nature.  A lower speed limit will have an improved dust outcome. 

60


 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Ness Road from Waipapa West Rd to Shirley Rd

100

80

Submitters supported a lower speed limit of 80kph noting the tight corners on the road. Submitters also noted that the neighbourhood has developed, and car numbers have increased making walking/ cycling and exercising animals less safe due to traffic speed/or excess speed

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

80

Ness Road from Shirley Rd

100

80

Submitters supported a lower speed limit of 80kph noting the tight corners on the road. Submitters also noted that the neighbourhood has developed, and car numbers have increased making walking/ cycling and exercising animals less safe due to traffic speed/or excess speed

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

80

Ngapuhi Road

100

60

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

60

Okokako Road

100

60

Submitters supported a reduction in the speed limit, with one submitter seeking 40kph, two seeking 50kph and one seeking 80kph.  The submitter seeking 50kph noted that the road is narrow and unsealed with children on bikes and stock being moved.

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment.

 

60

Old Bay Road

100

80

Two submitters supported the proposed 80kph speed limit, with an additional one submitter seeking a significantly lower speed limit of 40kph.

Six submitters opposed any reduction in the speed limit, noting that the road can handle between 80 and 100kph and as such should stay at 100kph.

Old Bay Road provides a linkage between State Highway 1 and State Highway 10.  The average operating speed on the road is less than 100kph and therefore a 100kph speed limit is considered too high.

80

Old Valley Road

50

60

One submitter sought a speed limit of 70kph but provided no reasoning for this.

70kph is a speed limit that is discouraged under national guidance unless there is compelling evidence, favouring 60kph or 80kph.  Old Valley Road is unsealed, as such, 80kph is considered inappropriate.

60

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Onekura Road from Pungaere Rd to Daroux Drive

100

80

No community feedback

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

80

Onekura Road from Daroux Dr to road end

100

60

No community feedback

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

60

Oromahoe School Road

100

60

Submitters supported a lowering of the speed limit, with submitters seeking 50, 60 or 80kph speed limits.  Submitters noted that a lower speed limit of 60kph would be good for children.

An additional site visit was undertaken, and the road reviewed with consideration of the Governments newly released “Road to Zero” Strategy.  Given the overall access nature of the road, and narrow unsealed character (including single lane bridge and lack of shoulder for pedestrians) it was considered that 40kph would be appropriate to align with a school speed zone.  

40

Otaere Road

100

60

One submitter sought an 80kph speed limit on this road.

Otaere Road is a narrow, winding unsealed road that is principally used for access.  The proposed 60kph is consistent with proposed speed limits on similar roads.

60

Pataka Lane

50

50

Two submitters supported the proposal.

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

50

Poplar Lane

50

50

No feedback received

Poplar Lane is a very short lane that provides access to rural residential properties.

50

Porotu Road

100

60

One submitter sought an 80kph speed limit on this road.

Porotu Road is a narrow, windy unsealed road with a limited shoulder width.  The proposed 60kph is consistent with proposed speed limits on similar roads.

60

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Pukepoto Road

100

60

Submitters supported a lowering of the speed limit, but suggested 70kph and 80kph.

70kph is a speed limit that is discouraged under national guidance unless there is compelling evidence, favouring 60kph or 80kph.  Pukepoto Road is unsealed, winding and has a very narrow lane width.  60kph is considered appropriate.

60

Puketi Road

100

60

Two submitters supported a reduction in speed limit, with one seeking 80kph.  Two submitters opposed any reduction in speed limit.

Puketi Rd - The reduction of our speed limit on this road from 100km/h to 60km/h has been widely and strongly criticized by the community on the southern end of Puketi Rd. There is no evidence supporting your claim that Puketi Rd is not safe at the 100km speed limit with one non-injury crash reported in 20 years.  Reducing the speed limit by 40km/h on our road would prove unbelievably irritating for all who use it. The overwhelming majority of fatal crashes from 2013-2018 are shown to be on the state highways in Northland,

Officially reported crashes are reported through the NZ Police.  Statistics do not include un-reported speed related crashes where cars are recovered by local people.

Puketi Road is a narrow winding unsealed road with very narrow shoulders that are often absent.  A speed of 100kph is unattainable along much of the road length.  80kph is considered a dangerous speed where the winding corners cannot be safely negotiated.   A site visit indicated that a safe driving speed on this road is often below 60kph, when allowing for potential oncoming traffic and maintaining control when cornering.

60


 

 

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Puketotara Road from SH10 to Mangakaretu Rd

100

80

Two submitters supported the lower speed limit, with one submitter seeking a 60kph speed limit.  One submitter opposed the lower speed limit and sought the retention of 100kph.

One submitter sought the retention of the 100kph limit from SH10 to 1st current 'temporary' 80kph sign.

One submitter noted that the section of road that is currently temporarily 80kph: should be 60kph - too many drivers go down and up the windy stretch and there are frequent, unreported incidents of cars going into the ditches.

The road is sealed.  Curves on this road are relatively sweeping.

A 60kph speed limit does not match the current road environment and would require “engineering down”.

Proposed speed limit appropriate. 

80

Puketotara Road from Mangakaretu Rd to Waiare Rd.

100

60

One submitter supported the proposed 60kph speed limit and two submitters sought an 80kph speed limit.

The road narrows soon after the Mangakaretu Road intersection and then reverts to an unsealed road that is narrow, winding and has a very limited shoulder area.

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

60

Pungaere Road from SH10 to Ngapuhi Rd

100

80

One submitter supported the proposed new speed limit and one submitter was opposed.

The submitter supporting the lower speed limit noted that Pungaere Road from SH10 to 120m south of Glendale Heights (end of seal) should be 80kph as there are lots of driveways and the current speed limit of 100kph is unsafe.

Pungaere Road from SH10 to Ngapuhi Rd is a secondary collector road with a medium high personal risk rating, based on recorded crashes.

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

80

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Pungaere Road from Ngapuhi Rd to Waiare Rd

100

60

One submitter supports the proposed speed limit and another submitter is seeking an 80kph speed limit.

