sdclogo

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Te Anau Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                       

Time:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

1.30pm

Distinction Te Anau Hotel & Villas

64 Lakefront Drive

Te Anau

 

Te Anau Community Board Agenda

 

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Rachel Cockburn

 

Deputy Chairperson

Sarah Greaney

 

Members

Shaun Cantwell

 

 

Mary Chartres

 

 

Kara Matheson

 

 

Tony O'Loughlin

 

Councillor

Ebel Kremer

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Committee Advisor

Jenny Labruyere

 

Community Partnership Leader

Simon Moran

 

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


Terms of Reference – Community Boards

 

Community Boards are bodies established by statute.  Their responsibilities and powers are as delegated by the Southland District Council which are to:

·                  Represent and act as an advocate for the interest of its community.

·                  Consider and report on all matters referred to it by the Southland District Council, or any matter of interest or concern to the Community Board.

·                  Maintain an overview of services provided by the Southland District Council
within the community.

·                  Consider annual estimates for expenditure within the community and recommend these to Council.

·                  Communicate with community organisations and special interest groups within the community.

·                  Undertake any other responsibilities that are delegated to it by the Southland
District Council.

 

In addition to these activities, Community Boards will consider how best to provide for their communities, and the people who live there, into the future.

 

Community Board members will provide leadership by:

·             Positively representing their community and the Southland District

·             Identifying key issues that will affect their community’s future and work with Council staff and other local representatives to facilitate multi-agency collaborative opportunities.

·             Promote a shared vision for the wider community of interest area and develop ways to work with others to achieve positive outcomes

 

·             Community Boards will adopt a strategic focus that will enable members to:

·             Provide local representation and guidance on wider community issues, initiatives and projects.

·             Contribute to the development and promotion of community cohesion, by developing and supporting relationships across a range of stakeholders at a local, regional and national level.

·             Take part in local community forums, meetings and workshops.

·             Inform local residents and ratepayers on issues that affect them.

 

Community Boards shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers

 

Engagement and representation by:

·             Facilitating the Council’s consultation with local residents and community groups on local issues and local aspects of district wide issues including input into the Long-term Plan, Annual Plan, and policies that impact on the Board’s area.

·             Engaging with council officers on local issues and levels of service, including infrastructural, recreational, community services and parks, reserves and cemetery matters.

·             Representing the interests of the community at Council, Committee or Subcommittee meetings when a motion under debate relates to a matter that the Board considers to be of particular interest to the residents within its community.

·             Monitoring and keeping the Council informed of community aspirations and the level of satisfaction with services provided.

 

Financial by:

·             Approving expenditure within the limits of annual estimates.

·             Approving unbudgeted expenditure for locally funded activities up to the value of $10,000.

 

Rentals and leases

·             In relation to all leases of land and buildings within their own area, on behalf of Council;

§    Accepting the highest tenders for rentals of $10,000; or less per annum.

§    Approving the preferential allocation of leases where the rental is $10,000 or less per annum.

 


 

Local assets and facilities by

·             Overseeing the management of local halls and community centres which are owned by Council and where no management committee exists.  This will occur by way of relationship with officers of Southland District Council. 

·             Appoint a local liaison person responsible for community housing.

 

Some Community Boards have specific delegations in addition to the broad delegations above:

 

Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board

·             Contributing to the development of policy relating to the governance of the Stewart Island Electrical Supply Authority (SIESA). 

·             Overseeing the management of SIESA by way of relationship with officers of Southland District Council. 

 

Te Anau Community Board

·             Overseeing the management of the Te Anau/Manapouri Airport by way of relationship with officers of Southland District Council.

 

The Community Boards can make recommendations to Council on:

 

Assets and Facilities

·             Annually providing feedback on any asset management plans or community services strategies applicable to the community for which the Community Board is responsible.

 

Rentals and leases

·             In relation to all leases of land and buildings within their own area, on behalf of Council;

§    Recommending rentals in excess of $10,000 per annum to the Group Manager Services and Assets

§    Recommending the preferential allocation of leases where the rental is in excess of $10,000 per annum to the Group Manager Services and Assets.

 

Contracts/Tenders

·             Recommending tenders less than $200,000 to the Group Manager Services and Assets.

·             Recommending tenders in excess of $200,000 to the Services and Assets Committee.

