Agenda of Hastings District Rural Community Board

Monday, 24 May 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council:

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Lex Verhoeven, Strategy Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Long Term Plan Submissions 2021-2031

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Board on submissions received to the Draft Long Term Plan. Particular matters of relevance to the rural community are highlighted and the Board’s guidance in respect of these matters is sought.

1.2 This report concludes by recommending that the report be received and that officers forward any feedback from the Board on particular matters to the Council Long Term Plan meeting of 8 June 2021.

1.3 The Draft Long term Plan was released for public consultation on 3 April 2021 with submissions closing on 7 May 2021. The Council has received 165 formal submissions to the draft plan, along with a further 600 responses via other consultation methods used by the Council. The submissions cover a range of issues outlined within the consultation document distributed to properties. A number of submissions also request funding support for other proposals.

1.4 The Draft Long Term Plan contains a proposed funding plan for the rural area which consists of circa 7% increases for each of the first 6 years, predominantly to fund an escalation in work on rural roads. This matter was specifically identified within the Consultation Document and was discussed at 5 rural information sessions held during April 2021.

1.5 The general feedback from those sessions was an acceptance that continued investment in roads was required and that this would mean a period of rate increases. There was however some concern over the extent of the proposed increase. The results from the tear-off consultation document feedback form show 83% support for the proposed programme (or faster). Likewise the website survey result shows 85% support.

1.6 Submitters who have requested to speak to the Board and/or submissions which have a rural focus have been summarised below with the corresponding submission number for reference. A separate volume of these submissions (in submission number order) is attached to this agenda.

§ 6 Sue Penman - Beautification of rural gateways;

§ 12 Peter Alexander - Paying for water services, single lane bridges;

§ 22 Graham Palmer, + 23 others supporting – Maraekākaho dark sky standards;

§ 39 Louise Saurin – Maraekākaho road safety;

§ 55 Patricia Nuku, 135 Sheryle Allen, 156 Tania Huata – Ōmāhu Community concerns ;

§ 67 Ben Lee – Forestry and rates setting;

§ 77 Jenny Foote – Maraekākaho Community Plan (Focus MKK)

§ 81 Amy Renall – Wenley Road;

§ 84 Dennis Hall (Pan Pac) – Rural roading network;

§ (97 Tom Wallace, 98 Sophie Wallace, 107, Maree Sorenson Wallace 109, 114 Jonathan Wallace, 117 Sam Wallace, 145 Beverley Te Huia) – Waimārama beach vehicle safety and access;

§ 103 Anton Maurenbrecher – Town planning and responsiveness to change;

§ 105 Troy Duncan (QEII National Trust) – Covenants on private land;

§ 112 Anna Follet – Park and Ride Maraekākaho;

§ 113 Julie Baxter – Puketītiri Road issues, rates increases;

§ 119 Shona McDonald –Health and safety, infrastructure, gazetting over Tutaekuri River;

§ 124 Rhea Dasent (Federated Farmers) – rates, dog fees, roading material hygiene;

§ 129 Callum Beattie – Wahi Taonga, resourcing, water reform, rural roads;

§ 142 Jessie Kyle – Rural roads;

§ 144 Andy Tait Jamieson – Forestry planting;

§ 147 Kellie Jessup – Paki Paki and Bridge Pa water;

§ 149 Michael Hope – Wenley Road;

§ 161 James Palmer (HBRC) – Infrastructure, public transport, enviro schools;

1.7 Officer comments in response to the submissions above will be circulated separately.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Long Term Plan Submissions 2021-2031 dated 24 May 2021.

B) That officers table feedback from the Rural Community Board at the Council Long Term Plan meeting commencing on 8 June 2021.

Attachments:

1 ⇨	Submission 6 - Sue Penman	CP-11-2-21-6	Under Separate Cover
2 ⇨	Submission 12 - Peter Alexander	CP-11-2-21-12	Under Separate Cover
3 ⇨	Submission 22 - Graham Palmer (+ 23 others supporting)	CP-11-2-21-22	Under Separate Cover
4 ⇨	Submission 39 - Louise Saurin	CP-11-2-21-39	Under Separate Cover
5 ⇨	Submission 55 - Patricia Nuku	CP-11-2-21-55	Under Separate Cover
6 ⇨	Submission 135 - Sheryle Allen	CP-11-2-21-135	Under Separate Cover
7 ⇨	Submisson 156 - Tania Huata	CP-11-2-21-156	Under Separate Cover
8 ⇨	Submission 67 - Ben Lee	CP-11-2-21-67	Under Separate Cover
9 ⇨	Submission 77 - Jenny Foote	CP-11-2-21-77	Under Separate Cover
10 ⇨	Submission 81 - Amy Renall	CP-11-2-21-81	Under Separate Cover
11 ⇨	Submission 84 - Dennis Hall (Pan Pac)	CP-11-2-21-84	Under Separate Cover
12 ⇨	Submission 97 - Tom Wallace	CP-11-2-21-97	Under Separate Cover
13 ⇨	Submission 98 - Sophie Wallace	CP-11-2-21-98	Under Separate Cover
14 ⇨	Submission 107 - Maree Sorensen Wallace	CP-11-2-21-107	Under Separate Cover
15 ⇨	Submission 109 - Jeremy MacLeod	CP-11-2-21-109	Under Separate Cover
16 ⇨	Submission 114 - Jonathan Wallace	CP-11-2-21-114	Under Separate Cover
17 ⇨	Submission 117 - Sam Wallace	CP-11-2-21-117	Under Separate Cover
18 ⇨	Submission 145 - Beverly Te Huia	CP-11-2-21-145	Under Separate Cover
19 ⇨	Submission 103 - Anton Maurenbrecher	CP-11-2-21-103	Under Separate Cover
20 ⇨	Submission 105 - Troy Duncan (QEII)	CP-11-2-21-105	Under Separate Cover
21 ⇨	Submission 112 - Anna Follett	CP-11-2-21-112	Under Separate Cover
22 ⇨	Submission 119 - Shona McDonald	CP-11-2-21-119	Under Separate Cover
23 ⇨	Submission 124 - Rhea Dasent (Federated Farmers)	CP-11-2-21-124	Under Separate Cover
24 ⇨	Submission 129 - Callum Beattie	CP-11-2-21-129	Under Separate Cover
25 ⇨	Submission 142 - Jessie Kyle	CP-11-2-21-142	Under Separate Cover
26 ⇨	Submission 144 - Andy Tait-Jamieson	CP-11-2-21-144	Under Separate Cover
27 ⇨	Submission 147 - Kellie Jessup	CP-11-2-21-147	Under Separate Cover
28 ⇨	Submission 149 - Michael Hope	CP-11-2-21-149	Under Separate Cover
29 ⇨	Submission 161 - James Palmer (HBRC)	CP-11-2-21-161	Under Separate Cover

Monday, 24 May 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council:

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Anna Sanders, Senior Environmental Planner Policy (Special Projects)

Te Take:

Subject:

Heritage Nomination Project

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The Resource Management Act 1991 identifies the protection of historic heritage as a matter of national importance and requires councils to appropriately manage historic heritage through their District Plans to ensure it remains protected for future generations. The current District Plan protects some heritage, mainly in its commercial area, but Council has identified that there needs to be broader representation of the District’s heritage.

1.2 Council has therefore commenced a three year project to add to its District Plan schedule of heritage items. One of the objectives of the project is to see wider recognition of the District’s rural, commercial and industrial heritage.