Submitters noted that the unsealed section of Pungaere Road is dangerous for tourists and the dust is killing the residents.  The submitter notes that they have towed many tourists out of ditches and fences due to the gravel.

A lower speed limit may have the outcome of reducing dust nuisance for residents.  Travel times will not be significantly affected as the practical speed on this road is significantly lower than 100kph.

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

60

Riverstream Drive

100

60

Two submitters supported the proposed speed limit, with two additional submitters supporting different speed limits (40 and 80kph).

Submitters noted that 60kph is still to high for this road and 40kph would be more appropriate.  The road is rural residential with an increased number of children.  There are no footpaths; a narrow bridge with poor visibility at both ends and nowhere safe to walk across.

It was also noted that this is a no-exit access only road and many people like to walk on this road and there is no pavement. Motorbikes and cars “hoon” up and down this road especially in the summer.

Riverstream Drive is a residential access road.  The road itself is sealed; but has no road markings and the carriageway is narrow.

A slower speed than that originally proposed is appropriate.

40

Sandys Road

100

80

Three submitters supported a lower speed limit. With one of those submitters seeking a lower 60kph speed limit as the road is often used as a “speedway”.

A site visit determined that the proposed speed limit of 80kph is appropriate.  However, once beyond the last house (No238, near Kirikiri Lane) the road is exclusively used to access Lake Manuwai recreation area.  A speed limit of 40km/h would be appropriate for the last section of road.

80 and

40 from Number 238 Sandys Road to end of road.

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Saward Road

100

60

One submitter supported the lower speed limit, whilst two submitters sought a speed limit of 80kph.

A further site visit has shown that a 60kph speed limit is appropriate for the road environment.  Saward Road is a very narrow unsealed road that is utilised for access only.  The lack of shoulder and carriageway width on this road would require opposing cars to slow and pull off the carriageway to pass each other.

60

Scott Road

100

60

One submitter supported the lower speed limit, whilst one submitter sought a speed limit of 80kph

A further site visit has shown that a 60kph speed limit is appropriate for the road environment.  Scott Road is a very narrow unsealed road that is utilised for access only.  The lack of shoulder and carriageway width on this road would require opposing cars to slow and pull off the carriageway to pass each other.

60

Shirley Road

100

60

One submitter supported the lower speed limit, whilst one submitter sought a speed limit of 80kph.

Shirley Road is a narrow (unmarked) sealed access road for rural residential activities.  The road is relatively short and has no exit.

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

60

 


 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Signal Road

100

60

No feedback received

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

60

Skippers Lane

50

50

No feedback received

No change proposed

50

Te Ahu Ahu Road from SH10 to Old Bay Rd

100

80

Seven submitters supported the proposed new speed limit, four submitters partially supported, but sought a different speed limit and six submitters opposed any change.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.4.

 

Refer to Section 6.4 for recommendations and analysis.

80

Te Ahu Ahu Road from Old Bay Rd to SH1

100

80

Eight submitters supported the proposed reduction in speed with a further two partially supporting the proposal.  Six submitters opposed a reduction in the speed limit.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.4.

Refer to Section 6.4 for recommendations and analysis.

80

Topps Access Road

100

60

One submitter sought a speed limit of 80kph; one submitter opposed any reduction in speed limit, seeking the retention of 100kph.

Topps Access Road is a very narrow, single lane, unsealed access road.

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

60

Tyree Road

100

60

One submitter sought a speed limit of 80kph

Tyree road is a very short access road used for moderate density residential land-use.  The carriageway is very narrow, catering for single vehicles only.  There is no road marking.

The proposed speed limit is appropriate.

60


 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Upokorau Road

100

60

Two submitters sought a speed limit of 80kph

Upokorau Road is a very narrow unsealed road that has torturous curves.  Visibility around many curves is severely limited.  There are steep drop-offs at the edge of the road, often with little or no shoulder width.  A speed of 80kph is considered unattainable on this road.

On many parts of this road, a speed of 40kph would be considered excessive with limited opportunity to reach 60kph.

40

Valencia Lane

100

80

Ten submitters supported a lowering of the speed limit, with one submitter each seeking 40, 50 and 70kph, and three submitters seeking 60kph.

Submitters requested a speed limit lower than 80kph for the following reasons:

Valencia Lane has become increasingly built-up with increased volume of traffic.

Pedestrian safety – There is no safe provision for pedestrians especially for children walking to and from the school bus on Waimate North Road. Most people walking are walking on the road. There have been a lot of near misses, particularly with pedestrians on this road.

There is limited visibility and sunstrike on the road with variable width and camber. And there is no centre lines and a single lane bridge. 

A long-time resident stated that the fastest speed limit should be 50-60 kph.

Valencia Lane is predominantly rural residential, with new subdivision development.  The road has no exit and is therefore access only.

The rural residential nature of the road and the location of the School Bus Stop significantly increases the pedestrian, cyclist and other non-motorised use of the road.

60kph is an appropriate speed limit for this road.

 

60


 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Valencia Lane from Waingaro Lane

100

80

Four submitters partially support the lowered speed limit; but request different speed limits with one submitter each requesting 40 and 50kph and two submitters requesting 60kph.

Submitters raised the same concerns as for the remainder of Valencia Lane

Valencia Lane changes character at Waingaro Lane.  To maintain a consistent and appropriate speed limit along the length of Valencia Lane in line with the recommended decision on the other section of Valencia Lane – a 60kph speed limit is recommended.

60

Waiare Road from State Highway 10 to Upokorau Rd (end of seal)

100

80

Two submitters supported a reduction in speed and eight opposed.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.2.

 

For analysis and recommendations, refer to Section 6.2 above.

 

80

Waiare Road from Upokorau Rd to 50m north of Puketi Road (Unsealed Section)

100

60

Two submitters supported a reduction in speed and eight opposed.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.2.

For analysis and recommendations, refer to Section 6.2 above.

 

60

Waiare Road from 50m north of Puketi Road to State Highway 1

100

80

Two submitters supported a reduction in speed and eight opposed.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.2.