·             Recommending tenders to the Services and Assets Committee where preference is not for acceptance of the highest tenderer,

 

Financial

·             Recommending annual estimates to Council.

·             Recommending unbudgeted expenditure in excess of $10,000 to the Services and Assets Committee.

 

Local Policy

·             Considering matters referred to it by officers, the Council, its committees or subcommittees, including reports and policy and bylaw proposals relating to the provision of council services within the Board’s area; and

·             Making submissions or recommendations in response to those matters as appropriate.

 

The Chairperson of each Community Board is delegated with the following additional responsibilities:

·              Approval of leases, rental agreements and the rollover of existing contracts under $1,000;

·              Engaging with Community Board members to make submissions to the Council on behalf of the Community Board where a submission period is outside of the Community Board meeting cycle.  Where a Chairperson is unable to base a submission on a consensus among Community Board members, a Community Board meeting must be held.

 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

sdclogo

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                           PAGE

Procedural

1          Apologies                                                                                                              7

2          Leave of absence                                                                                                  7

3          Conflict of Interest                                                                                                7

4          Public Forum                                                                                                         7

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                      7

Reports

7.1       Consideration of the submissions and objections in relation to the proposal to remove the trees from the Henry Street reserve                                                                                              15

7.2       Milford Crescent Minor Improvements                                          35  

Chairperson’s Reports

The chairperson, Member cockburn, to report on matters with which she has been involved since the Boards last meeting.

Councillor's Report  

Councillor Kremer to report on matters from the District Council table.


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

Community Board Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Public Forum

 

Members of the public will be present to speak in the public forum section of the meeting on the following subjects;

 

·        Trees on Henry Street Reserve

·        Milford Cresent Minor Improvements

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Community Board to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)        the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)        the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)       that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)          no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

6.1       Minutes of Te Anau Community Board meeting, held on 16 August 2017.

 


sdclogo

 

 

Te Anau Community Board

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

Unconfirmed

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Te Anau Community Board held in the Community Room, Fiordland Medical Centre, 25 Luxmore Drive, Te Anau on Wednesday 16 August 2017 at 3.00pm.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Rachel Cockburn

 

Deputy Chairperson

Sarah Greaney

 

Members

Shaun Cantwell

 

 

Kara Matheson

 

 

Tony  O'Loughlin

 

Councillor

Ebel Kremer

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Committee Advisor

Jenny Labruyere

 

Community Partnership Leader

Simon Moran

 

Senior Resource Planner

Courtney Ellison

 

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology for non-attendance was lodged by Member Charters.

 

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Member Cantwell and resolved:

That the Te Anau Community Board accept the apology for non- attendance lodged by Member Chartres.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

4          Public Forum

 

There were no persons in Public Forum.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Member Cantwell 

Confirms the minutes of Te Anau Community Board meeting, held on 14 June 2017.

 

 

Reports

 

7.1

Council Report

Record No:         R/17/7/15758

 

Community Partnership Leader Mr Simon Moran presented the report.

 

Mr Moran advised the purpose of the report is to provide an overview of key issues across the Southland District Council, as well as high level issues from various Council departments.

 

Mr Moran informed the report highlighted various issues of interest.  Highlights of particular  interest included;

 

·      Civil Defence Review

 

Advised that Central Government has decided to carry out a review of the way in which natural disasters and other emergencies are currently managed by the existing civil defence structures.

In regard to local emergency management the Chair referred the Manapouri Civil Defence management plan that has been developed by the Manapouri CDA, questioning what the Board’s role is in the event of a local emergency insofar as communication and organisation, and believed the Board needs to be informed, and requested Mr Moran to follow-up on this matter.

 

·      Tourism Infrastructure Fund

 

Mr Moran informed the Board of the change in criteria and the significant difficulties for Board’s to apply for funding, advising the Council will aim to apply as a whole of district with the aim to highlight the demands on the district from a tourism perspective.  Members of the Board expressed their support in pursuing any such applications in view of the demands in the Te Anau area in particular from the tourism industry.

 

·      Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project

 

Councillor Kremer updated the Board on the recent meeting of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee advising that Committee has requested progress to be made in regard to the development of the business case that is required for the consented land (Kepler Block option).

 

·      Representation Review

 

Mr Moran advised that the next round of Community Conversations is scheduled to be held September/October 2017. 