1.3 As part of the project Council is looking for nominations from the community for future historic heritage buildings, items or areas to be researched and potentially included in our District Plan.

1.4 One of the early grouping of rural buildings to be recognised for potential District Plan listing are the 3 Drovers Huts located on Middle, Taihape and Maraekākaho (State Highway 50) Roads, which were built after WW2 in commemoration of the lives of three past Hawke’s Bay Drovers killed at war. Other suggestions thus far include the Maraekākaho Hall and rural homesteads and memorials.

1.5 This paper has been prepared to advise the Rural Community Board of the heritage nomination project, receive advice or nominations on any potential rural buildings, items or areas which might be considered and whether the Board is aware are any known relatives of the three Drovers for whom the project and nomination could be discussed (Poppies research and newspaper articles provide some leads in this regard).

1.6 Once all of the research is complete and recommendations made on the heritage buildings, items or areas then a District Plan change will be prepared and publicly notified. Council has a policy of not proceeding to list heritage items in the District Plan without the landowner’s support. Any Plan Change will also need to go to Council for its approval to notify ahead of seeking public submissions.

2.0 Background (Te Horopaki) and Discussion (Te Matapakitanga)

2.1 The Resource Management Act 1991 identifies under Section 6, the protection of historic heritage as a matter of national importance and requires Councils to appropriately manage historic heritage through District Plans to ensure it remains protected for future generations.

2.2 Our District has a diverse history. Historic buildings and places are important in helping tell the stories that shaped both the district and New Zealand. Protecting and managing Hastings’ significant heritage items leaves a lasting legacy for future generations. Landowners and interest groups have worked hard to preserve our heritage and share it with others.

2.3 The heritage features of the Hastings district are not limited to the city centre; they are also found in the wider Hastings urban area, Havelock North and throughout the rural area. Information on the individual significant heritage buildings, areas and items currently protected in the District Plan can be found online in Council’s recently completed heritage browser: https://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/hastings/about-hastings/hastings-heritage/.

2.4 The District Plan identifies and protects some heritage, however additional items could be added to provide broader recognition of the district’s heritage and ensure our heritage is preserved for future generations. One of the objectives of the project is to see additional rural, commercial and industrial heritage added to the District Plan heritage schedule.

2.5 We are therefore looking for nominations for items our community thinks hold heritage value and significance. Heritage items may be identified for their aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, technological or traditional significance or value. They may also be identified for their group and setting, landmark or design significance. Nominations can be made via the above mentioned page on Councils website.

2.6 Council is working alongside Historic Places Hawkes Bay on the heritage nomination project, with Elizabeth Pishief, local Archaeologist managing the research needed to inform the nominations. Suggested buildings, items or areas will not go onto be researched if the property owner/s are not in in agreement. An early letter is sent to property owners outlining the project and that District Plan rules for historic heritage generally require resource consent for additions and alterations so that key heritage features are not lost and that it is likely that similar rules would apply to any future items added to the District Plan.

2.7 Once buildings, items or areas have been researched, recommendations made and then in some cases peer reviewed by a Conservation Architect then a District Plan Change will follow. Nominations need to be considered against a number of criteria to be recommended for inclusion in the District Plan. These include meeting the definition of historic heritage under the Resource Management Act 1991; whether the place is accessible and/or visible; holds commemorative significance; whether it contributes through public education, to peoples’ awareness, understanding and appreciation of the District and/or New Zealand’s history and cultures; whether its vulnerable to deterioration, damage, demolition or is threatened by land use activities; and/or is associated with an event or person/s. Not all of the project criteria need to be met to be recommended for inclusion in the Plan. Any Plan Change adding to the heritage schedule will also need to go to Council for its approval to notify ahead of seeking public submissions.

2.8 Early on in the project the 3 Drovers Huts built along droving routes and located on Middle, Taihape and Maraekākaho (State Highway 50) Roads (see attached maps – Attachment 1), which were built after WW2 in commemoration of the lives of three past Hawke’s Bay Drovers killed at war and as a memorial to historical farming practices, were identified by the project team as potential buildings which should be added to the heritage schedule in the District Plan. This is because they hold commemorative/memorial; cultural/social/public esteem; and historic values. This suggestion now has the support of a project nomination via the website.

2.9 Details on the 3 huts and their significance are briefly outlined in the table below and further in the document prepared as part as the Poppies Places Project and appended to this report as Attachment 2:

Drovers Hut #1 (Middle Road):	Built along a droving route in memory of James Edward (Jack) Oliver, Trooper who enlisted in the New Zealand Cavalry Division and former Hawke’s Bay Drover. Oliver was killed in WWII during action in Egypt on 23 January 1942 aged 26. Jack’s grave is in the Alexandria (Hadra) War Memorial Cemetery, Egypt (Plot 1. Row B. grave 7).
Drovers Hut #2 (Pukehamoamoa Hut/Taihape Road):	Built in memory of Private Percy Botherway who was a drover in Hawke’s Bay prior to enlisting. Botherway served in the New Zealand Infantry, 24th Battalion. He was killed overseas at the age of 36 and is buried in the Sangro River War Cemetery in Italy (plot 16, row E, grave 24; reference XVI. E. 24).
Drovers Hut #3 (Maraekākaho Road/State Highway 50):	Built in memory of Lance Sergeant Wilfred James (Togo) Kirkley who prior to enlisting was a Drover in Hawke’s Bay. Kirkley served in the 2nd New Zealand Divisional Artillery, 5th Field Regiment who was killed as a Prisoner of War on 9 May 1945 aged 27. He is listed on face 12 of the Athens Memorial, Phaleron War Cemetery, Athens, Greece. No official grave is known.

2.10 Two of the huts are located on road reserve and the third at Maraekākaho is in a freehold title which was acquired under the Public Works Act. All huts are in the ownership of Council.

2.11 Further suggested rural nominations include the Maraekākaho Hall, a number of homesteads and memorials, but it is hoped that there will be more. The Chair of the Maraekakaho Church Hall Trust Board, Johnathan Stockley, has confirmed that the Board is supportive of this particular nomination. With this support, the research phase of the project can commence for this building.

2.12 A communications plan is in place for this project which has resulted in nominations and telephone enquiries and will continue for a significant part of this 3 year project.

2.13 As next steps, if the Rural Community Board has any suggested nominations then the project team is happy to receive them. We will also be attempting to contact relatives of the three huts as part of completing the research phase of the project for these buildings.

3.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Heritage Nomination Project dated 24 May 2021.

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Environmental Policy - Rolling Review - Heritage Nomination Project - Drovers Maps Combined for Rural Community Board Report May 2021	ENV-19-1-21-6
2 ⇩	Civic Treasures & Archives - Historic places, monuments & memorials & Plaques - Poppy Places DROVERS HUTS KIRKLEY OLIVER and BOTHERWAY	CTA-05-15-142

Item 5 Heritage Nomination Project
Civic Treasures & Archives - Historic places, monuments & memorials & Plaques - Poppy Places DROVERS HUTS KIRKLEY OLIVER and BOTHERWAY	Attachment 2

Poppy Places – Information Sheet

				Poppy Places No:		(register number issued by the Trust)

Title or Place Name:					Drovers Huts

Controlling Authority:		Hastings District Council
Control Reference:
Control Contact:		Hastings District Council – phone 06 871 5000
Location Detail:		The drovers’ huts were built along droving routes. Later the land they stand on were vested as Road Reserve so that they would stay in Council ownership. The huts are located: 1. Near State Highway 50, Maraekakaho (for Sergeant Kirkley), which has a legal title located on the Maraekakaho Road between Valley road and Kereru road and is held under the Public Works Act. The other two are located on the roadside on legal road and have no title 2. By Middle Road near Havelock North (for Trooper Oliver) - just past the entrance to 1153 Middle Road/ 3. Next to Taihape Road, just under Pukehamoamoa School (for Private Botherway) about 300 meters before Pukehamoamoa School (Matapiro Road turnoff).
Location Map:
Verification:		Council records note the reasons for naming the three huts and for their construction.