For analysis and recommendations, refer to Section 6.2 above.

 

80

Waikaramu Road

100

60

One submitter sought a speed limit of 40kph but did not provide additional reasoning.

The road is unsealed, and in most cases the carriageway is narrow, with areas that have a limited shoulder area.  Curves are generally relatively gentle and connected by straight sections of road.

60kph is an appropriate speed limit for this road.

60


 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Waikopiro Lane

100

60

No feedback received

Proposed speed limit appropriate

60

Waikuku Road

100

60

Submitters supported a lower speed limit, with two submitters seeking 40, 50 or 60kph and one submitter seeking 70kph.

Submitters noted that Waikuku Rd is a very narrow unsealed road.  Recent development has seen an increase in houses and traffic. There are more driveway exits entrances.

Submitters seeking a lower 40kph limit stated that 40kph is an appropriate speed for the road which is unsealed with a dust hazard for residents in summer. The road is narrow, with concealed driveways, stock movements, horse riders, pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic movements are increasing because of subdivision of land.

Dust is an issue.

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment.  

70kph is a speed limit that is discouraged under national guidance unless there is compelling evidence, favouring 60kph or 80kph.  It should be noted that 80kph is an unsafe speed on this road and is unlikely to be attainable – as such 80kph is not being considered.

 

60

Waimate North Road from SH10 to 50m south of Amuri Rd

100

60

14 submitters supported the lower speed limit and one opposed.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.1.

For options and recommendations, refer to Section 6.1 above.

 

Refer 6.1 above

Waimate North Road from 50m south of Amuri Rd to Te Ahu Ahu Road

100

80

14 submitters supported the lower speed limit and one opposed.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.1.

For options and recommendations, refer to Section 6.1 above.

 

Refer 6.1 above


 

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Waipapa Loop Road

50

50

Two submitters supported the proposed “no change” to this road.

Proposed speed limit appropriate

50

Waipapa West Road

100

80

One submitter sought to retain the current 100kph speed limit.

Submitters supported a lower speed limit of 80kph noting the tight corners on the road. Submitters also noted that the area has developed, and car numbers have increased making walking/ cycling and exercising animals less safe due to traffic speed/or excess speed.

Waipapa West Road leads directly onto Ness Road, which has a proposed speed limit of 80kph. 

There is no significant change in the road environment from Waipapa West Road onto Ness Road.  A consistent speed limit is therefore appropriate.

80

Wehirua Road

100

80

Wehirua Road is reasonably straight and a fairly good road. The issue is that it is narrow.  There is plenty of room on the verge for widening the road.

I have for the last 10 years, run the Okaihau Breakfast Club. When I get there at 8am to setup, there are already children waiting outside the School - their parents have to drop them off early to get to work in Keri on time. Reducing the speed will ensure these kids have to be dropped to School even earlier.

The North is known to be a low socio-economic area - I'm concerned that reducing the speed on fairly decent roads such as ours, will result in more fines, penalties and loss of demerit points, for families already struggling.

Wehirua Road is a relatively short (1.9km) two lane undivided, sealed road connecting Waiare Road with SH 1

There is a significant shift in the road environment from the State Highway (100kph) to Wehirua Road, with the smaller local road being significantly narrower that the State Highway.

The Wehirua Road and Waiare Road environment is similar, so speed limits should also be similar. A consistent speed limit is therefore appropriate.

The difference in travelling 80kph vs 100kph over 2km is approximately 18seconds.

80

 

Road Name

Current Speed Limit

Proposed Speed Limit

Community Feedback

NTA Road Safety Engineer (Team Lead) comments and recommendations

New Speed Limit

Whakataha Road

100

60

Two submitters supported the proposed lower speed limit, with a further two submitters seeking a 50kph speed limit and four seeking a 40kph speed limit.

The road is narrow and unsealed and heavily used by large agricultural traffic and marae users, as well as residents.

There is increased subdivision on the road.

Because the greater part of the road appears to be straight, some users travel at unsafe high speeds.

The road is frequently used by pedestrians, including school children walking up to Te Ahu Ahu Rd bus stop, and riders on horseback and some cyclists

Dust is currently a health hazard and reduced speed would greatly assist in reducing this problem, which occurs any time there are a few days without rain, including winter.

40km is an appropriate speed for this road.

Setting of Speed Limits Guidance only allows for a 50kph speed limit with an urban environment. 

Whakataha Road is a narrow, unsealed, access only road with no exit.  Vehicles using this road are expected to be local vehicles accessing properties. 

The shoulder area is very narrow, and in some areas, there is virtually no shoulder.  Opposing cars would need to slow significantly to pass each other.

A lower speed limit would be appropriate for this road.  

 

60

Wiroa Road from SH10 to 50m southwest of Kerikeri Airport Entrance (current 100km/hr transition)

80

60

Two submitters supported the proposed new speed limit and six opposed it.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.3.

Refer to Section 6.3 for recommendations and analysis.

60

 

Wiroa Road from 50m southwest of Kerikeri Airport Entrance to Waiare Rd

100

80

Two submitters supported the proposed new speed limit and six opposed it.

For further community feedback, refer to Section 6.3.

Refer to Section 6.3 for recommendations and analysis.

 

80


 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1:  Recommended Speed Limit Maps

 

 

Note: The Speed Limit Map contained within this Appendix is indicative only.  Once Council confirms that recommended speed limits in this Report, the attached maps will be updated utilising RAMM mapping data and incorporated into the overall mapping of the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019.  This may result in minor changes to the indicative map in this Report.  These changes are expected to be only in the order of meters.

The minor changes to the map is a result of identifying the optimal position of new signage and the accuracy required by the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.  Accurate location of signage has been delayed due to the Covid-19 emergency.