 

In noting this Members believed there is a need for early and  effective communication with clear guidelines and information, to assist with encouraging focused discussion and community involvement.

 

·      Te Anau Airport - Manapouri

 

The Board was advised of current works projects that are proposed at the airport together with the latest statistical operations data.

 

Members requested a workshop be arranged with the Board and key interested parties with the object to discuss and develop a development and marketing programme for the future of the  airport.

 

·      Finance

 

Mr Moran advised the year to date income is reported lower than expected due to end of year financials the finance team are currently working on.

 

Mr Moran explained expenditure is down due to a number of operational budgets running below forecast costs.

 

Mr Moran further explained capital expenditure is down significantly primarily due to no progress with projects including the pontoon, gateway to the town concept and events signage.

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Member Matheson, seconded Member O'Loughlin 

That the Te Anau Community Board:

a)     Receives the report titled “Council Report” dated 8 August 2017.

 

b)     Requests staff follow-up and report back on the Board’s role in the event of a local emergency insofar as communication and overall organisation requirements is concerned.

 

c)      Requests a workshop be arranged with the Board and key interested parties to develop a development and marketing programme for the future of the  Te Anau Airport Manapouri.

 

 

 

7.2

Lake Te Anau Swimming Pontoon

Record No:         R/17/8/17972

 

1             Mr S Moran (Community Partnership Leader), advised the purpose of the report is to  determine as to whether the Te Anau Community Board (the Board) wishes to consider taking over responsibility for providing a swimming platform for the public on Lake Te Anau. 

1             Mr Moran outlined that around twenty years ago the Te Anau Boating Club installed a surplus section of floating jetty as a swimming pontoon near the marina entrance. The swimming pontoon has been a popular recreation asset and is considered to be well used during the summer period. That asset has now reached the end of its life and needs to be either replaced or removed.

Mr Moran advised that the Te Anau Boating Club does not wish to replace the swimming pontoon and has written a letter to the Board requesting that it fund a replacement and take ownership of it.

2             Mr Moran added that the Board would be required to take on the responsibility for the Environment Southland resource consent, the Department of Conservation concession, the ongoing consent/concession monitoring costs, and the ancillary costs associated with assets.

3             Mr Moran advised that preliminary investigations suggest that there are two alternatives for the type of structure that could replace the current pontoon. The first is a floating concrete option similar to what is currently there. The second is a high density UV stabilised plastic structure that is being used reasonably extensively throughout New Zealand and that both options are likely to cost around $13,000 but the final cost will depend on the specifications that are chosen.

Mr Moran sought a direction as to whether or not to provide the Board with a detailed set of options, costings, and funding approach report, at its next meeting.

 

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Deputy Chairperson Greaney, seconded Cr Kremer 

That the Te Anau Community Board:

a)         Receives the report titled “Lake Te Anau Swimming Pontoon” dated 9 August 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Supports the idea of staff preparing a report outlining detailed pontoon options, and costings and a funding approach, such report to be presents at the Board’s October meeting.

 

 

 

7.3

Request to name a street after Mr Alf Excell

Record No:         R/17/8/17964

 

Mr S Moran (Community Partnership Leader) outlined to the Board of a communication requesting to add Mr Alf Excell’s name as a potential street name for future use in Te Anau.

4             Mr Moran added that Council currently holds that list of 34 names of local people/families for whom it has been requested that a street or road be named after them. That list already refers to the Excell family but not Mr Alf Excell specifically.

5             Mr Moran requested the Board consider whether the request is already addressed by the current listing or whether to add a specific entry for Mr Alf Excell.

 

In discussing this request members of the Board agreed to add “Alf Excell” to the list of road/street names for consideration when the opportunity next arises.

 

Mrs Labruyere advised the Board that the name Gilligan had been on a previous list but seems to have been removed from the current list.  Members agreed for the Gilligan name to be added back onto the list and at the same time requested the name of Frana Cardno be included on the list.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Member O'Loughlin, seconded Cr Kremer 

That the Te Anau Community Board:

a)              Receives the report titled “Request to name a street after Mr Alf Excell dated 8 August 2017.

 

b)         Agrees to specifically add the name of Mr Alf Excell to the list of possible road/street names that is held for the Te Anau area.