The Specific Reason for naming the place:		Three drovers huts were built in memory of three Hawke’s Bay drovers who went to World War Two and never came home: 1. Percy Botherway 2. Wilfred James (Togo) Kirkley 3. John/James Edward (Jack) Oliver
The Story:		Hawke’s Bay Today. Monday 1^st December 2008. Friends and families of these men, who had all been drovers before they went to war, fundraised £160 for each hut to build three drovers huts in their memory. The County Council donated the land and contributed to the costs of erecting the buildings. Percy Botherway Percy Botherway The Drovers’ Hut erected for Percy Botherway While the plaque notes Percy as 37 when he died, records show he was born in 1907 and would have been 36. He was also in the 24^th Battalion. Private Botherway was 36 when he died of wounds in Italy on 2 December 1943, and had been in the New Zealand Infantry, 24th Battalion, service number 402278. He is buried in the Sangro River War Cemetery, reference XVI. E. 24. Percy Botherway was the son of George Botherway and of Sarah Botherway (nee Briggs), of Waimate, Canterbury, New Zealand; husband of Dorothy (Dot) Allison Botherway, of Hastings, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. He had a son Gary, and family members still live locally. Headstone records from Sangro River War Cemetery. Percy was buried in plot 16, row E, grave 24. “Togo” Kirkley Lance-Sergeant Wilfred James Kirkley, service number 20607, served in the 2nd New Zealand Divisional Artillery, 5th Field Regiment. He was killed age 27 on 9^th May 1945, while a prisoner of war (in Czechoslovakia). He is listed on face 12 of the Athens Memorial, Phaleron War Cemetery, Athens, Greece. No official grave is known. “Togo” Kirkley was the son of Cedric and Elsie Myrtle Kirkley, of Hastings, Hawke's Bay. The Drovers’ Hut erected for Togo Kirkley. Togo was remembered in 2008 by Derrick Wedd (by then 85 years old), as a good swimmer and rugby player and a very popular person in Hawke’s Bay and Hastings. “Jack” Oliver Trooper John Edward (Jack) Oliver was in the New Zealand Armoured Corp, Divisional Cavalry, service number 12055, and was 26 years old when killed in action in Egypt on January 23rd 1942. Jack lived in Twyford, Hastings. He was the son of Henry Wallis Oliver and Bessie Oliver, of Fendalton, Canterbury. Auckland Museum Cenotaph and Commonwealth war records show Jack Oliver’s name as John Edward Oliver and that he was 26 years old when he died. Jack’s grave is in the Alexandria (Hadra) War Memorial Cemetery, Egypt, reference Plot 1. Row B. grave 7. The Middle Road hut near Havelock North (for Jack Oliver) is used by locals each month for a Friday social hour. Photo from Heritage Trails Droving stock could take a month from Gisborne or Feilding to the stock yards at Stortford Lodge, Hastings. The huts were a valuable shelter for the drovers during their long trips. Times have changed, and the huts are no longer used for their original purpose. The number of stock paddocks for drovers’ use and the number of drovers declined over the years, with road and transport safety laws now making it almost impossible for drovers to move stock any distance over the roads. While these huts are a memorial to three men who lost their lives in World War II, they also stand as a memorial to a way of life that is largely lost now in New Zealand. Photos from Hastings District Council Archives
The Commemoration		In 1995 Hastings District Council fixed memorial plaques to the Drovers Huts and held a memorial service to remember the three men. Extract from scrapbook of Ruby Lancaster, held at Hastings District Library. Source almost certainly Hawkes’ Bay Today.

References:	Hastings District Council archives http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/war-memorial/online-cenotaph Commonwealth War Graves Commission www.cwgc.org http://www.nzwargraves.org.nz/cemeteries/athens-memorial Hawke’s Bay Today. 1 December 2008. Remember Our Drovers Killed in War. Lawrence Gullery. People interested in more information on drovers can see On the Hoof: The Untold Story of Drovers in New Zealand by Ruth E Low. Penguin. 2014 Heritage Trails: Middle Road – Poukawa Valley (Tukituki River), published 2010. Hastings District Heritage Trails Society Inc. Edited by Maurice Bartlett and Ivan Hughes Scrapbook of Ruby Lancaster, Hastings District Library.
Author/s:	Chris Johnson Cherie Flintoff Colin Hosford Madelon van Zijll de Jong
Contact Details:	Hastings District Council phone 06 871 5000
Sponsor Details:	n/a
Timeline:	Date first registered by the Trust:						00/00/0000
	Date completed sheet uploaded to database:						00/00/0000

Street Name Type:			Persons
Memorial Type:			Building

Monday, 24 May 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council:

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Rachel Stuart, Public Spaces Planning Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Reserve Management Plan Update

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This report is to update the Rural Community Board on Reserve Management Plans that are currently being prepared, specifically:

· Eskdale Park Reserve Management Plan

· Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan

· Review of the Tainui, Tanner, Tauroa and Hikanui Reserves Management Plan

1.2 Council as an administering body under the Reserves Act 1977, is obliged to prepare Reserve Management Plans for the reserves under its management. The Act sets out the process to be followed in preparation of management plans.

1.3 The Parks team are managing the preparation/review of the three Reserve Management Plans concurrently in 2021, all of which commenced in March 2021.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receive the report titled Reserve Management Plan Update dated 24 May 2021.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

Reserve Management Plans

3.1 A Reserve Management Plan sets out how Council will provide for the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, preservation and development of a park or reserve over a ten year timeframe. A Reserve Management Plan can either be for an individual park or reserve or a group of parks or reserves. The ten year plan includes a programme of capital expenditure for development of a park or reserve.

3.2 The plans generally consider all aspects of a park or reserve, including: access, tracks, carparking, planting, furniture, playgrounds, buildings, signage and recognition and protection of special features including cultural sites.

3.3 In March 2021 Council began the process of preparing two new Reserve Management Plans for Eskdale Park and Frimley Park, and the review of the Tainui, Tanner, Tauroa and Hikanui Reserves Management Plan with a focus on the walking and cycling network of the reserves. The three projects will follow similar processes and be prepared concurrently. Frimley Park and Tainui, Tanner, Tauroa and Hikanui reserves are urban parks, located in the suburb of Frimley in Hastings and Havelock North, respectively. This report will focus on Eskdale Park, given this park is located within a rural area.

Eskdale Park

3.4 Eskdale Park is a 12.5453ha park accessed via Shaw Road off State Highway 5, north of Napier. Eskdale Park is zoned as Open Space (OS2-09) in the Operative District Plan and classified as Recreation Reserve pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977. The park is popular for picnics and dog walking due to the large natural open space and access to Esk River. The park has a number of mature trees, children’s playground, cricket pitch, two toilet blocks. Part of the park is currently leased for grazing. Eskdale Park is currently managed under the District Wide Reserve Management Plan.