 

 

Appendix 2:  Technical Report Okaihau – Kaeo – Waimate North Review Area

 

Note: this Report is attached separately.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3:  Statement of Proposal

 

 

Note:   This Report is attached separately


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4 – Traffic Note 37 and 56 Variable Speed Limits Outside Schools

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Speed Limit Review

Implementation Costs

Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Table of Contents

·         Table of Contents  2

·         1                                                                                                                                                                                           Overview  3

·         2                                                                                                                                              Giving effect to new speed limits  3

·         3                                                                                                                                                                           Required signage  4

· 3.1      New change in speed limit signs  4

· 3.2      Repeater Signs  4

· 3.3      Removal of existing signs  4

·         4                                                                                                                                  Threshold treatments and Line marking  4

· 4.1      Threshold Treatments (rural villages) 5

· 4.2      Line markings  5

· 4.3      Engineering Treatments  5

·         5                                                                                                                                                                                   Overall Costs  6

 


 

1    Overview

Far North District Council (Council) is a Road Controlling Authority (RCA) within the Far North District and has a statutory role in managing the District’s local roads (except State Highways), including the setting of speed limits.  This statutory role as an RCA is set out under the Land Transport Act 1998.  This role includes the maintenance and upgrade of all local roads and enduring that speed limits are set and can be enforced.

In its capacity of RCA, Far North District Council (Council) has completed a comprehensive review of speed limits within the Kaeo-Waimate North-Okaihau review area. 

A separate Report sets out the recommended new speed limits.  This Report provides an overview of the expected costs of implementing the new recommended speed limits.  The costs focus on the physical works required to ensure that speed limits are clear and enforceable throughout the review area.

2    Giving effect to new speed limits

There are a number of factors that are required to ensure that a speed limit is legally enforceable:

·    The Speed Limit must be set in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.  This has been achieved through the speed limit review process (including the associated consultation process).

·    New speed limits signage must be installed in accordance with Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 and relevant standards

·    Speed limit signage must match the operative speed limits set out in the Speed Limits Bylaw

In addition to signage, some engineering work may also be required to ensure that the adopted speed limit is self-explaining.  In many cases, this additional engineering work is not required for speed limit enforceability; but is required to ensure maximum compliance with the new speed limits and to maximise the road safety benefits.  This is a key principle in the Speed Management Guidance and the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.

Additional engineering work to achieve speed compliance ranges from minor changes to lane markings through to significant ‘engineering up’ of the road to ensure that the road environment matches the speed limit.  

Council engaged Northern Civil Consultants (NCC) to develop a cost estimate for implementing the speed limit changes.  This estimate included options for the staging of physical works.  Six main cost components are outlined in this Report:

1.   New change in speed limit signs

2.   Repeater signs

3.   Remove existing signs

4.   Threshold Treatments (rural villages)

5.   Lane markings

6.   Engineering Treatments

It is estimated that, within the Kaeo-Waimate-Okaihau Review Area, that 316 new signs will be required, which includes:

·    136 new speed limit change signs

·    112 threshold speed limit change signs

·    68 repeater signs on key through routes.

 

3    Required signage

3.1    New change in speed limit signs

Wherever a speed limit changes, it is a legal requirement to have a sign indicating the new speed limit.  Then sign must comply with the standards set out in the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.

It is estimated that 135 RG-1, 750mm diameter roundel signs on twin white wooden posts are required to denote each change in speed limit.

The estimated cost for new speed limit change signs is: $50,000 to $65,000.

3.2    Repeater Signs

Repeater signs are speed limit signs that are installed periodically along a road so that the driver is reminded of the current speed limit.  The spacing of the repeater signs depends on the speed limit of the road.  The Setting of speed Limits Rule 2017 identifies when repeater signs are required and at what spacing.  The Rule does provide some flexibility.  Where the following can be met, repeater signs can be omitted:

·    The road environment has not changed, and the road user would reasonably understand that the speed limit would be the same along the length of the road; and

·    The measured operating speed (average speed that 85% of vehicles actually travel) is less than 10% above the speed limit for that road (vehicles are driving at or below the speed limit anyway).

Staff have assessed all roads in accordance with the requirements of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 and the flexibility that it provides.  Repeaters are not required on most roads within the catchment, however, where roads have a high number of non-local drivers it is advisable to use repeaters, irrespective of the flexibility that the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 provides.  Having considered all of the legal requirements and best practice, it has been determined that the following roads require repeater signs: 

·    Wiroa Road

·    Waimate North Road (SH10 to Wiroa Road)

·    Wehirua Rd

·    Te Aha Ahu Road (SH10 to Old Bay Road)

·    Old Bay Road

It is estimated that 68 RG-1, 600mm diameter roundel signs on one white wooden post are required. 

The estimated cost for new repeater signs is $15,000 to $20,000.

3.3    Removal of existing signs

Existing signs that will require removal include all speed limit signs that are not consistent with the new speed limits and advisory signs that contradict the new speed limit.  This includes advisory signs indicating a maximum speed that a corner should be taken at, where the advised speed exceeds the posted speed limit. Where practical, removed signs will be re-used elsewhere to save overall costs.

It is estimated that between 200 and 300 signs will require removal.

The estimated cost for removing signs is $5,000 to $10,000.

4    Threshold treatments and Line marking

Line marking and threshold treatments assist the driver in understanding the speed limit and creating a self-explaining speed environment.  This leads to improved compliance with speed limits.

4.1    Threshold Treatments (rural villages)

Threshold treatments are normally a combination of engineering and signage that denote an entry into a new road environment such as a rural village environment where there is a predominance of residential dwellings and associated land-use.  Threshold treatments improve the effectiveness of a speed limit.

Within the review area, there are a number of smaller catchment areas that have a rural village form where either 40kph or 60kph speed limits have been recommended.  Threshold treatments are recommended in these areas to ensure the effectiveness of the posted speed limit.  Threshold treatments also contribute to a “sense of place” which also heightens driver awareness of potential hazards that may be present in a rural residential area, for example, pedestrians or vehicles entering the carriageway.

There are two levels of Threshold Treatment, with varying levels of effectiveness and cost:

·    Minimum treatment – gated threshold signs with village name and painted roundel on pavement.  Typical cost $3,000 to $5,0000 per site.

·    Higher Standard Treatment – gated signs with village name and painted roundel on pavement; and kerb channelized threshold. Typical cost is $20,000 to $30,000 per site.