 

c)         Agrees to update the list, add the name “Gilligan” that appears to have been removed from the previous list and include the name “Frana Cardno” to the list of possible road/street  names held for the Te Anau area.

 

 

8.1 Chairperson’s Report

 

The Chairperson, Member Cockburn reported on matters with which she has been involved since the Board’s previous meeting, these included;

 

 

 

8.2    Councillor Report

 

Councillor Kremer reported on activities from the Southland District Council table, these included;

 

 

The meeting concluded at 4.40pm                CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Te Anau Community Board HELD ON 16 AUGUST 2017.

 

 

 

DATE:...................................................................

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

 

 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Consideration of the submissions and objections in relation to the proposal to remove the trees from the Henry Street reserve

Record No:         R/17/8/19521

Author:                 Kevin McNaught, Strategic Manager Property

Approved by:       Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1       To consider the submissions and objections in relation to the proposal to remove the trees from the Henry Street reserve as well as make a decision after considering the submissions and objections.

Executive Summary

2       The Board at its meeting in April this year considered a report and legal advice in regard to a request by some neighbours to remove the stand of Beech trees in the Henry Street reserve.

3       The Board agreed with the request, but made their decision subject to public notification of the proposal, to seek feedback from the wider community.  A separate decision made at the meeting was that after the public notification process the Board either confirms or amends its position on the request.  Six submissions and objections were received on the proposal.

4       Council has delegated to the Community Board the authority to hear and decide on the submissions and objections, as opposed to the Board considering these separately and having to make a recommendation to Council.

 

Recommendation

That the Te Anau Community Board:

a)         Receives the report titled “Consideration of the submissions and objections in relation to the proposal to remove the trees from the Henry Street reserve” dated 7 September 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Decides after considering the objections and submissions in relation to the proposal to remove the stand of Beech trees from the Henry Street reserve that the status quo should prevail in that the stand of trees are to remain as is.

 

Content

Background

5       The Board at its meeting on 12 April this year received a report and legal opinion in relation to a request from some neighbours to the Henry Street reserve that the stand of Beech trees be removed.  A copy of the request is attached.

6       While the basis for the request were not primarily in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 in relation to the removal of trees, consideration was based on what would a good neighbour do in this situation.

7       The Board agreed with the request, but made their decision subject to public notification of the proposal, to seek feedback from the wider community given that the request related to trees situated on a community reserve.  A separate decision made at the meeting was that after the community consultation the Board either confirms or amends its position on the request.  Six submissions and objections were received on the proposal.

8       This report is in line compliance with the Board decision, in that it be given the opportunity after the community consultation to either confirm or amend its previous position.

9       Given that the Reserves Act 1977 requires a hearing to be held by Council as the administering body, to consider the objections and submissions, Council has delegated to the Board the authority to hear and decide on these at the same time as the Board is confirming or amending its previous position.

Issues

10     The main issue identified is clearly the different position between the parties in relation to the removal or retention of the trees.

11     This report, the consideration of the objections and submissions to the proposal, and subsequent decision will obviously not suit everyone, however a fair and transparent process has been followed and a decision is required.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

12     As the trees are located on a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, that is the legislation that drives the process.

13     There is specific requirements in the act as it relates to the removal of trees and bush (Sec.42), and it has already been acknowledged that the reasons for the request were not in line with these requirements, therefore public input was imperative prior to a final decision being made.

14     Section 120 of the Act sets out the rights of objection and making decisions. Sec120 (1) (c) allows for those who have made submissions or objections the right to appear before those considering the objections or submissions. This opportunity has been given to all as well as the original applicants.

15     The same section also make reference that those considering the objections or submissions may be heard by “… or a person nominated by the administering body…”  Legal advice received is that this can be delegated to the Community Board so Council at its meeting on
6 September resolved to delegate to the Board the authority to hear and determine those submissions and objections.

16     Subsection (d) of Section 120 requires full consideration to every objection or submission received before deciding to proceed with a proposal.

Community Views

17     Public notification of the intention to remove the trees was given and six submissions or objections were received.  These are all attached for the Board’s information.

18     All the submissions or objections were to not remove the trees.  The themes in the reasons for retention were - birdlife, visual amenity, privacy, shade, ecosystems, act as play equipment.

19     That fact that submissions or objections were received shows clearly that people care about the proposal and that the system of community input on decisions is working.