Pathway to Reserve Management Plan process

3.5 Hawke’s Bay Mountain Bike Club (HBMBC) has operated mountain bike trails on privately owned Pan Pac Forest land since the 1990s. Due to impending commercial operations on their current trail site, HBMBC have negotiated a 25 year lease with Pan Pac to relocate to the Waipunga and Tait blocks, opposite Eskdale Park.

3.6 In May 2020 HBMBC was granted resource consent to establish the new trail network in privately owned Pan Pac land, with access and carparking off Waipunga Road. In addition, HBMBC have also identified their desire to access their new trail network from Eskdale Park, as the access from Waipunga Road would require a 2km uphill ride from the carpark to the start of the trails.

3.7 While no formal application had been received, in July 2020 Council discussed the HBMBC proposal with the Eskdale Park Care Group at a planting day in the park. Given concerns raised by some members of the community regarding potential change to the park, Council subsequently undertook a public consultation process with a blank canvas, including a My Voice My Choice survey and an Open Day. There was significant concern raised by the community at the Open Day, following which Council held meetings with key stakeholders and people who had volunteered at the Open Day to be part of a working party.

3.8 The meetings with key stakeholders and the working party were held in November 2020, at which the general consensus was to prepare a Reserve Management Plan for Eskdale Park. On 8 December 2020 Council authorised officers to commence the preparation of a Reserve Management Plan and the process began on 6 March 2021 with publication of the intention to prepare the Reserve Management Plan for Eskdale Park.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

Management Plan Process

4.1 The process for preparation or review of a Reserve Management Plan is set out in Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977. Council is following this process for Eskdale Park, as well as the other Reserve Management Plan projects. In addition, officers have added a third community engagement step to ensure consultation with the community is as robust and comprehensive as possible. The process for the preparation of the Eskdale Park Reserve Management Plan is included in Attachment 1.

4.2 The process moving forward is as follows:

· Preparation of key themes and concepts based on feedback gathered during the first stage of community engagement. Key stakeholders will be invited to participate in this stage.

· Key themes and concepts presented to the community in a second round of community engagement, to test Council is on the right track with direction of the plans.

· Preparation of the Draft Plan, engaging relevant specialist input and undertaking stakeholder workshops

· Workshop with the Eco District Subcommittee to consider the Draft Plan

· Council adopts the Draft Plan for consultation purposes

· Public notification of the Draft Plan for a period of two months

· Hearing of submissions and any required amendments

· Obtain Minister of Conservation approval

· Adopt reserve management plan

· Monitor and review plan as required

Community Engagement and Specialist Input

4.3 The first stage of community engagement was undertaken between 6 March and 23 April 2021. To ensure the views of the community were captured as widely as possible, FOLKL, an independent research consultancy were engaged to undertake the first stage of community engagement and to gather data regarding usage of Eskdale Park. FOLKL have undertaken an extensive community engagement process, including:

· Design of the survey which was available on Council’s survey portal My Voice My Choice, at Eskdale Park, at the Bay View Four Square, Napier, Taradale, Hastings, Flaxmere and Havelock North libraries and Council’s customer service centre.

· Facilitated a number of meetings with key stakeholders, including: representatives of the Clark family; Friends of Eskdale Park; HBMBC; Rosy Hiha; Hukarere Girls’ College; Eskdale School; Eskdale Park Campground.

· Undertook intercept interviews at Eskdale Park.

· Facilitated a Coffee in the Park day where members of the public could discuss their ideas and suggestions for the park.

· Undertook door knocking around local businesses in the Eskdale area.

4.4 As part of standard practice during the first stage of community engagement for a Reserve Management Plan the following methods were also used to ensure wide community awareness of the commencement of the process, and how they could be involved:

· Signs at entrance to Eskdale Park (with surveys attached);

· Social media and print media advertising;

· Individual letters requesting feedback to landowners and occupiers within a 2.5km radius of the park (over 1300 residents within both Hastings District Council and Napier City Council boundaries)

· Letters to interested parties including the Department of Conservation, Kiwirail, Waka Kotahi, Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand Walking Access Commission, Heritage Hawke’s Bay, Heritage New Zealand, Landmarks Trust and Sport Hawke’s Bay.

4.5 At the close of Stage 1 consultation, over 1000 pieces of feedback had been received.

4.6 In addition, FOLKL gathered data on usage of Eskdale Park to gain a clear understanding of use of the park. Officers also engaged historian Michael Fowler to prepare a history of the park and Archaeology Hawke’s Bay to undertake preliminary archaeological screening of the park, to inform the Reserve Management Plan.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 This report is for information purposes only and it is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information purposes.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 The report on the first stage of community engagement is due to be completed in the coming months. Following analysis of this information, in conjunction with the community key themes and concepts will be prepared for Eskdale Park. These will be released for a second stage of community engagement. Officers will keep the committee informed of progress.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

RMP timeframe RCB 240521

CG-16-7-00051

Monday, 24 May 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council:

Hastings District Rural Community Board

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Hastings District Rural Community Board

Nā:

From:

Adam Jackson, Transportation Operations Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Rural Transportation Activities Report

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This report is to update the Rural Community Board with the Rural Transportation Programmed Project Status and Activities Report.

1.2 This report concludes by recommending that the report be received.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Hastings District Rural Community Board receives the report titled Rural Transportation Activities Report dated 24 May 2021.

3.0 2020/2021 Major Works Programme

3.1 The 2020/21 financial year is the final portion of the 2018-21 LTP programme.

3.2 Projects able to be completed in 2020/21 are often a result of programme changes during the first 2 years of the LTP programme and that has been the case during this LTP.

3.3 The following is the status of the final Area Wide Pavement Treatment programme for the 2020/21 financial year.

Road	Section	Status/Comment
Kererū Road	Kererū Road – Section 2	Construction 100% complete. Small shoulder areas needing sealed.
Kererū Road	Kererū Road – Section 3	Design complete. Construction on hold until 21/22 season

4.0 Bridge Update

4.1 Mangatahi Low Level (Mangatahi Road) bridge replacement works are nearing completion with road surfacing work yet to be done. Expected completion date is 14 June 2021.

4.2 Kuripapango bridge strengthening works are expected to be completed ahead of schedule by mid-May 2021. Everyone involved have worked very collaboratively and have been committed to getting the work done on or ahead of schedule which has paid off.

4.3 Rissington bridge vertical clearance upgrade designs have been completed. The material required for the works will be purchased this financial year. The upgrade will take place in the next financial year following consultation.

4.4 The next round of bridge evaluations are nearing completion with a finish date by end of June. There are at least 4 structures expected to go into construction next year.

5.0 Provincial Growth Fund Projects (PGF)

5.1 PGF has allocated $1.4M for roading projects in DRA2. These are 100% funded by the PGF, so do not have any impact on rates. These projects are ones that were considered shovel ready, and have been assigned to Contractors to start in Q3 of 2020. The projects are:

Road	Project	Status/Comment
Tukituki Road	AWPT	Complete
Taihape Road	Passing Lanes 1-4	Complete
Taihape Road	Bridge Guardrail Package 1.	Tender has been let and works have commenced. Project is due for completion by end of June. Delays to this project were realised after tender acceptance but HDC are progressing with designs to do more guardrail work on Taihape Rd bridges in 2021/22 financial year also.