There are 26 sites identified where Threshold Treatment will have a beneficial effect and is advised.  Provision of the higher standard of treatment is not financially viable within existing budgets.  It is therefore recommended that the minimum treatment option is taken for all 26 sites and the effectiveness of the treatment monitored for a period of 24 months.

It is estimated that the minimum threshold treatment for all 26 sites will require 112 signs consisting of:

·    56 gated threshold signs on twin white steel posts

·    56 RG-1 750mm diameter signs on the rear of threshold signs

The estimated cost for the minimum Threshold Treatment option is $120,000 to $200,000.

4.2    Line markings

Line markings help create a self-explaining speed environment by defining lane widths and centre lines.  Recommended lane widths are:

·    3.0m for speed limits of 60kph or lower

·    3.25m for speed limits of 80kph

·    3.5m for speed limits of 100kph

Not all sealed roads in the review area have edge-lines (lane makings).  Roads with edge-lines typically have lane widths of 3.5m or greater.  Edge line marking, including marking those that are currently missing and remarking where width adjustments are required, can be undertaken as part of the annual remark programme.  The additional cost of including this work in the annual work programme is minimal.

It is recommended that additional road marking be undertaken as part of the annual road marking programme.

4.3    Engineering Treatments

There are two types of engineering treatments in relation to speed management:

·    Engineering up – where engineering interventions are undertaken to make the road more suitable for a higher speed.  This may include widening of the road, easing curves and other safety interventions.

·    Engineering down – where engineering interventions are intended to slow traffic down closer to the posted speed limit.  This is often referred to as urbanisation and may include kerb and channels, footpaths and traffic calming measures.

Wiroa Road, from State Highway 10 to 100m west of the Kerikeri Airport access is the only candidate for significant engineering interventions.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit on Wiroa road between State Highway 10 and Kerikeri Airport from 80kph to 60kph.  The density of housing and commercial uses and general built environment on this stretch of Wiroa Road supports a speed limit of 60kph.  However, the current operating speed (average speed of 85% of vehicles) is between 70kph and 80kph.

To ensure a high level of compliance with the new speed limit, this section of Wiroa Road should be urbanised (engineered down).  Urbanising includes kerbs, footpaths and or a shared path making the 60kph speed limit more self-explaining to the driver.

Due to the cost of the engineering works, it is recommended that engineering down, or urbanisation of this stretch of Wiroa Road be deferred and programmed into the next Long-Term Plan.  Alternatively, urbanisation can be undertaken when road renewal or rehabilitation is undertaken. 

The estimated cost to urbanise the 2.2km section of Wiroa Road is $2 - $3m.

5    Overall Costs

The expected life of a speed limit sign is 7-years.  The average remaining effective life of speed limit signs within the review area is less than 4-years.  Most of the new signage will be replacing existing signs.  As such, this work can be undertaking by bringing forward current renewal costs and thereby minimising additional expenditure.

The estimated overall cost to undertake the recommended changes to implement new speed limits within the review area is $190,000 to $300,000.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

6.4         Options Report - Parks and Reserves Regulation

File Number:           A2870781

Author:                    Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

Authoriser:             Darrell Sargent, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

 

Purpose of the Report

For Council to consider the attached Options Report for the regulation of activities on parks and reserves and recommend which option for Council to adopt at the 20 May 2020.

Executive Summary

·      Parks and reserves are comprised of Council land in the form of open space and networks.

·      A former reserves bylaw has been automatically revoked and regulation for activities on both parks and reserves are controlled by other legislative and regulatory mechanisms including the Reserves Act, Resource Management Act, Conservation Act, Summary Offences Act and Crimes Act, and both the Dog Management and Alcohol Control Bylaw.

·      These combined tools do not sufficiently regulate activities on Council controlled parks and reserves as they fail to protect the public from nuisance, do not promote and maintain public health and safety, and do not minimise offensive behaviour on parks and reserves. These regulatory tools also do not protect Councils parks and reserves and the assets on these lands.

·      The attached report assesses four options for regulating activities on parks and reserves across the district:

 

(1)     do nothing/status quo (rely on existing means of regulation).

(2)     develop non-regulatory options (such as guidelines, education and signage).

(3)     make a bylaw (under the Reserves Act).

(4)     Make a bylaw (under the Local Government Act).

 

Recommendation

That Council agrees:

a)    that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the problems of nuisance, health and safety and offensive behaviour on Council controlled parks and reserves.

b)    that administration draft a statement of proposal for the Council to make a bylaw to regulate activities on Council controlled parks and reserves and also develop non-regulatory options such as guidelines, education programmes and signage to support the implementation of an adopted bylaw.

 

 

1) Background

A previous Reserves Bylaw was revoked in 2017 and new options to enable regulation of activities on both Council controlled parks and reserves are discussed in the attached Options Report – Parks and Reserves Regulation.

2) Discussion and Options

The attached Options Report describes the issues associated with activities on Council controlled parks and reserves and analyses the options for addressing them.

The recommended option is to make a bylaw that is supported by non-regulatory options such as guidelines, education programmes and signage.

Reason for the recommendation

Making a bylaw is recommended as it is the most appropriate way of protecting the public from nuisance and offensive behaviour on Council controlled parks and reserves while addressing the health and safety hazards associated with activities on these parks and reserves.  A bylaw will also give Council powers to protect its park and reserve assets from damage. A new Parks and Reserves Bylaw would regulate activities on both reserves (held under the Reserves Act) and other open space (park) lands in Councils’ ownership and/or administration.

The development of supporting guidelines, education and signage would compliment the bylaw but would not be a stand-alone option.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

A new bylaw will require development and installation of new site-specific signage to advise the public across the park and reserves suite. Providing electronic information and education will be covered within existing administration budgets.

Attachments

1.       Options Analysis Parks and Reserves Regulation - A2870604  


 

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

High as the proposal will likely generate considerable community interest.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Local Government Act 2002 – ability to create bylaws under this Act for open space lands.

Reserves Act 1977 – creation of bylaws that are in accordance and support provisions in this Act that protect reserves.

Reserves Policy – encroachments, vegetation management etc.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

This proposal has District wide relevance.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

There are implications for Māori as this relates to the activities on public land and in some instances adjacent bodies of water. It is recommended that key stakeholder engagement with Māori is conducted in the drafting of the bylaw.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.

Many people in the community will be affected including other special interests groups and organisations such as: tangata whenua (see Iwi/Hapū Management Plans), Heritage NZ/Pohere Taonga, User groups; lessees and licensees, sports and recreation clubs and general users of facilities – including children, the elderly and those with disabilities), event managers. Management groups – Hall Management committees etc., Health Department, Northland Regional Council, Department of Conservation, Advocacy Groups – e.g. Vision Kerikeri, Friends of Kerikeri Domain, Rotary Groups etc. Special interest groups – Forest and Bird, Bay of Island Watchdogs, Walking Access. Tourism Association. It is recommended that other key stakeholder engagement is conducted in the drafting of the bylaw.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

Currently there are no financial implications.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

6.5         Options for controlling and regulating trade in public places

File Number:           A2850002

Author:                    Caitlin Thomas, Strategic Planner

Authoriser:             Darrell Sargent, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

 

Purpose of the Report

Seek approval that the creation of a bylaw is the most appropriate response to ensure that public health and safety is maintained, that the public is protected from potential nuisance and that offensive behaviour in public places is minimised, as a result of trading in public places. 

Executive Summary

·      The Mobile Shops and Hawkers Bylaw 2010 automatically revoked in July 2017.

·      Council currently has no means of addressing the perceived issues associated with trading in public places as identified through the analysis of requests for services captured by Council.

·      The attached report discusses three options available to Council to manage trading in public places. These include:

 

(1)     do nothing/status quo.

(2)     provide information and education.

(3)     make a bylaw.

·      In the attached report administration recommends Option Three – create a bylaw, as the most appropriate response to addressing the perceived problems associated with trading in public places.

·      This report was prepared for the Strategy and Policy Committee. As the meeting was cancelled it has been submitted directly to Council for consideration.

 

Recommendation

That Council adopt Option Three – make a new bylaw, as the most appropriate response to addressing the perceived problems associated with trading in public places.

 

 

1) Background

In 2019 a total of seven bylaws were identified as revoked. In mid-2019 administration commenced the review of the revoked bylaws with the intent of understanding the legal risk to the Council and the risk to public of no longer having these bylaws in place.

The first decision required, as per section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, is the determination of “whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems” associated with individuals and organisations trading in public places.  This paper identifies the problems associated with trading in public places and then provides options on how to address the identified problems.

2) Discussion and Options

The attached report provides the options available to manage trading in public places in a manner that ensures public health and safety is maintained, the public is protected from nuisance, and the potential for offensive behaviour in public places is minimised.

In summary, the review and analysis of options revealed that updates to legislation such as the Food Act 2014 address elements that were previously regulated through provisions in the revoked Mobile Shops and Hawkers Bylaw, effectively removing the need to further regulate through a bylaw.

However, the analysis also demonstrates that matters such as obstruction of access to public places through inappropriate location of stalls or vehicles and breaches of the Food Act 2014 provisions to enable charitable purposes will continue to require regulation via a bylaw.

Reason for the recommendation

Administration recommend that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems of nuisance, increased risk to public health and safety and the potential for offensive behaviour that are associated with trading in public places.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or budgetary provisions directly associated with the recommendation made in this paper.  However, if Council resolves to make a new bylaw for trading in public places then Administration will consider the cost of making and enforcing the proposed bylaw as part of the next step in the bylaw making process.

 

Attachments 1.    Options Analysis Trading in Public Places - A2864775  


 

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

The recommendation in this report is not significant as per Council’s significance and engagement policy.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

There are no relevant Council policies.

The Food Act 2014 and the Reserves Act 1977 are referenced in the attached report.

The Local Government Act 2002 is relevant for Council making a bylaw.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

If Option 3 is accepted, a bylaw will have district-wide relevance.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

If the recommendation in this report is approved Administration will provide Māori the opportunity to participate in the decision making on this bylaw through written submissions, public engagement events and public hearings.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.

Analysis of requests for services as they relate to trading in public places has identified mobile shop owners and shop owners as having an interest in this matter.

If Option 3 – making a bylaw is approved by Council then consultation will allow interested parties to provide their views on the draft bylaw both through written submission, public engagement events and public hearings.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

Not applicable at this stage.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

6.6         Options Report - Vehicle Crossings Regulation

File Number:           A2856590

Author:                    Caitlin Thomas, Strategic Planner

Authoriser:             Darrell Sargent, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

 

Purpose of the Report

Seek approval that the creation of a bylaw is the appropriate way of addressing the health and safety hazards caused by poorly constructed or maintained vehicle crossings in the Far North District. Executive Summary

·      Vehicle crossings can cause health and safety hazards and damage to adjacent council assets (such as roads and drains) if they do not comply with appropriate construction and maintenance standards.

·      The attached report assesses three options for regulating vehicle crossings in the Far North District;  

 

a)    do nothing/status quo.

b)    provide information and education.

c)    make a bylaw.

·      The report recommends a combination of options 2 and 3 (make a bylaw supported by information and education).

·      This report was prepared for the Strategy and Policy Committee. As the meeting was cancelled it has been submitted directly to Council.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)    agree that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the health and safety hazards than can be caused by poorly constructed or maintained vehicle crossings in the Far North District

b)    approve that administration draft a Statement of Proposal for the Council to make a bylaw to regulate vehicle crossings in the Far North District and provide information and education to support compliance with the bylaw (when it is made).

 

 

1) Background

The Control of Vehicle Crossings Bylaw 2010 was automatically revoked in 2017 because it was not reviewed by the date required for a review.  Vehicle crossings are vehicular entrances formed to provide access to any premise from the public road fronting the premise. Vehicle crossings may be constructed over footpaths, kerbs, berms, water channels or drains.  

These crossings are part of the road reserve and are owned and regulated by the relevant authority i.e. vehicle crossings from State Highways are regulated by the New Zealand Transport Agency whereas vehicle crossings from all other roads are regulated by territorial authorities.   This report therefore only deals with vehicle crossings from roads that are not State Highways.

Administration has considered what regulation is needed for vehicle crossings in the absence of a bylaw.

2) Discussion and Options

The attached Options Report describes the problem caused by vehicle crossings that do meet appropriate standards and analyses the options for addressing the problem.  The preferred, and recommended, option is to make a bylaw that is supported by information and education to assist people to comply with the bylaw.

Reason for the recommendation

Making a bylaw is recommended because it is the most appropriate way of addressing the health and safety hazards than can be caused by poorly constructed or maintained vehicle crossings and it meets the Council’s objectives to protect the public from nuisance; protect, promote and maintain public health and safety; and to protect its assets from damage (sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002).

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no costs arising from the recommendation.

Attachments

1.       Options Analysis to Manage Vehicle Crossings - A2870126  


 

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

 

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

High, as it involves roading, one of council’s strategic assets and recommends making a bylaw.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Chapter 15.1.16C in the District Plan covering access to properties and Council’s engineering standards which provide standards for the proper construction of vehicle crossings.

In the status quo section of the Options Report attached, the legislation and policies that relate to the decision are described and assessed. This includes national legislation as well as the District Plan and Council's engineering standards.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

As this is a District-wide issue, it is not a matter that can be dealt with by a Community Board.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

The decision requested in this report has no  implications for Māori that are different from other people in the District.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.

Interested parties include property developers and owners, roading engineers and contractors. These groups would be asked for their feedback at the consultation stage.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no financial implications from the decision requested in this report.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

6.7         Elected Member Report

File Number:           A2880089

Author:                    Kim Hammond, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser:             Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

 

Purpose of the Report

The attendance of an Elected Member’s at a conference, course, seminar or training event is subject to the provision of the Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy. This policy requires the Elected Member to provide a report to Council after attending an event in order to provide transparency to the public that ratepayer funds are being used effectively.

Executive Summary

·      Councillor’s Moko Tepania and Kelly Stratford attend a hui of Te Maruata held in New Plymouth on 11 and 12 March 2020. Te Maruata aims to increase representation of Māori as elected members of local government.

·      Councillor’s have listed some recommendations at the end of the report for Council to discuss.

 

Recommendation

That Council note the report’s entitled “Cr Tepania - Te Maruata Hui – March 2020”.

 

 

1) Background

The Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy sets out the provisions which apply to an Elected Member’s attendance at a conference, course, seminar or training event.

The policy provides that each Elected Member may attend on conference or professional development event per representative body to which they are elected or appointed per annum.

The conference, course, seminar or training event must contribute to the Councillor’s ability to carry out Council business and be approved by His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, or the Council, depending on the request.

Following attendance a report must be written by the Elected Member to the next meeting of Council.

2) Discussion and Options

The Elected Members report attached report discusses information from the Forum.

Reason for the recommendation

To provide information to the Council on the consequential travel expenses, feedback on what elected members have learned and the value to the organisation from attendance at the conference that is the subject of this report.  The aim is to provide transparency and confidence to the public that ratepayer funds are being used effectively.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or budgetary provision required as a result of this report.

Some costs are still yet to be invoiced but the total cost to ratepayers is approximately $2,400.

Attachments

1.       Cr Tepania - Te Maruata Hui - March 2020 - A2880079  


Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1.       A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a)      Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b)      Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c)      If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2.       This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

This is an information only report.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

The recommendation is consistent with the Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

This is an information only report.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

This is an information only report.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.

This is an information only report.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provisions.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

21 May 2020

 

HUI:                              KAUNIHERA – Te Tahi Wehewehe 2020

Ingoa:                           PŪRONGO KAUNIHERA – TE MARUATA HUI

Kaituhi:                Moko Tepania

Rā pūrongo:                   16 Ngahuru Haupārua 2020

 

Pūtake:

 

Ko tā Te Maruata:

§ He akiaki i a Ngāi Māori kia tū hei mema pōti i ngā kāwanatanga ā-rohe

§ He whakanui i te mahitahi a te Māori mō ngā tukanga a ngā kāwanatanga ā-rohe

§ He tautoko i ngā kaunihera kia pūmau ai te whanaungatanga ki ngā iwi, ngā hapū me ngā rōpū Māori

§ He tāpae atu i te tirohanga Māori mō te whanaketanga o ngā kaupapa here me ngā ture e pā ana ki te kāwanatanga ā-rohe ā te ao āpōpō

§ Whanaungatanga – he whakatupu, he tautoko i te whakawhanaungatanga mō ngā Māori e mahi ana puta noa i ngā kāwanatanga ā-rohe kia honohono ai, kia whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro ai, kia tautoko anō ai tētahi i tētahi

 

 

Ko Te Maruata te pūaotanga o Tamanuiterā. He huatau tēnei mō te puāwaitanga o te Māori i te kāwanatanga ā-rohe. I rere atu māo ko Kk Stratford ki Ngāmotu i Te Raki o Taranaki i te tuatahi kātahi ka hono atu ai ki ngā hoa mema pōti i Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Ngāmotu. I heke whakarunga mātou i konei mā roto pahi ki Te Marae o Waiokura i Manaia, i Taranaki ki te Tonga. Ka ao ake te rā, ā, ka kupe atu mātou ki Parihaka, i Taranaki ki te Tonga i mua i te hokinga atu ki Ngāmotu. Horekau he utu i namahia mai mō te tae atu ki tēnei hui o Te Maruata ka mutu he utu kore anō te wāhi noho me te pahi i hari i a mātou i te Raki ki te Tonga o Taranaki. I takohatia ngā haukāinga o ngā marae o Waiokura, i Manaia me Te Niho o Te Āti Awa, i Parihaka.  

 

Ngā Hua o te Rā Tuatahi:

·    Ngā Whare o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Ngāmotu

I waiho e māo ko Kk Stratford ngā tueke ki ngā whare kaunihera kia pai anō tā māo kotiti haere i te pūtahi o te tāonenui i mua i te wehenga o te pahi ki Te Tonga o Taranaki. I tūtaki anō māo ki a Kk Amanda Clinton-Gohdes he kaikaunihera mō Te Takiwā o te Tāonenui o Ngāmotu.  

·    Te Papa Rēhia o Pukekura

He wāhi tēnei e 5 meneti te roa o te hīkoi i te pūtahi o te tāonenui. He papa kirikiti, he māra, he ara hīkoi, he whare kararehe anō ētahi o ngā wāhi o tēnei papa rēhia. I pai anō te kite i te mahi a te tangata i whai wāhi atu ki reira ka mutu ka mihi anō ki te mā pai o taua papa rēhia.

·    Puke Ariki

Koia tēnei te i-Site me te whare taonga o te takiwā nei. Kei tērā atu taha o te rori te whare pukapuka matua, kua hono tahi ēnei whare mā tētahi arawhiti i runga i te rori.

·    Te Ara Hīkoi ki te Takutai

He ara 12.7km te roa tēnei e hono ana i Port Taranaki ki Bell Block mā te pūtahi o te tāonenui. He tokomaha anō ngā tāngata i te hīkoi i te ara nei. Ka pai anō tāku kitenga i te mā o tēnei wāhi. 

·    Te takinga kōrero a te Pirihitene o LGNZ a Dave Cull

Ko tētahi o ngā kaupapa kōrero matua a Pirihitene Cull ko te mana o te hononga iwi pūmau, ā, koia anō tēnei ko te tūru pōti o Te Maruata ki Te Kaunihera ā-Motu. Ka puta kē ia i LGNZ kia whakapau kaha i tāna tūranga mō Te Poari Hauora o Te Tai Tonga. 

·    Te takinga kōrero a te Tumuaki o LGNZ a Malcolm Alexander

Hanga rite tonu ngā kōrero a Tumuaki Alexander ki ā Pirihitene Cull kōrero. I muri i tāna kōrero i tīmata ia i ngā tikanga pōti mō te tēpu matua o Te Maruata.

·    Te Pōti i Te Rōpū Whakahaere

E 8 ngā mema o Te Rōpū Whakahaere mō Te Maruata, kotahi te mema hei whakakanohi i ngā kāhui o ngā tāonenui, te tuawhenua me ngā takiwā, ngā rohe, me ngā YEM (ngā mema pōti hanga rangatahi tonu), he 4 ngā mema ka pōtihia whānuitia. He 2 meneti ka hoatu ki tēnā ki tēnā kaitono ki te taki kōrero i mua i te wā pōti.

E harikoa ana ahau kua pōtihia ahau hei māngai mō ngā Young Elected Members ki Te Rōpū Whakahaere.  

·    Kaikōrero Matua Andrew Judd

I kōrero a Ānaru mō tāna tū hei koromatua o Te Takiwā o Ngāmotu i te wā o te arotake a te kaunihera i ngā rohe pōti me te whakatau kia whakatū i tētahi rohe pōti Māori ki te tēpu o te kaunihera. Ko tētahi o ā Ānaru kōrero matua ko te whakatenatena kia kaha tonu tātou ki te kōkirikiri i te kāwanatanga kia tīni i te Ture Pōti ā-Rohe. I tēnei wā kāhore i te tika te momo o ngā tikanga whakarite rohe pōti, he rerekē ngā tukanga mō te whakatū i tētahi tūru Māori ki ngā tukanga mō te whakarite i tētahi tūru anō, i tētahi tūru kē atu, kāhore tēnei i te matatika, i te pono. Me rite mai ngā tikanga nei. Kīhai a Ānaru i tono kia tū anō ia hei koromatua o Ngāmotu, heoi kua koni atu i te 300 ngā wā kua whai wāhi atu ai ia hei kaikōrero puta noa i te motu mai i te wā o tōna koromatuatanga. He mea whakaō anō ētahi o ēnei tū kōrero ki te karanga a ngā kaunihera

 

Ngā Hua o te Rā Tuarua:

·    Te Whakaeke atu ki runga o Parihaka

Ko Parihaka te tūrangawaewae o ngā poropiti o Taranaki, o Te Whiti o Rongomai rāua ko Tohu Kakahi. Nō mātou te whiwhi i whakataungia mātou ki konei, ka mutu i whai wā anō ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero mō ngā wāhi whakahirahira o Parikaha.

·    Toi Aotearoa

I kōrero rātou e pā ana ki Te Hā o ngā Toi – Māori Arts Strategy 2019-2024. Ko te Moemoeā/Vision o tēnei kia kitea whānuitia ngā Toi Māori, ā, ka whakanuia tēnei taha o te tuakiri o Aotearoa e mōhiotia whānuitia ana puta noa i te ao. Mō taku tū hei kaikaunihera o Te Rōpū ā-Rohe o Toi Aotearoa o Te Tai Tokerau ki te Raki i matareka ahau ki te tūtaki atu ki ngā kaimahi ā-motu o tēnei rōpū. Nāku anō ngā kōrero mō ā rātou tūranga i ako.  

·    He Tirohanga Whānui mō ngā Pūnaha Mahi a te Tari Taiwhenua

I rongo kōrero mātou i a Justine Smith, te Kaitakawaenga mō te Tari Taiwhenua, ka mutu ko tāna i kōrero ai ko āna mahi mō Minita Mahuta.

 

E hiamo ana ahau ki te mahi tahi ki ngā mema pōti o Te Maruata me ngā mema hou o Te Rōpū Whakahaere. Kāhore e kore ka puta ngā patanga o te mahitahi ki tēnei rōpū, mātua rā mō tāku tūranga hei kaikaunihera mō Te Ao Māori.

 

Whakaahua o te haerenga:

Ko ngā whare kaunihera o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Ngāmotu.

Ngā mema pōti o Te Maruata kei mua i Paraukau te wharehui o Waiokura Marae.

Ko māo ko Kk Stratford i Parihaka.

Ko Maunga Taranaki kei muri.