Costs and Funding

20     Removal of the trees would incur some cost to the Board in replanting the site on the basis that the applicants covered all removal costs.  This was part of the Board’s previous decision.

21     If however there was to be “a value” placed on the trees if removed, then using the standard model for tree evaluation (STEM) by the Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture equates to $15840. This figure has been calculated and provided by Mr Alan Petrie. The assessment covers many issues like size, location, appearance, historical value, functional value etc. This is one of many considerations relating to the issue at hand, but is a method to place a monetary value if required.

22     Trimming the trees is an option and does come at an initial and ongoing cost.  Following are the comments from Graeme Humphries to Community Engineer, Nick Lewis:

“Our idea of using the hedge trimmer is in our opinion the cheapest way to prune the trees in the Henry Street reserve.

 

However due to the community interest in this area, it does concern me that using a hedge trimmer may not result in a very neat and professional job that pruning of trees in a town reserve should have.

 

If council proceeds with this plan, it would be ideal to increase the cost by about $3000.00 to ensure that the trees could be pruned to the standard that everyone would be happy with.

 

This cost would cover the weekly cost of a 12 metre spider lift (cherry picker type machine ) and associated labour costs.

 

We would remove about 1/3 of the height of these trees.

 

Prune and shape the branches to keep the trees from looking like they had been pruned, ( much like we have just done to the beech trees in the town centre, although this will be harder to achieve  as they have never been  pruned in the last 35 years).

The initial cost of $2000.00 would still be needed for the Pruning machine and the clean-up of the bulk branches”.

23     Leaving the trees as is, comes at no costs.

Policy Implications

24     The Reserves Management Plan makes no mention of the trees nor any need for removal or retention.  However, Council’s recently adopted Reserve Management Policy states that the retention of indigenous vegetation is a priority even though in this situation, as the trees were planted no resource consent would be required for their removal.

Analysis

Options Considered

25     The options are considered to be retain the trees, trim the trees or remove the trees.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Retain the trees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Allows the status quo to remain.

·      Allows all the benefits of the trees as raised by the submitters to be retained.

·      Is in line with Council’s policy position of retention of indigenous vegetation as a priority.

·      Does not resolve the issues raised by the neighbours in their request to have the trees removed.

 


 

Option 2 - Trim the trees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Will go part of the way to dealing with the issues that the neighbours raise as it only reduces the height by 1/3.

·      Has an initial and ongoing costs to be funded by someone.

·      Will need to be done on a recurring cycle.

·      The visual amenity of the trees will change dramatically initially after every trimming.

·      Will have an effect on the issues raised by the submitters as the reason why the trees should stay eg, birdlife, and shading.

Option 3 - Remove the trees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Resolves the light and shading issues for the neighbours.

·      Removes from the reserve all the benefits that the submitters have raised that the trees provide to the reserve and the locality.

Assessment of Significance

26     This is not considered to be significant.

Recommended Option

27     Option 1 being retention of the trees is recommended after considering the following:

28     Firstly, while the request for removal was considered reasonable, on the other hand the reasons for retention of the trees as set out in the submissions and objections are also considered to be reasonable.

29     Secondly, the trees were in existence when all the applicants purchased their property. 
This is a consideration for the Court when considering issues regarding trees on a reserve.

30     Thirdly, Council’s Reserve Management Policy states that the retention of indigenous vegetation is a priority.

Next Steps

31     Notify the all parties of the decision.

 

Attachments

a         Complaint regarding 12 beech trees in park at Henry Street, Te Anau

b         Request from Alan and Sheila Petrie to keep the Beech trees in the Henry Street Reserve

c         Objection from William Petrie - Removal of beech trees from Henry Street Reserve

d         Objection from Alina Suchanski - Proposed removal of beech trees from Henry Street Reserve

e         Submission regarding the removal of beech trees on Henry Street reserve Te Anau

f          Objection from Martin Sliva to removal of Beech trees from Henry Street Reserve

g         Opposition from Carolyn Wilson - Removal of beech trees from Henry Street Reserve    

 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 


 



Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 



Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 


 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 


 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

 


Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Milford Crescent Minor Improvements

Record No:         R/17/8/20390

Author:                 Nick Lewis, Community Engineer

Approved by:       Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose of Report

1       Southland District Council (SDC) are proposing to carry out some minor improvements on Milford Crescent in Te Anau to improve the safety and performance of this road.  These improvements also will tie-in with the Wong Way development.