6.0 State Highway 5 and State Highway 51 Speed Limit Submission

6.1 Hastings District Council made a submission to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s speed limit proposals. A copy of this submission is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

7.0 Works Update

7.1 Attachment 2 provides the Rural Community Board with a photographic snapshot of activities undertaken between March 2021 and May 2021.

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Transport (USE ROAD CONTAINER FOR INDIVIDUAL ROADS) - Roads General (See notes) - State Highway Speed Limits Submission to Waka Kotahi	TR-8-21-10012
2 ⇩	Transport (USE ROAD CONTAINER FOR INDIVIDUAL ROADS) - Roads General (See notes) - 11_RCB Photos - March 2021 to April 2021	TR-8-21-10013

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-Rohe

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This report promotes the performance of regulatory functions for the purpose of providing safe, reliable and efficient transport networks.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No known impacts for tangata whenua over and above the impact on the rural district as a whole:

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

This is a progress report and sustainability issues are not addressed.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

The works identified within this report are within existing budgets.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance. Individual projects will have been addressed under the significance and engagement policy during the planning and decision making phase of those projects.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho

No consultation is required as part of this report.

Risks

Risk management and mitigation issues have been addressed in project planning and organisational health and safety policies.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

The Rural Community Board will have an interest in the operations and transportation activities within the DRA2 rating area.

Item 11 Rural Transportation Activities Report
Transport (USE ROAD CONTAINER FOR INDIVIDUAL ROADS) - Roads General (See notes) - State Highway Speed Limits Submission to Waka Kotahi	Attachment 1

If calling ask for Nigel Bickle

File Ref: TR-8-21-10012

7 May 2021

Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
National Office
PO Box 6995
Wellington 6141

SH5 and SH51 Hawke’s Bay speed limit consultation

Thank you for the opportunity to submit on your two speed limits proposals. While, our submission relates to both SH5 and SH51, we have chosen to elaborate on SH5 as this proposal has significant impacts on the social and economic performance of our and neighbouring regions.

SH5 Speed Limit Submission

As you will be aware HDC has been a strong supporter of speed management when applied appropriately and following extensive engagement of affected parties. Within Hastings we have adopted speed management approaches across a large part of our network and only recently, early 2021, we implemented speed reductions across approximately 70 roads within Hastings. This approach demonstrates our commitment to Road to Zero and shows our willingness to utilise speed management as part of the toolbox in achieving this outcome.

However, with respect to the proposed speed limit reduction on SH5 we oppose this proposal as it currently stands. We have real objections to the process adopted by Waka Kotahi and the recommendations made and we are concerned that there is inadequate evidence and/or analysis to support the proposals. Our concerns are detailed within this letter and are summarised as follows:

· We are concerned that the strategic importance of this link has been undervalued and not adequately considered in determining a safe and appropriate speed for SH5. We believe the impacts of the proposed change have been significantly underestimated in determining the proposed outcome.

· In reviewing the technical assessments completed we have concerns with the desk top nature of the analysis and the absence of any site visits, validations and assessments. We are particularly concerned with the lack of analysis of the recorded crashes and believe without this level of assessment it is impossible to conclude that the proposed intervention is appropriate and even more impossible to have confidence that it will drive the desired safety outcomes.

· We strongly believe that the approach to public consultation and engagement is far from acceptable and does not accord with Waka Kotahi’s own guidelines. We believe there are significant issues associated to the approach adopted by Waka Kotahi and that the public and affected parties have not been afforded appropriate engagement and input to the process.

· We have heard our community loud and clear and believe that there is almost no support for the proposed speed limit reduction. The concerns raised by the public are numerous and consistent and demonstrate a lack of understanding from Waka Kotahi as to the perceptions and expectations of the local community and the wider affected stakeholders.

· We remain concerned with the significant under investment in infrastructure along SH5 and believe that this under investment has directly contributed to the poor safety outcomes present on this route. There is a need for significant and prompt action to upgrade this route to a level befitting of its Regional Strategic nature.

· We believe that the only option to address the poor safety record of SH5 is to progress a more comprehensive corridor study to better define and evaluate the problem and to ultimately develop an intervention strategy that takes a holistic approach and achieves multiple outcomes for safety, efficiency, resilience and accessibility.

Strategic Importance of Link

As you are aware the SH5 (Napier to Taupo) corridor is a 122km long Regional Strategic corridor located in the Taupo and Hastings Districts. The corridor has relatively flat and straight/moderately curved sections at either end where open pastures and forestry blocks are prevalent and more constrained winding sections within the middle portion of the route.

You will also be aware that the SH5 corridor plays a significant role in the economic contribution to both Hawkes Bay and Waikato through its critical roles in both tourism and freight transport. Forming part of the ‘Thermal Explorer Highway’ SH5 accommodates national and international visitors travelling between the tourism hotspots of Rotorua, Taupo and Hawkes Bay.

From a freight perspective this route provides a critical link to the forestry and agricultural operations located along the route and at either end of the route in both Waikato and Hawkes Bay. It provides a key linkage for exports via the Napier Port and forms part of the critical courier network serving the large distribution centres within the central north island (notably Taupo).

With observed daily traffic volumes of over 4,000 vehicles per day and with 20% heavy vehicle representation, any proposed reduction in speed on this route could have significant economic implications for local and national industry. We are concerned that these impacts have not been appropriately nor adequately assessed.

Within the consultation flat sheet associated to this proposal, Waka Kotahi identify an increase in mean travel time of 41 seconds. This travel time impact has been reiterated by Waka Kotahi on numerous occasions within local and national media in response to growing public concerns and outcry associated to this proposal. We share similar views to a number of those submitters in that the suggestion of a 41 second impact is misleading and does not accurately reflect the true travel time impact of the proposal.

The 41 second impact seems to have been coarsely calculated based on the assumption that the proposal will simply reduce the average speed from its current number of 81km/h to the proposed speed limit of 80km/h – a 1km/h impact. This would only be true if current users were able to travel the extents of the route at a steady speed of 81km/h. Given the winding nature of the route this is not possible, meaning current speeds fluctuate far above and far below the average on any given route section. There are numerous tight corners and bends along the route which dictate traffic speeds well below the proposed 80km/h speed limit with many examples of bends signposted with advisory traffic speeds between 35km/h and 75km/h. Traffic travelling through these bends will currently reduce speeds well below the average 81km/h observed mean speeds meaning that they must be travelling the straighter sections at speeds far above this number (in order for the average to be 81km/h).

Should the proposal progress, there is unlikely to be any change in travel speeds around the tighter bends along the route given traffic is already slowing through these sections. As such, the majority of the impact will be on the straighter sections of the route where travel speeds will need to reduce far more to meet the 80km/h speed limit. As a result the mean operating speed should be expected to decrease well below the 80km/h posted speed limit (given you can’t travel this speed around the winding sections of the route). This is contrary to the information Waka Kotahi has provided to the public and therefore doesn’t bear any resemblance to the true impacts of the proposal and doesn’t accurately reflect the real travel time impact of the changes.

Furthermore, having reviewed both the technical report prepared by Urban Connection and the associated Internal Speed Limit Review documentation prepared in support of this proposal we have found no evidence nor suggestion of a 41 second impact associated to this proposal. To the contrary, the internal documentation notes a travel time impact of between 5:47 and 18:22 minutes depending on whether you assess the impact against the current mean speed or the current speed limit. Whist we recognise that the internal paper includes consideration of the impact associated to all 6 route sections (and not solely sections 2 to 5), it is reasonable to conclude from this information alone that the impact associated to sections 2 to 5 will be far greater than the 41 seconds suggested in the consultation materials (given this makes up over 60% of the total route length).

As a result, we know that the true impact of the proposal has potential to result in significant and detrimental impacts to local and national industry and economies and we remain concerned that these haven’t been adequately assessed in forming a view on the ‘safe and appropriate’ speed for SH5.

Waka Kotahi Technical Assessment

We have reviewed both the Technical Assessment Report completed by Urban Connections and the Internal Engagement documents. We note that all assessments have been undertaken via a desktop study only with no site visits/assessments completed. Within the Executive Summary of the Technical Assessment report Urban Connection clearly recommend a site visit to ‘verify and confirm the results of the desktop assessment’. However, the report goes on to say that NZTA determined ‘no further technical assessment was required’.

HDC are perplexed as to how a proposal of this scale with anticipated significant impacts on both the local community and national industries could be progressed without visiting the site. Site assessments and validation forms an important part of the speed setting process and is critical to ensure that the desktop findings and recommendations suit the receiving environment. Furthermore, the site investigation should help determine more accurately whether speed management is the appropriate solution or if more suitable infrastructure responses are required to target specific risks.

Waka Kotahi have stated on numerous occasions, within both the consultation documentation and the subsequent responses to media concerns, that speed management is just one piece of the puzzle in achieving improved road safety on SH5. We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment but question as to how Waka Kotahi have deemed it appropriate to progress a speed limit reduction in isolation without undertaking site visits to test whether infrastructure responses are more applicable to the risks observed along the route.

Further to the above we also note that the vast majority of the technical assessment seems to come down to just 3 metrics. Primarily the team have considered travel speeds, corridor risk and crash history. Unfortunately, the crash history has been assessed at only a macro level with no detailed analysis of the individual crashes. As such, the relationship between the travel speeds and the crash outcomes specific to this corridor are not well defined and have therefore not formed part of the assessment for the corridor. HDC are concerned that the absence of this level of detail means that it is impossible to infer that the proposed speed limit reduction will achieve the safety outcomes desired.

As indicated above HDC have completed a number of speed limit reviews in recent years with the most recent reviews resulting in speed limit changes across almost 70 roads within Hastings District – as such we are well placed to understand the level of assessment justified to inform the best outcomes. In completing the HDC review we conducted detailed technical assessments at both a macro and micro level to better understand the current crash trends which ultimately helped us to understand the need for, and associated benefit of, speed limit reductions. During the consultation exercise Waka Kotahi responded to HDC and ‘congratulate(d) Council on the quality of the proposal, the ease of navigation and simple access to explanatory notes. It is one of the best presented proposals Waka Kotahi has received’. This acclaim came from our transparent approach of comprehensively assessing each route and reviewing historic data in detail to ensure the proposed solution addressed the inherent risks. Where crashes not associated to operating speed had erroneously driven Safe and Appropriate Speed (SAAS) recommendations we were able to clearly identify these and ensure due consideration was given to the appropriate SAAS in light of the crash risks.

Given the scale of the proposed change and the large and negative implications it will have on local communities and national industries we remain concerned that the level of technical assessment followed for SH5 is not fit for purpose. It is impossible to confidently conclude that the proposed treatment is the most appropriate solution for this corridor given the lack of evidence presented and the absence of detailed analysis of the available information. We believe Waka Kotahi has a duty to reconsider their position and invest additional time in a more detailed and comprehensive assessment of the corridor in order to develop an integrated corridor response which adequately balances the safety and economic drivers for the route through a combined infrastructure and speed management response.

Consultation and Engagement Approach

HDC have serious concerns with regards to the lack of consultation and engagement completed with key stakeholders and affected parties. Whilst HDC (and the Regional Transport Committee) were afforded a very brief presentation by Waka Kotahi on 8^th April and 9^th April respectively, this cannot be considered engagement by any means. Concerns and questions raised by each party were left unanswered prior to the public consultation commencing just 3-4 days later. In effect this presentation was simply a heads-up in regard to what was coming. While appreciated, it was not consultation, nor should it be relied on as being consultation. In addition, it is not clear whether any of the broader key stakeholders were engaged prior to the public consultation.

Waka Kotahi’s own guidelines are clear on the expectations and requirements associated to the setting of speed limits but in this instance it appears short cuts have been taken. The Technical Assessment completed by your consultants confirms the classification of the route as a combination of ‘Engineer up’ and ‘Challenging Conversations’. The ‘Challenging Conversations’ classification highlights that a speed limit reduction may be warranted and that it is highly likely to be contentious and require extensive evidence and engagement in order to achieve acceptance from affected parties.

Section 2.1.5 of the Speed Management Guide is clear in stating that ‘lowering limits can often be challenging… careful and sometimes extended community engagement and consultation is warranted’. The guide goes on to provide extensive examples of effective community consultation and engagement and recognizes that ‘gaining community engagement in and gaining support for speed management is crucial’.

Waka Kotahi have simply ignored this advice and not implemented the recommended approach to speed limit setting as detailed within the Speed Management Guide. Rather, Waka Kotahi have shown poor judgement in rushing through this public consultation without effectively engaging with the local community and other affected stakeholders. This risk was clear and was even recognised by the Waka Kotahi team during the internal review which, in Section 8.9, captures the sentiment that ‘Point(s)…above reflects the need to ensure robust engagement is completed prior to formal consultation’.

Given the above it’s quite frustrating to read the concluding recommendation from the internal review to ‘go straight to consultation on SH5, with some light, targeted engagement immediately prior. Reflecting the desire to have an expedited process…’. Waka Kotahi have seriously misjudged the public’s position with respect to this proposal and in shortcutting Waka Kotahi own recognised approach to speed management Waka Kotahi have removed the opportunity for meaningful engagement with those most affected by the changes.

HDC believe the consultation and engagement approach adopted by Waka Kotahi is inappropriate and unacceptable. Arguably, due process has not been followed and we encourage Waka Kotahi to seriously consider their position prior to progressing these recommendations any further.

Community Feedback

The local community and other affected parties have made their voices clear during this consultation process and it is apparent they are not satisfied with the proposal as it stands. There is real resentment across these affected parties and a belief that they’re not being heard and their requests are being ignored. Feedback via the Te Pohue community meeting, Waka Kotahi social pinpoint site and the HDC Facebook page in addition to specific emails and letters to Councillors shows a very consistent message. In addition, media coverage and stories from local affected parties follows similar themes and shows a lack of support for the proposal and a real desire for infrastructure responses to counter the ongoing lack of investment in this critical transport link. Below provides just a short synopsis of some of the feedback received via various channels and demonstrates the consistent concerns of the local communities and other affected parties:

· Te Pohue Community

o The community told us loud and clear that the issue was not speed and that they want Waka Kotahi to demonstrate that they are investing in the road.

o An 80km/h speed limit will make passing of vehicles (even at passing lanes) impossible and increase frustration and therefore increase risky overtaking.

o The community strongly contests the suggestion that this change will add only 41 seconds to travel times with a heavy vehicle driver noting it would reduce his income by 25% due to a reduction in the number of trips he could make.