 

Background

2       The following issues have been raised with the Southland District Council numerous times over the past few years:

·    Speed on Milford Crescent (>30kmh); particularly westbound vehicles.

·    The environment and aesthetics of the area is not consistent with the rest of Te Anau township centre.

·    The pedestrian crossing adjacent to the lane is not collecting the majority of pedestrian movements crossing Milford Crescent.

·    Width of Milford Crescent is very tight in places for large vehicle tracking.  Also the provided car parks on the north side of the road are narrow which in turn makes the lanes even tighter with vehicles parked here.

·    The bulb kerbs either side of ‘The Lane’ have caused issues for cyclists.

 

Proposal

3       A number of low cost interventions have been proposed to best resolve all of the issues addressed above.  These include:

·    Upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing by the school so that it is raised similar to the courtesy crossing at the other end of Milford Crescent.  This will result in traffic calming and reduce the speed of vehicles westbound on Milford Crescent.

·    A painted median (wide centreline) in the centre of the Milford Crescent will take up redundant space and give a ‘feel’ of being narrow which will also be a good traffic calming intervention.  This will also provide the safety benefit of additional lane separation and provide more tracking space for larger vehicles.

·    Relocate the existing pedestrian crossing outside the ‘The Lane’ down to the supermarket entrance.  This ties in nicely with the Wong Way development and will hopefully mitigate the majority of Jay-Walkers on Milford Crescent.  The Supermarket entrance will be relocated up to where the existing crossing point is to improve conflict points in the car park (this however is not a council project).

·    The kerbs either side of the lane will be removed to provide more space for wider lanes, median separation and wider carparks on the north side.  This will also allow cyclists to safely traverse westbound without encroaching live traffic lanes.

·    A number of plantings will be installed that both improve safety aspects as well as improving the general aesthetics of the area.

·    Funding for this proposal is through SDC Roading under NZTA work Category 341 – Minor Improvements.

 

Pedestrian Crossing Relocation

4       We note the most contentious proposal is the relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing.  The current location is not the best location for it due to being immediately adjacent to ‘The Lane’.  We appreciate that this location ties in nicely with the walkway between the supermarket and Mitre 10 carpark, however from a safety perspective this conflicting location between left turning vehicles from ‘The Lane’ and pedestrian movements is less than desirable. The most desirable location given some infrastructural obstructions is at the proposed new location in front of the supermarket.  Previously council could not relocate to this location due to the existing supermarket entrance, but with their proposed new access location we can now relocate to here. 

 

Survey Results

5       To confirm our observations that the existing crossing point is not best utilised due to location; a survey was completed.  Results from the survey:

·    44.35% of people using the existing pedestrian crossing are supermarket customers.  Because of the relatively small dataset; it would be safe to assume a 50/50 split of supermarket vs other users for the existing crossing.

·    272.37% more people Jay-walk on average than use the existing pedestrian crossing.  This is evident throughout all datasets recorded but statistics are even higher during the 5-6pm survey.  I assume this is people walking to the supermarket after work prior to heading home. For simple numbers; for every person who uses the existing pedestrian crossing, 3 people jay-walk.

 

6       The above supports that the pedestrian crossing would be better relocated to the proposed location.

7       Additional advantages of relocating the crossing includes being in line with the new Wong Way development.  Also during peak times, traffic will not be queued back out to Milford Crescent due to vehicles having to Giveway to pedestrian movements.

8       We appreciate that people are now going to jay-walk at the existing pedestrian crossing location; but with the statistics above we believe the net numbers of jay-walkers will be less and hence a safety improvement overall.

 

Recommendation

9       The Roading Department seek support from the Te Anau Community Board to proceed with the project as proposed, which was discussed prior on site and during meetings with the TACB, SDC staff, Fresh Choice Supermarket business and land owners.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Te Anau Community Board:

a)         Receives the report titled “Milford Crescent Minor Improvements” dated 7 September 2017.

 

b)         Agree to support the proposal and for the Southland District Council’s Roading Department to proceed with the project as proposed.

 

 

 

Attachments

a         170905 6080-2-Design - Rev E - Client Issue    

 



Te Anau Community Board

13 September 2017