· Hawkes Bay Today

o Chris Whiteman, who travels the route once a month commented that the speed limit reduction will frustrate people and will make the situation worse (Published 28^th April 2021).

o Sandra Hazelhurst, Mayor, Hastings District Council; Tania Kerr, Deputy Mayor, Hastings District Council; and Martin Williams, Chair, Hawke’s Bay Regional Transport Committee have commented as follows:

o State Highway 5 is literally our lifeline connection to the north, and a critical freight route on which the regional economy depends.

o Speed reduction on State Highway 5 is not the right answer when the real issue is years of under investment in undeniably essential improvements to the corridor.

o We cannot let road safety be used as an excuse to avoid the real problem here, at everyone’s expense but the Transport Agency’s, and to the detriment of our regional economy.

o The consultation process has been “fast tracked”, cutting out a public engagement step, so that the move can be Gazetted by Government after “formal consultation” closes on 9 May 2021.

o Councillor Malcolm Dixon commented that reducing speeds on SH5 would increase frustration and that major maintenance and realignment is what’s needed (Published 30^th April 2021).

o The father of a daughter who died in a car crash on SH5 called the proposal a band aid solution to open-heart surgery. Mr Sanders referenced the poor condition of the road as the major contributor to crashes and a speed limit change would not deal with the problem (Published 3^rd May 2021).

· Hastings District Council Facebook Page

o Lack of investment over the years and traffic growth is the primary reason for accidents.

o Reducing the speed limit won’t help, adequately maintaining and improving the road and more overtaking areas would provide a better outcome.

o Lowering the limit won’t fix the problem, it’s just a band aid.

o Waka Kotahi need to improve the roads and educate drivers.

· Waka Kotahi Social Pinpoint

o Lowering the speed limit will cause frustration and result in drivers taking more risks (a theme repeated consistently across submitters).

o SH5 has been neglected and the evidence and impact is obvious and significant.

o Commentators stating that they’ve never seen a State Highway in such poor condition (with so much damage).

o The road plays a vital role in the economy of Hawkes Bay and the broader North Island and the proposed speed reduction will have significant and detrimental impacts on travel times and therefore freight efficiency concluding with a negative economic impact for New Zealand.

o Regardless of whether the speed limit is reduced or not, the road is in desperate need of investment to address the long term deterioration that has been witnessed along this route. Waka Kotahi should take a more comprehensive approach to this corridor which better balances infrastructure and speed management.

Route Investment

It is clear that this proposal is a result of significant underinvestment in maintenance and safety solutions particularly with regards to road and seal condition, route alignment and edge protection but also with regards to low cost solutions such as road marking and signage. In the last 20 years there has been only one substantial realignment project progressed on this section of SH5 with the road and supporting infrastructure left to deteriorate during this period.

Waka Kotahi seems set on following the same approach of underinvestment along this critical transport link in favour of a speed reduction solution which is neither appropriate nor acceptable. The absence of any site visits during the speed limit assessments and the complete lack of any assessment of the infrastructure along the route in concluding that a speed limit reduction is appropriate is at best concerning and at worst negligent.

Having only been afforded 8 working days to review and consider the technical assessments and internal Waka Kotahi review information prior to submitting our response, our team has had limited opportunity to complete a more detailed review of crashes and/or infrastructure along the corridor. Nonetheless, and whilst this should have been undertaken by the Waka Kotahi team through the review process, our team has been able to source and review detailed crash data and route infrastructure for some parts of the route.

The findings of our team raise a number of questions and support the concerns of Council that Waka Kotahi have proposed a solution without full consideration of the crash causes and infrastructure, and the inherent relationship between the two. As an example, the Infrastructure Risk Rating (IRR) for the SH5 section within the HDC boundary is medium over the full length which makes 80km/h the recommended Safe and Appropriate Speed (SAAS) within the Waka Kotahi MegaMaps tool. Our team observed that the land-use category within the tool and across the entire HDC section is ‘Rural Residential’ and this factor is driving the medium risk rating. Where the land use was changed to ‘Remote Rural’ the IRR would drop to low medium resulting in a SAAS recommendation of 100km/h. For completeness the land-use descriptors are identified below:

FIGURE 1 – Road Classifications, Speed Management Guide

As you can see the SAAS recommendations are directly related to the inputs within the tool which, with only minor tweaks and alterations, can have significant impacts on the outputs. A site visit by the technical team would likely have confirmed as such and may have driven a different recommendation with regards to speed limits.

It is noted that in the technical assessment summary, the lane widths and shoulder widths have been adjusted for some sections, which changes the recommended SAAS from 100km/h to 80km/h. It is unclear how the assessment team have determined a reduced width compared to the data in MegaMaps without a site visit.

As per the Waka Kotahi requirements, the speed limits should be self-explaining which can only be determined by understanding the relationship between the road and the adjacent land-uses. Had Waka Kotahi adopted a more detailed approach to the assessment we expect that the recommendation would have been for some sections of the route to reduce to 80km/h (where increased land-use activity is present) whilst large parts of the route would remain at 100km/h.

In addition, our assessment of the crash data for one of the sections shows that over half of the crashes in that section are ‘loss of control on bend’. As a bare minimum we would have expected that a review of curve signage and delineation has been completed. Worryingly, our brief review of on-site infrastructure shows delineation which is lacking and would not be acceptable across large parts of the State Highway network. Most alarming is that this infrastructure is relatively low cost and should be the first response to safety interventions to ensure a consistent route treatment is provided. As an example, RP204/3.30 has an uphill left hand curve in a passing lane with no curve signage present at all. The next 2 or 3 curves are of a very similar nature and also lack the most basic of signage intervention. The images provided below show this deficiency and should have been considered in the context of identifying the appropriate solution to address the safety issues present along this route.

cid:image001.jpg@01D740D4.DB309E80

FIGURE 2 – Lack of Signage Infrastructure on Route

These are important matters which should have been considered as part of the assessment. Our review of crash data showed common threads with regards to road condition contributing to safety performance. For example, one of the crashes with Section 3 was noted as ‘travelling too fast for conditions’. However, on review of the data the travel speed was noted as 75km/h with icy conditions being a factor in the crash which suggests an 80km/h speed limit would not have impacted this outcome. Furthermore, the location of the crash shows a right hand bend with no delineation measures which, once again, is a consistent theme along the route. A further photograph is provided which was the site of 2 crashes in wet weather and shown both poor road surface and, unusually, the absence of an advisory speed on the chevron.

FIGURE 3 – Lack of Signage Infrastructure on Route

Our team also identified that there are a number of crashes present within the current passing lanes along the route. As identified within this response there is significant concern from route users and local communities as to the potential for increased frustration for drivers of the route and specifically the possibility that this results in unsafe passing movements. Given the crash history within the current passing lanes we share similar concerns and particularly wonder how the passing lanes will be able to operate effectively under an 80km/h operating environment where vehicles will be unable to overtake heavy traffic (with the exception of steep uphill grades).

In selecting to reduce speed limits, and given the lack of supporting information or evidence, Waka Kotahi can have no real confidence that the speed reduction will deliver the safety benefits desired. Moreover, the insufficient technical assessments completed and the lack of recognition or consideration of the surrounding land-uses and the current condition/presence of infrastructure should be cause for real concern.

It is our opinion that Waka Kotahi would be remiss to adopt reduced speed limits at this time without stepping back and adopting a more detailed assessment of the route which adequately reflects the robustness of analysis required to justify a change of this scale. There are clear gaps in the approach adopted and we have real concern that it is driving an inappropriate outcome for the route.

HDC Recommendation

Our submission is clear that HDC oppose the proposed speed limit reductions in their current form. We have formed this view based on the serious concerns we hold with regards to the technical assessments completed, the community and affected party concerns, the scale of the economic impact on local communities and national industry and the lack of any consideration of the infrastructure condition and response required for this route.

We strongly believe that the consultation and engagement approach adopted is both inappropriate and inadequate. We support our community voice and share their concerns with regards to the potential negative safety implications of a proposed speed limit reduction across this length of network combined with the significant and detrimental time and economic impacts this change would have.

Our own technical assessment of the corridor shows serious gaps in the work completed by Waka Kotahi and demonstrates that there is significant opportunity for infrastructure to play a part in this safety response, some of which is at the most basic level of intervention. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the Waka Kotahi assessment has not adequately considered the land-use and environment of the route and have not tested whether alternative options would better serve the desired outcomes.

We ask that Waka Kotahi do not progress the speed limit change at this time. Whilst we support speed management across some parts of the route, such as around Te Pohue and Te Haroto villages, we cannot support the proposal as it stands. We request that Waka Kotahi complete a comprehensive corridor study along the SH5 route which considers a combination of speed management and significant infrastructure improvements in addressing the safety risks present along this route. We would like to understand the short, medium and long term vision and investment plan for this corridor to better understand the appropriateness of each solution and how they complement each other. We are happy to be involved in scoping this work and would be happy for our team to be involved in contributing to the study and the study outcomes. We also request that proactive and enhanced consultation and engagement with local communities is embedded within the route study to aid buy in of the ultimate solution.

SH51 Speed Limit Submission

Hastings District Council have previously indicated its position to Waka Kotahi regarding the State Highway 51 speed limit through the Waipatu area – sections 6 & 7 in the Technical Assessment. During our recent speed limit review on the local roads in Waipatu, it was considered important that the side roads be aligned with the State Highway 51 speed limit and as such we developed the speed limit changes for the adjoining roads based on this position, being 50km/h from Kenilworth Road to St Georges Road, and 60km/h through to the Karamu Stream Bridge (see plan below). With the exception of Elwood Road, the local road speed limit changes are now in place.

It was disappointing that the speed limit review of SH51 was delayed and unable to be aligned and integrated with our speed limit review as indicated by Waka Kotahi in 2019. It is also noted that both the Technical Assessment and Internal Review were completed prior to the corridor improvements and urbanisation project. The designs used in the assessment and review have since been superceded, and now include a limesand shared path from St Georges Road to Ruahapia Road.

Council support the proposed speed limit reductions on SH51, with the following exceptions:

Section 7 (Kenilworth to St Georges)

Hastings District Council is in support of a speed limit reduction on State Highway 51 through Waipatu to complement the transformational works and urbanisation of the road through the settlement, however it is the view of Council and the community that a 60km/h speed limit would be too high on this now urban section of Waipatu (Kenilworth to St Georges) and that the proposed speed limit reduction should extend beyond Waipatu Settlement Road and the busy Bay Espresso café. The geometric design for the corridor improvements and urbanisation project used a design speed of 50km/h, which was assumed based on the existing SAAS in MegaMaps.

The section from Kenilworth Road to St Georges now has kerb and channel both sides, a concrete shared path on the southern side and pedestrian refuges to be built as part of this project. There is also an increase in development in the area; Papakainga housing is being built currently, with more to be built in the near future, and the intersection with Bennett Road will see a significant increase in traffic volume when Kura is opened within the next few years.

The default SAAS for this section is 50km/h, and with the corridor improvements this remains the case when the length of the section is extended to include the above. Council agree that the safe and appropriate speed through this section is 50km/h, and ask that Waka Kotahi adopt a 50km/h speed limit from Kenilworth to beyond Bay Espresso café.

Section 6 (St Georges to Karamu Stream Bridge)

It is disappointing that Waka Kotahi have ignored the findings of the Technical Assessment in this section by deciding not to propose a reduction in speed limit.

With the transformational works being undertaken up to Ruahapia Road, the Karamu Stream Bridge becomes a natural threshold where a speed limit change is logical, as this section differs significantly to the section to the east (section 5). Running alongside the road is now a limesand shared path, where in some places lane separators are required due to insufficient shoulder width. The road widening to allow for a flush median also moves the traffic lanes closer to roadside hazards, which were assessed as severe in the Technical Assessment.

Council agree with the findings of the Technical Assessment that the SAAS for this section is 60km/h, and would like to understand why Waka Kotahi have deviated from the technical advice in this instance.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Bickle, Sandra Hazlehurst, Craig Thew, Jag Pannu,

Chief Executive Mayor GM Asset Management Transportation Manager

Copy to: Hon Stuart Nash, Hon Meka Whaitiri, Anna Lorck, Hon Michael Woods, Sir Brian Roche, Nicole Rosie.

Te Rā Hui: Meeting date:	Monday, 24 May 2021
Te Wā: Time:	1.30pm
Te Wāhi: Venue:	Landmarks Room Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings
Te Hoapā: Contact:	Democracy and Governance Services P: 06 871 5000 \| E: democracy@hdc.govt.nz
Te Āpiha Matua: Responsible Officer:	Transportation Manager - Jag Pannu

Mematanga: Committee Members:	Heamana Chair: Nick Dawson Marcus Buddo, Sue Maxwell and Jonathon Stockley Councillors Tania Kerr (Deputy Chair) and Sophie Siers
Tokamatua: Quorum:	4 members
Apiha Matua: Officer Responsible:	Kaiwhakahaere Rōpū Transportation Manager: Jag Pannu
Te Rōpū Manapori me te Kāwanatanga: Democracy & Governance Services:	Jackie Evans (Ext 5018)

1.0	Apologies & Leave of Absence – Ngā Whakapāhatanga me te Wehenga ā-Hui At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
2.0	Conflict of Interest – He Ngākau Kōnatunatu Members need to be vigilant 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 scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Manager: Democracy and Governance (preferably before the meeting). It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.
3.0	Confirmation of Minutes – Te Whakamana i Ngā Miniti Minutes of the Hastings District Rural Community Board held Monday 1 March 2021. (Previously circulated)
4.0	Long Term Plan Submissions 2021-2031	7
5.0	Heritage Nomination Project	11
6.0	Reserve Management Plan Update	31
7.0	Report on attendance at the 2021 NZ Community Boards Conference	37
8.0	Consideration of Establishment of Maori Wards for 2022 Elections	39
9.0	Rural Recycling Update	41
10.0	Pukehamoamoa School - Request to Use Disused Quarry	47
11.0	Rural Transportation Activities Report	51
12.0	Minor Items – Ngā Take Iti
13.0	Urgent Items – Ngā Take Whakahihiri

Item 5 Heritage Nomination Project
Environmental Policy - Rolling Review - Heritage Nomination Project - Drovers Maps Combined for Rural Community Board Report May 2021	Attachment 1

Item 6 Reserve Management Plan Update
RMP timeframe RCB 240521	Attachment 1

Item 10 Pukehamoamoa School - Request to Use Disused Quarry
Pukehamoamoa School - Request to use HDC Quarry for BMX track	Attachment 1

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference