|
Tuesday, 29 November 2022
|
Te
Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga
Hastings
District Council: Council Meeting
Te
Rārangi Take
Report to Council
|
Nā:
From:
|
Alex Mabin, Public
Spaces Policy Planner
|
|
Te Take:
Subject:
|
Frimley Park Reserve
Management Plan - Hearings Report
|
1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te
Whakarāpopototanga
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to identify and analyse submissions received on the
Draft Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan (Draft Plan), which was adopted for
public consultation purposes on 2 July 2022, in accordance with the
requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.
1.2 Council
is requested to consider the written and oral submissions received; and make
determinations on these submissions.
1.3 This
requirement comes from the obligation of the Hastings District Council, as an
administering body under the Reserves Act 1977, to prepare Reserve Management
Plans for the reserves under its management, which includes Frimley Park.
|
2.0 Recommendations
- Ngā Tūtohunga
A) That
Council receive the report titled Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan -
Hearings Report dated 29 November 2022.
B) That
Council receive the written and oral submissions as presented and set out in
Attachment 1 to the report at (A) above.
C) That
Council makes determinations on submissions made to the Draft Frimley Park
Reserve Management Plan numbered recommendations (A) – (PP), as
included in Attachment 3.
D) That
Council recommend the allocation of funds required to complete the capital
works programme identified in the Action Plan in Attachment 4 for
consideration for inclusion in the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.
E) That
the Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan as amended by determinations on
submissions be presented for adoption at the Council meeting on 15 December
2022.
|
3.0 Background – Te Horopaki
Background
3.1 Frimley Park
covers a total area of 19.78 hectares, over two separate pieces of land.
Frimley Park is contained within the following four Certificates of Title:
· Lot 1 Deposited
Plan 569657 1027817 Local Purpose Reserve (Network Utility) 0.0872ha
· Lot 2 Deposited
Plan 569657 1027818 Local Purpose Reserve (Network Utility) 1.2370ha
· Lot 3 Deposited
Plan 569657 1027819 Recreation Reserve 18.2900ha
· Lot 4 Deposited
Plan 569657 1027820 Recreation Reserve 0.1666ha
3.2 The
preparation of a Reserve Management Plan for Frimley Park was triggered by
Council’s application for a resource consent to construct a water
reservoir and treatment facility on the park. The resource consent was
granted in 2020, with construction commencing soon after. The resource
consent required removal of the maintenance sheds located near Frimley Road and
preparation of a Reserve Management Plan provided the opportunity to consider
future use of this area.
3.3 The
Draft Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
Reserves Act 1977. The Draft Plan takes into account identified issues
and opportunities raised during community engagement, and the following
specialist reports:
· Historical Report,
Michael Fowler
· Arboricultural
Report, Paper Street Tree Company
· Archaeological
Screening Report, Archaeology Hawke’s Bay
· Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design Report, Boffa Miskell
3.4 Extensive
engagement has been undertaken with the community during the preparation of the
Draft Plan, as identified below:
· Public Notice was
given on 6 March 2021 under Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 of
Council’s intention to prepare a Reserve Management Plan for Frimley
Park, along with an invitation to send written comments and attend a coffee in
the park drop in session at the park;
· Sign boards
informing the public of the RMP process and providing information about how to
be involved were placed at key entrances to the park;
· A coffee in the
park day was held in March 2021, run by FOLKL, an independent local research
company engaged to undertake the first stage community consultation;
· A mailout to over
1000 recipients was sent to the owners and occupiers of properties within 400m
of the park;
· A survey was
available online at My Voice My Choice and publicised in the letter, on the
Public Notice, on the Council website and Facebook page, and on the sign boards
in the park;
· Park stakeholders
were contacted, including adjacent schools and the Rose Society.
3.5 The
closing date for written feedback was 23 April 2021 with 163 pieces of feedback
received and 70 engagements undertaken by FOLKL. In summary, these
responses outlined what people liked about the park, what they thought could be
improved and suggested ideas for the area to be made available when the
maintenance sheds were removed:
|
What you liked
|
What could be improved
|
Ideas for the integrated area
|
|
· Rose garden
|
· Dog
and owner behaviour
|
· Native plants and/or sensory garden
|
|
· Mature
trees and green space
|
· Toilet
facilities
|
· Vegetable/rongoā garden & orchard
|
|
· Space
for walking
|
· More
playground shade
|
· Extended playground (to suit older children)
|
|
· Playground
|
· Traffic
and parking congestion
|
· Off-lead dog exercise area
|
|
· Sports
ground
|
· Litter
management
|
· Water play or water feature
|
|
· Serene
area for relaxation
|
· Cycling
links to and from park
|
· Picnic area with park furniture & shade
|
|
|
· Improved
main entry & paths
|
· Amphitheatre/education
|
|
|
· Historical
& geographical information
|
|
Table 1: Feedback from community engagement
3.6 A
public workshop was subsequently held on 28 October 2021 to discuss
values, constraints, opportunities and solutions for the park. Following
this, a Key Themes and Concepts document summarising the first stage
of community engagement and specialist research was prepared and made available
to the public on 14 March 2022.
3.7 Officers
used the feedback received during the process outlined above to prepare the
Draft Plan, following which workshops were held with the Eco District
Subcommittee on 10 May 2022 and the Strategy and Policy Committee on 7 June
2022.
3.8 The
Draft Plan identifies the following vision for the park:
‘The protection, management
and enhancement of the natural, historic, cultural and formal and informal
recreation, values of Frimley Park.
The Park continues to provide a
venue for organised sport and recreation, with the balance used for passive
recreation and relaxation in a natural environment, together with provision of
critical network infrastructure’.
3.9 The
Draft Plan identified a work programme of projects for the park which would
require an investment of $1,950,000 over the 10 years of the Plan (Attachment
4). These enhancements included a sensory garden, playground enhancements,
parking improvements, new pathways and new toilet block. If these proposed park
enhancements are included in the adopted Reserve Management Plan, officers will
include them for consideration as part of the Draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan.
3.10 Public
Notice was given under Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 of the availability
of the Draft Plan for public consultation on 2 July 2022, with a closing
date for submissions 2 September 2022. A public Open Day was held on
31 July 2022, where officers were available with copies of the Draft Plan
to answer any questions. Following a technical fault with the online
submissions portal, the submissions period was extended by 3 working days, with
a new closing date of 7 September 2022.
4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga
What
changes are sought by the submissions?
4.1 20
submissions were received on the Draft Plan. The names of these
submitters and their individual submission number that has been allocated are
identified below in Table 2. All submissions received are included
in full in Attachment 1 (contact details redacted) and summarised by
Submission Number and Remedy Number in Attachment 2.
|
NO.
|
NAME
|
NO.
|
NAME
|
|
1
|
George Lomas
|
11
|
Regan Wallis
|
|
2
|
K Lewis
|
12
|
Lou Corkery
|
|
3
|
Monique Bradshaw
|
13
|
Reiny Scheper
|
|
4
|
Susan Tidswell
|
14
|
Michael Smiley
|
|
5
|
Richard Bradshaw
|
15
|
Ken Haines, Rotary Club
Stortford Lodge
|
|
6
|
David W Renouf
|
16
|
Ben Talbot, on behalf of
Year 5/6 students, Frimley Primary School
|
|
7
|
Tim White, Principal, Frimley Primary School
|
17
|
Fire and Emergency NZ
|
|
8
|
Karyl Bishop
|
18
|
Cancer Society Hawke’s
Bay
|
|
9
|
Cheryl Lattey, Hastings Rose Society
|
19
|
Disabled Persons Assembly
|
|
10
|
Mary Brooker
|
20
|
Hastings District Council
|
Table 2: Submitter List and Number
Submissions in support
4.2 Submissions
have been received in support of the Draft Plan from the following two
submitters. This element of these submissions is noted and appreciated,
and requires no further analysis. Some points raised in the submissions
are addressed in the relevant remedies.
4.3 Lou Corkery
(Submission 12) fully agrees with the Draft Plan.
4.4 Michael Smiley
(Submission 14) agrees overall with the Draft Plan, its purposes, proposals and
expenditure.
Submissions
requiring further analysis
4.5 Submissions
received that require further analysis of the following sections of the Draft
Plan have been grouped into the following Remedies 1-21 as identified in Table
3 below:
|
REMEDY
|
SECTION
|
REQUEST
|
REMEDY
|
SECTION
|
REQUEST
|
|
1
|
1.1
|
Park
Use
|
12
|
2.10
|
Vehicle
Parking
|
|
2
|
1.3
|
Dogs
|
13
|
2.11
|
Accessibility
|
|
3
|
1.5
|
Cycling
|
14
|
2.12
|
Path
Networks
|
|
4
|
1.7
|
Restricted
Activities
|
15
|
3.1
|
Trees
and Gardens
|
|
5
|
2.2
|
Buildings
and Structures
|
16
|
3.3
|
Water
|
|
6
|
2.3
|
Fences
and Walls
|
17
|
3.5
|
Plant
and Animal Pests
|
|
7
|
2.5
|
Playgrounds
|
18
|
4.4
|
Commemorative
Features
|
|
8
|
2.6
|
Informal
Sport and Recreation Facilities
|
19
|
5.3
|
Concessions
|
|
9
|
2.7
|
Toilet
and Changing Facilities
|
20
|
5.11
|
Safety
and Vandalism
|
|
10
|
2.8
|
Signs
|
21
|
5.12
|
Community
Partnerships
|
|
11
|
2.9
|
Park
Furniture
|
|
|
|
Table
3: Remedy List
4.6 The
above sections are the subject of submissions that are further analysed by
Remedy Number below.
REMEDY 1:
SECTION 1.1 (PARK USE)
Submissions and Reasons
4.7 K
Lewis (Submission 2) requests more information on why the water storage and
treatment infrastructure in the park is critical, while there are still effects
on the economy from the global pandemic.
Analysis
4.8 Council’s
website provides information regarding why the water infrastructure was located
on Frimley Park, and the strategic importance of this infrastructure to the
resilience of the District’s water supply, including as follows:
‘Water
treatment and storage is a major component of the Hastings Drinking Water
Strategy (2018), formulated following the Havelock North water crisis and
ensuing Government Inquiry.
Along
with other projects in the strategy, water treatment and storage will make the
district’s major urban drinking water supply safer and more resilient,
add capacity, and help Hastings comply with National Drinking
Water Standards.’
4.9 Following
a period of comprehensive community engagement, resource consent for
construction of the water storage reservoir and treatment facility on Frimley
Park was granted in 2020. The park was subsequently subdivided to enable
classification under the Reserves Act of the land containing the water
infrastructure as Local Purpose (Network Utility) and the balance as Recreation
Reserve. Section 1.1 of the Plan notes the use of part of the park for
water infrastructure and Section 3.3 Water notes that there will be information
signage associated with the infrastructure, aligned with the Waiaroha site in
central Hastings. As the construction and operation of the facility is
provided for by the resource consent, the Draft Plan does not consider these
facilities in detail.
4.10 The
Draft Plan refers to the water treatment and storage facility on Frimley Park
as “critical” water infrastructure in four places (pages 9, 24, 28
and 32). Officers consider that the use of this term is valid, given the
purpose of the infrastructure, and that this has been communicated to the wider
community via the engagement process including information available on the
website.
Recommendation
4.11 That
the submission of K Lewis (Submission 2) be disallowed insofar as
construction of the infrastructure is outside the scope of the Plan and
comprehensive information regarding the purpose of the water infrastructure is
available on Council’s website.
REMEDY 2: SECTION 1.3 (DOGS)
Submissions and Reasons
4.12 Reiny Scheper (Submission
13) requests that dog waste bins be provided at the entrance to the park.
4.13 Michael Smiley (Submission
14) has no objection to dogs being exercised in the park, even off lead,
provided the dogs are under control and faeces removed. He submits that
there seems to be no problem with dogs running freely in the park and therefore
no need for the bylaw to be enforced.
4.14 Ben Talbot, on behalf of
Years 5 & 6, Frimley Primary School (Submission 16) is concerned about
dog waste left in the park as they encounter this on their hikoi in the whenua;
considers that having dogs on leash will reduce waste left behind; and would
like dog waste bins and more signage educating people about this
responsibility.
Analysis
4.15 Dogs
are permitted in the park, provided they are kept on a leash, under control and
do not enter the playground and sports fields. Dog waste disposal bins
and bag dispensers are typically provided in parks and reserves which contain
dog exercise (off leash) areas. Officers consider the provision of dog
waste bins is unnecessary given the existing availability of rubbish bins within
the park, and that most users of the park walking dogs will live in the
surrounding area and can collect dog waste and dispose of the waste at
home. In addition, given the presence of the playground and sports fields
within the park, Officers do not want to create the impression that the park is
an off leash area by providing dog waste bins.
4.16 Signage
reminding dog owners of their responsibility to remove their pet’s waste
will be included when signage improvements are undertaken in the park.
Recommendations
4.17 That
the submissions of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) and Ben Talbot, on
behalf of Years 5 & 6, Frimley Primary School (Submission 16) be
disallowed in part insofar as dog waste bins are typically only provided in
parks and reserves with dog exercise (off leash areas) and rubbish bins are
already available in the park, and allowed in part insofar as signage reminding
dog owners of their responsibility to remove waste will be placed in the park
when park signage is renewed.
4.18 That
the submission of Michael Smiley (Submission 14) be allowed insofar as
dogs are allowed in the park provided they are on leash and under control.
REMEDY 3:
SECTION 1.5 (CYCLING)
Submissions and Reasons
4.19 David
Renouf (Submission 6) requests no cycling in the park.
4.20 Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13) would like bicycle stands provided near the
playground and sports field, to encourage people to use transport modes
alternative to cars to access the park and as an action to combat climate
change.
Analysis
4.21 Frimley
Park is connected to the i-Way network, with an on-road cycle lane along
Frimley Road and shared path within the park, as shown in Map 1 below:
Map
1: Frimley Park i-Way connection (green – shared path; blue – on
road cycle lane)
4.22 The
Draft Plan proposes the following improvements to facilitate user access to the
park by active transport, including:
· Retention
of the shared walking and cycling path within Frimley Park (maintenance access
road) (Policy 1.5.2).
· Construction
of a shared path across the Lyndhurst Road frontage of the park, extending to
connect to the shared path and on road cycle lane at the Nottingley Road
intersection and on road cycle lane at Pakowhai Road to facilitate active
transport choices for park users as well as connections to adjacent schools,
suburban area and Hawke’s Bay Regional Sports Park (Policy 2.12.4).
· Bicycle
stands to facilitate visitors using bicycles for transport to the park on both
frontages (Policy 1.5.4).
4.23 It
is proposed that the shared path at Lyndhurst Road will cross inside the park
frontage, as there is inadequate width on the road for a shared path with
proposed improvements to parking capacity and traffic safety.
The existing swale on the park frontage is proposed to be in-filled, with
bollards placed along the frontage to facilitate pedestrian access into the
park, while preventing vehicles accessing and damaging the sports fields.
Officers anticipate the shared path will have similar visual effects as the
shared path crossing the Windsor Park frontage opposite, and providing a
connection to, Karamu High School (albeit without chains between adjacent
bollards).
Image: Windsor Park shared path
4.24 Retention
of the i-Way path through the park is proposed to continue as the width and
flat gradient of the path, as well as clear sightlines, makes a shared walking
and cycling use appropriate in this area.
4.25 The
exact location and design of the bicycle stands will be determined at a later
stage, however they will be placed near entrances on both frontages to
facilitate easy use and access to the park’s facilities.
Recommendations
4.26 That
the submission of David Renouf (Submission 6) be disallowed insofar as
the existing and proposed shared paths will facilitate active transport to the
park, as well as via the park to adjacent schools, the Hawke’s Bay
Regional Sports Park and surrounding suburban area, the wide path, good
sightlines and flat gradient make the paths appropriate for shared use with
minimal visual effects.
4.27 That
the submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) be allowed insofar as
Policy 1.5.4 provides for bicycle parking facilities on both park frontages and
the detailed design will consider location and design to effectively facilitate
users accessing the park by bicycle.
REMEDY
4: SECTION 1.7 (RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.28 Fire
and Emergency NZ (Submission 17) requests that fire be clearly identified
as a natural hazard within the Draft Plan to ensure the relevant objective and
policy framework gives effect to risk reduction practices; seeks to ensure Fire
and Emergency are able to effectively carry out its requirements under the Fire
and Emergency Act 2017; and supports objectives and policies in the Draft Plan
that restrict activities which may have the potential to increase natural
hazards that have or may have an effect on the park. In addition, the
submission seeks the inclusion of an objective and policy to manage year round
risks associated with fires; and suggests written authorisation of Council
required prior to lighting a fire, in addition to the fire permit that may be
required from Fire and Emergency NZ during fire season.
Analysis
4.29 While the Draft Plan recognises
the risk of natural hazards in the park, it does not explicitly recognise the
risk of fire hazard. The Draft Plan however requires activities on the
park to be consistent with relevant Council bylaws and policies. In this
instance, the relevant Council bylaws and policies require written approval of
Council prior to lighting a fire:
District Wide Reserve Management Plan
Section 1.7 Restricted Activities
1.7.5 Prohibit the following activities
on reserves, in accordance with Section 94 of the Reserves Act 1977, unless
specific written approval has been obtained from Council:
(a) lighting of any fire…’
1.7.6 Require persons or organisations
wishing to have a fire… on a reserve to seek prior Council
approval…’
Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2021
Chapter 2 Public Places
2.2.3 A person must not light a fire in a
public place unless… (c) Council has given prior written approval.’
4.30 While
this policy is already provided for in the District Wide Reserve Management
Plan and Consolidated Bylaws, Officers support the inclusion of this policy in
the Draft Plan to provide additional explicit information around appropriate
activities, thereby assisting in mitigating fire risk.
Recommendation
4.31 That
the submission of Fire and Emergency NZ (Submission 17) be allowed and
the following new policy be added to Section 1.7 of the Draft Plan:
1.7.3 The lighting of fires on
the Park outside of a contained gas barbecue is not permitted without the prior
written authorisation of Council. Note: A fire permit (issued by Fire and
Emergency New Zealand) may also be required.
REMEDY
5: SECTION 2.2 (BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.32 Susan
Tidswell (Submission 4) is concerned that the proposed review of the
Hastings District’s Aquatic Centres will result in the Frimley Aquatic
Centre closing. She requests that the recreational needs of local
children be considered in the review, having already lost the facility at
Windsor Park.
4.33 Richard
Bradshaw (Submission 5) would like to know the future of Frimley Aquatic
Centre and suggests that the centre become a family destination similar to the
Village Pools.
4.34 David
Renouf (Submission 6) requests that no more new buildings and structures be
allowed on the park.
Analysis
Frimley Aquatic
Centre
4.35 The
Frimley Aquatic Centre is located on the north-western corner of the
park. The Aquatic Centre is managed by Council’s Community Services
& Wellbeing team and, as such, the future planning, management and
operations of the centre have not been considered as part of preparation of the
Draft Plan. The summary paper which accompanied the release of the
Draft Plan however noted that a review of the District’s aquatic assets
would be undertaken following opening of the Aquatic Centre at the Regional
Sports Park.
4.36 The
Community Services & Wellbeing team have confirmed that the development of
the new Aquatics Strategy is still paused until the impact of the new HBCFCT
(HB Community Fitness Centre Trust) Aquatics Facility on the wider Council
aquatics assets is better understood, with the intention to work towards a new
Aquatics Strategy to be aligned with the 2024 Long Term Plan process.
Buildings
and Structures
4.37 The
Draft Plan allows for the provision of additional buildings and
structures, as follows:
· A new two bay
toilet facility near Frimley Road;
· One new pergola,
to delineate the new main entrance to the park;
· New pergolas and
various garden beds, within the sensory garden space;
· One new arbour in
the rose garden, to complete the set across the circle.
4.38 The
pergolas, arbour and garden elements are considered necessary to deliver the
projects highlighted in the community engagement and Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design reports. These structures are proposed to be of a
design sympathetic to existing structural elements in the park. A new
toilet facility is proposed in a more accessible location, providing increased
passive surveillance of the entrances, and with a small footprint of
approximately 14m2. Given the small number and scale of the proposed
buildings and structures, Officers consider these elements will facilitate use
of the park and not detract from the park’s landscape character.
Recommendations
4.39 That
the submissions of Susan Tidswell (Submission 4) and Richard Bradshaw
(Submission 5) be allowed insofar as a new Aquatics Strategy is to be developed
as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan process, and will consider the aquatic
recreational needs of the whole District.
4.40 That
the submission of David Renouf (Submission 6) be disallowed insofar as
the proposed new buildings and structures are proposed in response to community
engagement feedback, will address recommendations in the Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design report, design will be consistent with existing
structures within the park, will facilitate use of the park and will not
detract from the landscape character of the park.
REMEDY
6: SECTION 2.3 (FENCES AND WALLS)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.41 Regan
Wallis (Submission 11) requests that bollards be placed adjacent to the
footpath on the Frimley Road frontage to prevent vehicles parking on the
grass.
4.42 Michael
Smiley (Submission 14) requests that the proposed mural on the Aquatic
Centre wall reflect the European and agricultural heritage of the park.
Analysis
4.43 The
Draft Plan proposes the existing bollard and chain fence on the Frimley Road
frontage be replaced with bollards only, to improve pedestrian access into the
park. This is proposed to be undertaken as part of the improvements to
the main entrance as a medium term action in the Draft Plan. Officers consider
that it is reasonable at that time to review the placement of the bollards and
whether or not it would be feasible to bring the bollards closer to the
footpath to reduce the ability of people to park across the berm. The
exact placement will include consideration of the location of underground
services in the berm, trees and mowing access.
4.44 The
Draft Plan proposes that a mural be painted on the concrete wall between the
Aquatic Centre and park to activate this area and deter graffiti, as a
short-term action in the Draft Plan. The detail of the mural will be
decided when the project is delivered, however will likely be informed by the
heritage and/or landscape character of the park.
Recommendations
4.45 That the submission of Regan
Wallis (Submission 11) be allowed insofar as the relocation of the bollards
closer to the footpath will be considered when the bollard and chain fence is
replaced, and that that Section 2.3 be amended as follows:
2.3 The
low bollard and chain fence along the Frimley Road frontage allows for passive
surveillance into the Park from residential properties along Frimley
Road. It is proposed to remove the chain to facilitate easier
pedestrian access, with consideration given to relocating the bollards closer
to the footpath to deter vehicles parking on the berm. The chain
is proposed to be replaced by additional bollards, improving access into the
Park.
2.3.4 Replace bollard
and chain treatment on Frimley Road frontage with bollards only, with
consideration given to locating the bollards closer to the footpath additional
bollards.
4.46 That
the submission of Michael Smiley (Submission 14) be allowed insofar as
the design of the mural will likely be based on the heritage and/or landscape
character of the park.
REMEDY 7:
SECTION 2.5 (PLAYGROUNDS)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.47 Tim
White, Principal Frimley Primary School (Submission 7) supports the
extended playground and storyboard walk.
4.48 Cheryl
Lattey, Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) supports the play
concept.
4.49 Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13) supports the expansion of the playground for older
children, requests barbecues and picnic tables under shade cloth.
4.50 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) welcomes the proposal for
play spaces and recommends play equipment is accessible and inclusive including
for disabled children and adults.
4.51 K
Lewis (Submission 2) considers that the expansion of the playground to
entertain older children is a waste of money.
Analysis
4.52 The
playground in Frimley Park is classified as a Key Urban playground, mid-tier on
Council’s three-tier playground hierarchy. The existing playground
provides 6 components, which meets the requirement of Council’s Coming
Out to Play Strategy of a minimum of 5 play components for a Key Urban
playground, catering to pre-school to 10 year old children. The Draft
Plan proposes to extend the existing playground with the addition of three play
pieces catering for tweens to teenagers. In addition, a landscaped
area and seating is proposed between the playground and road to act as a safety
feature to deter young children reaching the road. A storywalk is
proposed on a path leading from the playground to the Rose Gardens.
4.53 The
community engagement report noted one of the most prevalent ideas for the area
previously occupied by the maintenance sheds: ‘Many people wanted to
extend the existing playground with equipment that suited older children, such
as teenagers’ (Community Engagement Report, FOLKL). While a
play space in the maintenance shed location was not pursued in development of
the Draft Plan, given the feedback it was identified that an extension to
the existing playground would be appropriate and consistent with the playground’s
Key Urban classification.
4.54 The
play pieces proposed in the Draft Plan are: a carousel; mouse wheel; and mega
air swing at an estimated cost of $200,000 ($75,000 play components plus
$125,000 safety surfacing). These pieces were chosen to cater for older
children, while also providing play value for younger children. It is
anticipated that the extended playground will cater for residents of the
surrounding residential area, students of the adjacent schools (including two
secondary schools), and users of the park from the wider District. The
carousel and mouse wheel are not currently available within the District, and
will provide novelty value and a reason for older children to visit this
playground and stay longer in the park. In addition, in 2024/2025 the
playground upgrade programme provides for accessible play pieces in this
playground. Officers consider that the playground extension with these
play components will deliver on the feedback received in the community
engagement report, providing additional play components for older children at a
scale and cost appropriate to the playground’s Key Urban classification.
4.55 Additional
seating and picnic tables are proposed near the playground, in the area where a
landscape barrier is proposed. Given this area does not have natural
shade, Officers consider the addition of shade sails is appropriate to provide
a sheltered seating area in a location providing passive surveillance of the
playground. Shade sails will be at an approximate additional cost of
$20,000.
4.56 During
community engagement mixed feedback was received regarding barbecues within the
park. BBQs were not included in the Draft Plan due to the mixed
feedback, opportunities available for picnics near the playground and ongoing cost
of maintenance, at approximately $4,000 per annum. Park users are able to
bring barbecues to the park, provided they comply with the guidelines.
Barbecues are also available at three parks in the Hastings urban area: Whenua Takoha; Kirkpatrick Park; and the Lions
playground at Windsor Park.
Recommendations
4.57 That the submission of Tim
White, Principal Frimley Primary School (Submission 7), Cheryl Lattey,
Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) and Chris Ford, Disabled Persons
Assembly (Submission 19) be allowed, the submission of Reiny Scheper
(Submission 13) allowed in part, and the submission of K Lewis
(Submission 2) be disallowed insofar as the playground expansion is at a scale
and cost appropriate to the playground’s Key Urban classification, will
increase provision of play pieces for older children in the District with novel
components including a permanent Storywalk, encourage users to visit the park
and deliver on requests made during community engagement.
4.58 The
submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) be allowed in part insofar
as shade sails will be provided over the picnic tables and seating in the
landscaped area near the playground and disallowed in part insofar as barbecues
will not be provided on the park due to the maintenance cost, ability to bring
portable barbecues and availability of barbecues in public spaces in
Hastings’ urban area, with the wording of Policy 2.5.3 altered as
follows:
2.5.3 Extend the
children’s play area as identified in the Concept Plan in Appendix 4 and
construct a landscape barrier between the road and existing playground with
shade sails over the associated furniture.
REMEDY
8: SECTION 2.6 (INFORMAL SPORT AND RECREATION)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.59 Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13) supports the provision of exercise equipment for
adults.
4.60 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) welcomes adult fitness
equipment and recommends it is accessible and inclusive for disabled adults to
use.
4.61 K
Lewis (Submission 2) considers exercise equipment for adults is over
compensating when also improving walking connections to the Sports Park.
Analysis
4.62 Outdoor
fitness equipment is proposed to be provided in the area near the playground
following feedback received during community engagement, which suggested
additional sporting activities including a fitness circuit.
4.63 The
purpose of the equipment is to provide an informal recreation facility in the
park that will assist people to be physically active in an outdoor environment,
while providing the opportunity for social connection. The equipment will
be designed to cater for a broad range of age groups, including students who
attend the two secondary schools adjacent to the park and residents of the
surrounding suburban environment.
4.64 The
number of New Zealanders aged 65+ is expected to increase in the coming
years. Design of public spaces needs to consider and incorporate elements
to assist older people to access public spaces and remain active. The new
generation of outdoor fitness equipment includes pieces specifically designed
to assist older people to remain active, and it is intended to include some of
these elements, as well as including multi-functional designs to challenge a
wide range of age groups and abilities.
4.65 The
location near the playground will provide high passive surveillance of the
equipment, while being located near a confluence of paths for accessibility and
to allow users to combine use of the fitness equipment with passive recreation
around the balance of the park.
4.66 A
new shared path is proposed across the Lyndhurst Road frontage of the
park. The shared path will extend to Pakowhai Road and Nottingley Road,
to connect to the existing shared path which continues to the Hawke’s Bay
Regional Sports Park. The purpose of the shared path is to complete that
section of the shared path network, assisting park visitors to access both the
park and Regional Sports Park using active transport.
4.67 While
the Regional Sports Park provides a broad range of sport and recreation
facilities, there is no outdoor fitness equipment available for general
community use. The closest fitness equipment in a public space in
Hastings is approximately 2.7km from the park, in Queens Square. The
purpose of the fitness equipment in Frimley Park will be to provide an
additional recreation opportunity within the park not currently available in
the area for school students and surrounding residents including older adults
to encourage users to be physically active and visit the park more often.
Recommendation
4.68 That
the submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) and Chris Ford,
Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) be allowed and K Lewis
(Submission 2) be disallowed insofar as fitness equipment provides the benefits
of an active lifestyle to a broad range of the community which is not currently
available in the surrounding area, and provision will remain as proposed.
REMEDY
9: SECTION 2.7 (TOILET AND CHANGING FACILITIES)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.69 Regan
Wallis (Submission 11) does not support construction of the toilet facility
closer to Frimley Road due to outlook from nearby residential properties;
traffic safety near a T-intersection; and questions whether it would be cheaper
to refurbish the existing facility.
4.70 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) recommends that the toilet
facility be easily accessed by disabled people and those with mobility
impairments.
Analysis
4.71 The
Draft Plan provides for construction of a new two bay toilet facility near the Frimley
Road frontage as a medium term action, as shown on the Concept Plan (Appendix
4), based on the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design audit
recommendations and feedback from park users. The CPTED audit notes:
‘The ablution building has obscured entrances
and is set back away from the road under canopy vegetation. It sits
separate of active areas of the Park and has limited legibility of its
function, due to its unique form and limited signage.’
4.72 The
audit makes the following recommendation:
‘Remove the toilet building and relocate to
adjacent to the playground area near to the roadside. Ensure that
entrances are facing Frimley Road and it remains outside of tree canopy
lines.’
4.73 As
noted in the CPTED audit, the proposed location of the toilet facility improves
access for users of the playground and rose gardens, together with providing
passive surveillance from playground users as well as the surrounding suburban
area.
4.74 The
concern regarding users of the toilet facility creating traffic safety concerns
was referred to the Transportation team at Council, who advised traffic calming
is appropriate on this frontage and will be investigated as part of an upcoming
safety around schools project, discussed in Section 2.10 Vehicle Parking below.
4.75 The
cost of a two bay toilet facility is approximately $250,000, with the cost of
refurbishing the existing toilet facility approximately $100,000.
Officers consider the improved access for park users supporting them to visit
more often and stay longer, as well as the passive surveillance provided in
this location, warrants the investment into a new toilet facility.
Recommendations
4.76 That
the submission of Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19)
be allowed and Regan Wallis (Submission 11) be disallowed insofar as the
costs of a new toilet facility in an accessible location providing for passive
surveillance and improved access are considered reasonable, enabling users to
visit more often and stay longer, enabling greater use of both the rose gardens
and proposed sensory garden, and any traffic safety concerns can be addressed
using traffic calming measures to be investigated in an upcoming transportation
project.
REMEDY
10: SECTION 2.8 (SIGNS)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.77 Tim
White, Principal Frimley Primary School (Submission 7) would like the park
to serve as an outdoor classroom and one that is used for local history
purposes as much as sporting and recreational uses; and requests the provision
of bilingual signage drawing on the stories/ histories of the people, land and
happenings in the local area, particularly:
a) How the whenua was prior to the Heretaunga block
being sold- historic place names, what the land looked like, features that have
been removed etc.
b) Explain the local street names (Hapuku,
Karaitiana, Ikanui and Frimley, Lyndhurst, Pakowhai, Nottingley).
c) The history behind Frimley Park, the homestead
and post-1850s events.
4.78 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) recommends all information
about the park including booking and application processes be made available in
accessible formats including NZ Sign Language, te reo, large print via a
QR code on park signs; and that wayfinding signage be designed with full
consideration for blind and low vision users.
Analysis
4.79 Policy
2.8.1 states: “Provide information on features of historic and
cultural importance and interest, as well as location signage to facilitate the
public enjoyment use of the Park.” It is intended that
information is captured within the park to allow all users, including adjacent
schools, to learn more about the layers of history of the park. Officers
consider that addition of a new policy would support this by providing the
opportunity to develop the interpretation content with schools to facilitate
use of the park as an outdoor learning environment.
4.80 It
is intended that signage incorporating Te Reo Māori be introduced in the
new suite of signage in the park. Officers support the request for more
accessible formats for information about the park including signage designed
with consideration for blind and low vision users, and as part of the signage
improvements will investigate the most effective ways of delivering this.
Recommendation
4.81 That
the submission of Tim White (Submission 7) be allowed insofar as Policy
2.8.3 be amended and a new Policy 2.8.4 be added prior to the existing Policy
2.8.4 as follows:
2.8.3 Provide information
on park facilities and features including wayfinding signage, features
of historic and cultural importance and interest, as well as location signage
to facilitate the public enjoyment and use of the Park.
2.8.4 Collaborate
with mana whenua representatives and stakeholders including local schools to
develop interpretive signs in the Park identifying features of historic,
cultural and landscape significance.
4.82 That
the submission of Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19)
be allowed insofar as te reo be incorporated in the suite of signage and
investigation undertaken of accessible formats for information about the park;
and the following new policy be added:
2.8.10 Investigate provision of
reserve information in accessible formats and ensure consideration of design of
signage for blind and low vision users.
REMEDY 11:
SECTION 2.9 (PARK FURNITURE)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.83 Ben
Talbot, on behalf of Years 5 & 6, Frimley Primary School (Submission
16) requests the provision of bins for sorting rubbish and recycling in the
park as well as compost bins.
4.84 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) welcomes improvements to
park furniture; recommends seating of varying heights to enable people with
impairments to easily get in and out; and recommends that picnic tables have
open space for wheelchairs and walking frames.
Analysis
4.85 Separated
rubbish and recycling bins are typically not provided for in parks and
reserves, given the risk of contamination and increased service costs.
Council’s Waste team however are undertaking a trial over the 2022/2023
summer of separated waste and recycling bins at Splash Planet.
The intention is that, if the trial is successful, various public spaces
will be selected for separate bins. There is the opportunity in future,
if the trial is successful, for the park to be considered as one of these
locations.
4.86 Compost
bins are typically considered unsuitable in parks and reserves given they can
attract rodents, emit odour, be unsightly and occupy useful public space.
Maintenance of compost piles is also more expensive than taking green waste to
an appropriate refuse station.
4.87 The
Draft Plan provides for additional park furniture. There is the
opportunity to provide some furniture which meets accessible design criteria,
in particular near activity areas such as the playground and sensory garden.
Recommendations
4.88 That
the submission of Ben Talbot, on behalf of Years 5 & 6 Frimley Primary
School (Submission 16) be allowed in part insofar as the park is considered
for separate rubbish and recycling bins and disallowed insofar as the provision
of compost bins will not be provided as they have higher costs to maintain than
removal of green waste and can attract rodents and emit odour.
4.89 That
the submission of Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19)
be allowed insofar as additional park furniture be provided using accessible
design and Policy 2.9.2 be amended as follows:
2.9.2 Provide additional
seats, picnic tables, rubbish bins and drinking fountains near activity areas
to facilitate the use and enjoyment of the Park using, where possible,
accessible design.
REMEDY 12: SECTION 2.10 (VEHICLE PARKING)
Submissions and Reasons
4.90 Monique Bradshaw
(Submission 3), as the owner of the Frimley Road shops is disappointed the
Draft Plan includes no improvement to parking and traffic control outside
the shops and requests the provision of angle parks and speed humps to slow
traffic as well as trees to beautify the area.
4.91 Richard
Bradshaw (Submission 5) requests aesthetic and security development in
front of Frimley Road shops, including judder bars and speed control;
beautification on the pavement such as planter boxes; angle parking outside the
shops; and questions why the shopping complex was not included in consultation;
and questions whether HDC’s Transportation team was involved in the
preparation of the Plan.
4.92 David
Renouf (Submission 6) requests no vehicle parking on the park.
4.93 Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13) requests the provision of a pedestrian crossing on
Frimley Road to enable children to safely access the playground without an
adult driving them.
4.94 Mary
Brooker (Submission 10) is concerned that a speed hump shown on the concept
plan outside her house on Lyndhurst Road may create noise and vibrations from
passing traffic; requests the traffic calming be moved further along the road
or an alternative mechanism used; considers it essential that a footpath be
provided on both sides of the road for the safety of children exiting vehicles
during busy periods; and suggests a crossing at the halfway point opposite the
sports fields. Requests powerlines be undergrounded when the footpath is
constructed.
4.95 Michael
Smiley (Submission 14) suggests the provision of angle parking from the
front of the Aquatic Centre to the main gate as since the playground upgrade
there has been more vehicles and children at risk when exiting vehicles on the
road side. In addition he is wary of traffic calming features on
Lyndhurst Road and considers these would be an unnecessary annoyance as traffic
congestion and pedestrian safety is only an issue on Saturday mornings during
sports events.
4.96 Ben
Talbot, on behalf of Years 5 & 6 Frimley Primary School (Submission 16)
requests the closure of Frimley Road outside the school and conversion of this
space to pedestrian-only; create a drop‑off zone and allow safe passage
for students to schools and the park to use this as an outdoor learning
environment; space could be used for a community garden to be maintained by
schools and benefit families, whānau, friends and be kaitiaki of our
environment by promoting no waste and also build whānaungatanga by being
together in the whenua.
4.97 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) recommends the placement of
mobility parking spaces in all carparks to be undertaken within the reserves; recommends
accessible public transport options to access the park.
Analysis
Lyndhurst
Road
4.98 The
Draft Plan proposes additional parking capacity and traffic calming measures
along the Lyndhurst Road frontage to address concerns raised during community
engagement regarding safety issues during sports events. In addition, an
extension to the existing shared path on Lyndhurst Road is proposed connecting
across the park frontage. Mobility parking spaces currently on this
frontage are proposed to be moved closer to the entrance when the parking
improvements are undertaken.
4.99 The
Issues and Opportunities section states:
“A shared path is also proposed within the Park
across the Lyndhurst Road frontage, completing a walking and cycling connection
to the sports fields.
…
On Lyndhurst Road it is proposed to add additional
angle parks on the Park side and formed parallel parks on the northern side
with associated traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures.” (Page 21)
4.100 The
relevant objectives and policies are as follows:
Objectives
2.10.1 To maintain and enhance car
parking provision along Frimley Road and Lyndhurst Roads for the benefit of
Park users.
2.10.2 To provide additional car
parking within the limitations set by the need to preserve the landscape
qualities of the Park.
Policies
2.10.5 Increase parking capacity along
Lyndhurst Road with associated traffic calming measures.
2.12.4 Construct a shared path along the
Lyndhurst Road frontage connecting Nottingley Road with Pakowhai Road.
4.101 Submission
10 was referred to the Transportation team for comment, who advised:
‘This proposed traffic calming measure is a
raised pedestrian crossing, and as such its location is determined by where
pedestrians are most likely to cross. Recent studies by Waka Kotahi have
found that a well-designed and constructed raised platform does not increase
road noise, and when used in a traffic calming scheme (i.e. multiple
platforms/speed bumps) the spikes in road noise is lower due to the lower speed
and associated engine noise.’
4.102 Officers
note that Council’s Environmental Policy team are currently undertaking
technical investigations to inform a potential Structure Plan for the Lyndhurst
Extension, including the land opposite Frimley Park: 215 Lyndhurst Road
and the land currently leased and used for sports fields by Lindisfarne
College. This process may result in a change of land use, parking
yield and potentially traffic calming measures on this stretch of road.
A Plan Change will be required to incorporate any Structure Plan into the
Hastings District Plan, and if the Structure Plan proceeds this may be
completed within the first three years of the Draft Plan prior to this project
being implemented.
4.103 Given
the research showing that there is not an increase in road noise when speed
humps are well constructed, and the potential Structure Plan possibly resulting
in a change to traffic calming measures, Officers consider that the Concept
Plan and policies included in the Draft Plan need not be altered.
4.104 The
Transportation team advised the cost of undergrounding powerlines when works
are undertaken would fall on Council, and would generally only be done in
situations where it is deemed unsafe to have power poles in the vicinity of the
works. This area will be a lower speed zone therefore it is not
considered necessary to underground powerlines.
Frimley Road
4.105 The
Draft Plan proposes parking improvements along the Frimley Road frontage of the
park, including marking parallel parking spaces for efficiency gains.
Parking spaces are proposed in the discrete area at the entrance to the Aquatic
Centre, to serve patrons of the Aquatic Centre as well as visitors to the
park. These parking spaces are separated from the primary park area by
the Aquatic Centre building.
4.106 The
parking improvements along Frimley Road resulted from feedback gained during
community engagement, which identified that parking around the park is under
pressure during events. Angle parking is not provided for in the Draft
Plan, given vehicles would reverse onto the on road cycle lane, however the
Transportation team have advised that this may be reconsidered in future if
demand warrants the shift. Consideration will be given at time of marking
parking spaces to placement of mobility parking spaces with drop kerbs at key
entrances to the park, including a ‘drop‑off zone’ for vans,
and Officers recommend a policy be included in the Draft Plan for this.
4.107 Other
than the parking spaces provided for at the entrance to the Aquatic Centre,
parking capacity improvements for the park are solely provided for within the
road reserve to ensure there is minimal impact on the park’s green
space. The parking improvements along Frimley Road are proposed as a
medium term action in the Plan, and the forming of the parking spaces at the
Aquatic Centre are scheduled for after the completion of the Aquatic Strategy.
4.108 The
submission requesting closure of the road outside Frimley Primary School was
referred to the Transportation team, who advised they are investigating school
safety treatments outside the school, as well as traffic calming measures in
the wider school catchment which includes the park frontage and Frimley Road
shops. The Transportation team advised:
‘Frimley Road is classed as an Urban Collector
Road, and a closure at the Pakowhai Road intersection may create more problems
than it solves, such as rat running down residential streets, increased
pressure on adjacent intersections and using the cul-de-sac as a drop off zone
could cause a traffic bottleneck like can be seen on other schools that have a
similar configuration e.g. Te Mata Primary and Havelock North Intermediate. We
appreciate the need to improve safety outside of the school, and this will be
addressed as part of Council’s Safe Speeds around Schools, and Streets
for People projects which are in their early planning phase. We will take this
submission into account when putting together the plan for Frimley
School.’
4.109 The
Transportation team advised that, as well as being part of the school safety
project, Frimley Road including the shops will be considered in the future
Speed Management Plan.
Recommendations
4.110 That
the submissions of Monique Bradshaw (Submission 3) and Richard
Bradshaw (Submission 5) be allowed in part insofar as traffic safety
improvements outside the shops will be considered as part of the wider
catchment of the school safety project and Speed Management Plan and disallowed
in that parking and amenity improvements at the shops is outside the scope of
the Draft Plan.
4.111 That
the submission of David Renouf (Submission 6) be allowed in part insofar
as parking improvements are solely provided for within the road reserve around
the main area of the park and disallowed in that a small parking area is
provided for in the small discrete area at the Aquatic Centre entrance,
separated from the balance of the park and not detracting from the park’s
landscape qualities.
4.112 That
the submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) be allowed insofar as a
crossing point will be considered with traffic calming measures, as part of the
Frimley Primary School safety treatments project.
4.113 That
the submission of Mary Brooker (Submission 10) be allowed in part
insofar as footpaths will be provided on both sides of the road and disallowed
in part insofar as speed humps will be located in optimal locations for
pedestrian crossing, do not result in an increase in road noise when well
designed and located within a low speed environment, while noting that this may
change if the Lyndhurst Extension structure plan is progressed; and powerlines
will not be undergrounded as this is not considered necessary for safety
reasons.
4.114 That
the submission of Michael Smiley (Submission 14) be allowed in part in
that angle parking on Frimley Road will be considered in future if there is an
identified need and the parking capacity on Lyndhurst Road will be increased;
and disallowed in part in that speed humps have been identified as an
appropriate traffic calming device on Lyndhurst Road, noting that this may
change if the Lyndhurst Extension structure plan is progressed.
4.115 That
the submission of Ben Talbot, on behalf of Years 5 & 6 Frimley Primary
School (Submission 16) be disallowed in part insofar as closure of the road
may create more problems than it is attempting to solve; and allowed in part
insofar as road safety measures will be developed through upcoming
Transportation safety projects.
4.116 That
the submission of Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19)
be allowed insofar as when parking improvements are undertaken on both
frontages mobility parking spaces and dropped kerbs will be placed at key
entrances to the park, with consideration given for ‘drop-off’
zones for vans, and a new policy added being:
2.10.7 Provide mobility parking
spaces on both frontages at key entrances, together with consideration of
‘drop-off’ zones for vans.
REMEDY
13: SECTION 2.11 (ACCESSIBILITY)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.117 Fire
and Emergency NZ (Submission 17) requests access for emergency vehicles
across the park and supports the new main entrance.
4.118 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) welcomes improvements to
accessibility of the park; would like to see changes to park infrastructure to
meet accessible design principles as making the park inclusive will mean more
integrated spaces that anyone of any age can enjoy.
Analysis
Access
4.119 Vehicle
access to the park is provided for at three points, connecting Frimley Road to
Lyndhurst Road, for the purposes of maintenance of the sports fields, water
infrastructure and wider park including mowing and tree works. Emergency
services hold a master key to access these vehicle entrances. Officers
recommend the Draft Plan be amended to ensure access continues for emergency
services.
Mobility
provisions
4.120 The
Draft Plan provides for access for people of all ages and abilities to ensure
they can reach key amenities and points of interest within the park, reflecting
the popularity of the park’s amenities, landscape character and path
network. In particular the Draft Plan provides for extension of the path
network to enable greater access around the rose garden and wider park, and the
sensory garden to be designed to be accessible to all members of the
community.
Recommendations
4.121 That
the submission of Fire and Emergency NZ (Submission 17) be allowed and
Section 2.11 be amended as follows:
Vehicle access is limited to service vehicles for the
purpose of maintaining the Park and the water infrastructure facilities,
those permitted entry for approved events, as well as for emergency services
vehicles.
2.11.3 To restrict vehicle access in the
Park to authorised service vehicles only.
2.11.6 Ensure that access for
maintenance, event and emergency services vehicles to and throughout the Park
is provided and maintained.
4.122 That
the submission of Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19)
be allowed insofar as the Draft Plan facilitates increased access for users
with disabilities across the spectrum of disabilities.
REMEDY 14:
SECTION 2.12 (PATH NETWORKS)
Submissions and Reasons
4.123 Karyl
Bishop (Submission 8) requests the provision of a pathway from the Rose
Garden meandering through the trees on the west side of the sports fields,
connecting to Lyndhurst Road.
4.124 Cheryl
Lattey, Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) supports the addition of a
pergola and circular path extension around the Rose Garden, particularly to
improve access for people with mobility restrictions.
4.125 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) welcomes pathway
improvements for users with mobility restrictions; requests the provision of
tactile indicators at strategic locations for blind and vision impaired users;
requests safety barriers with appropriate safety signage on shared paths as
people including disabled and older people may not be able to detect the
approach of a cyclist in sufficient time.
Analysis
4.126 The
extensive path network facilitates access to the park’s facilities and
features, as well as providing recreation opportunities across the park.
The Draft Plan provides for the extension to the formal path network with a new
path leading from Frimley Road to and through the proposed sensory garden and
the sunken garden, connecting to a new outer perimeter path round the rose
garden.
4.127 Users
wishing to access the rose gardens from Lyndhurst Road either walk along the
path network on the south-eastern and western side of the sports fields, or
informally cross the sports fields or area adjacent to residential properties
on the north-western side of the sports fields.
4.128 A
path along this residential frontage has previously been discussed with the
owners of these properties and did not receive support due to the proximity of
the path to their properties and the surface material proposed at the time
(limestone). New paths also need to be balanced with the cost of
installation and maintenance, frequency of use and ability to service the park,
for example mowing access.
4.129 A
new path would enable visitors to access the rose garden more directly from
Lyndhurst Road, as well as enabling users to complete a walking circuit of the
park, utilising the new shared path along the Lyndhurst Road frontage.
4.130 Officers
consider this would be an appropriate location for a new path, provide a useful
second walking connection from Lyndhurst Road and extension of the park’s
overall path network including enabling a walking loop around the sports
fields. However, there has been not been opportunity to undertake further
engagement with the community on a potential path in this location.
4.131 The
shared path is included as a short-term action, with the path extensions
discussed above as a long-term action in the Plan. Officers consider this
path should be considered as part of the extension of the path network in the
Plan, with community engagement to be undertaken at that time to determine
whether or not the path is constructed.
4.132 Design
measures to assist blind and vision impaired users will be considered when
undertaking the path network improvements.
Recommendations
4.133 That
the submission of Karyl Bishop (Submission 8) be allowed in that
Section 2.12 Path Networks is amended as follows:
A new path is proposed connecting Frimley Road to the
sunken gardens, as shown in the Concept Plan (Appendix 4). It is also proposed
to extend this path through the Sunken Garden and also extend the path around
the outer perimeter of the rose gardens. At this time, construction of
a new path connecting the Lyndhurst Road frontage to the Rose Garden across the
north-western side of the sports fields will be considered, in consultation
with the adjacent landowners.
2.12.7 Consider construction of a new
path connecting the Lyndhurst Road frontage to the Rose Garden across the
north-western side of the sports fields, if supported by adjacent landowners.
4.134 In
addition, include a new long term action in the Action List and Timeframes is
also proposed:
12 Consider
a new path linking the Lyndhurst Road frontage to the rose garden, across the
north-western side of the sports fields in the future if supported by adjacent
landowners.
4.135 The
submissions of Cheryl Lattey, Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) and Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) are allowed insofar as the
path network extensions will improve the network for users with mobility
restrictions and design measures to assist blind and vision impaired users will
be considered when undertaking the path improvements.
REMEDY 15:
SECTION 3.1 (TREES AND GARDENS)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.136 George
Lomas (Submission 1) supports removal of the Necklace Poplar tree for
safety and appearance reasons; also the nearby pine; and requests when the tree
is removed that pieces are available to the Hawke’s Bay Woodturners
Guild.
4.137 Michael
Smiley (Submission 14) supports removal of the Poplar as considers it would
be a misuse of funds to continue to care for it; applauds growth of seedlings
from the Poplar to enable replacement; questions whether the trunk could be
left and used as a climbing frame for children; and suggests local groups could
be approached to make something significant of the tree. He also requests
the inclusion of name plates to park trees, in addition to the significant
trees; requests natives trees and flowering trees and shrubs for birds, with
the focus on plants which reflect the history of the park. He is also
pleased with the focus on the park’s European heritage and history
– the grove of heritage fruit trees is a good example of this.
4.138 Tim
White, Principal Frimley Primary School (Submission 7) supports the sensory
garden; requests medicinal plants with explanations, types of plants that would
have been in this area, pre- farming/ drainage.
4.139 Cheryl
Lattey, Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) supports the sensory garden
concept.
4.140 Ken
Haines, Rotary Club Stortford Lodge (Submission 15) supports the Draft
Plan, particularly the establishment of the sensory garden as a meaningful
addition to the park, enhancing park values and the visitor experience;
provides opportunities for users with disabilities that are limited in typical
park settings; considering mechanisms to assist HDC with delivering the garden;
requests to be kept informed of progress once the Draft Plan is adopted.
4.141 Chris
Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission 19) supports development of a
sensory garden as a huge benefit to everyone including disabled people across
the impairment spectrum for whom accessing the natural environment can be
difficult.
4.142 Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13) requests the provision of a section of the park to
represent indigenous plants, to enable children to learn about native plants in
their local area and supports removal of the Necklace Poplar as it is
unattractive, infested with rabbits and uses a large space; requests replacement
with a tōtara or kauri tree. In addition, supports a sensory garden
and requests signs for plants and trees in Latin, English and Māori.
4.143 Ben
Talbot, on behalf of Years 5 & 6, Frimley Primary School (Submission
16) supports inclusion of native trees in the canopy succession planning to
attract more wildlife; and would like to participate in tree planting; and
provision of bird feeders provided by local schools in the park.
4.144 Lou
Corkery (Submission 12) requests consideration be given to removing (a) gum
trees on the Frimley Road side of the park as the material shed from the trees
makes the ground difficult to walk on; and (b) the conifer tree near the
Frimley Aquatic Centre as it sheds needles, appears to be lifting and cracking
the footpath; rubbish is also dumped behind this tree.
Analysis
4.145 The
Draft Plan proposes a sensory garden area in the area where the maintenance
sheds were located. The sensory garden includes plants which activate the
different senses, as well as an area of indigenous planting and a grove of
heritage fruit trees, reflecting James Williams’ involvement in the
pioneering canning and orcharding industry. Officers would typically
engage with key stakeholders including adjacent schools and mana whenua in the
detail design of the garden, which would enable discussion as to choice of
species which are both useful for the stakeholders, as well as appropriate for
the site and aim of the garden. Officers also note the offer by the Rotary
Club Stortford Lodge (Submission 15) to assist Council with delivery of the
garden.
4.146 The
Draft Plan provides for removal of the Necklace Poplar (T51), due to the level
of ongoing management required for retention of the tree, including health and
safety of park users. The Draft Plan provides for the tree to be
completely removed. Officers will liaise with local woodturning clubs to
provide parts of the tree, if this can be managed safely.
4.147 Part
of the trunk could be retained as a play piece. This would require design
to ensure the stump is a meaningful play piece, together with compliance with
NZS 5828:2015 Playground Equipment and Surfacing. Appropriate safety
surfacing would be required, together with ongoing maintenance to manage sucker
growth and rot, which is already present in the lower trunk. Given the
size and investment of the existing playground, existence of rot in the trunk,
ongoing costs for maintenance of the trunk and progeny of the Necklace Poplar
situated nearby, officers consider it appropriate to remove the tree in its
entirety rather than retaining a portion for use as a play piece.
4.148 While
there are some indigenous trees within the park, the Draft Plan provides for
indigenous species as part of canopy succession planning across the park and
policy 3.1.8 provides for labels to identify significant and outstanding trees
within the park for education and information purposes. Bird feeders are
not considered appropriate in the park due to the cost of servicing them,
however plant choices can be made to ensure the park sustains native fauna.
4.149 With
regard to other tree removals, this must be consistent with the Tree Removal
Policy and currently there are no grounds to recommend removal of these
trees. The trees will continue to be monitored every three years, and
management recommendations updated as required.
4.150 The
issue with dumped rubbish identified by Submission 10 can be managed by the
public contacting Council and requesting the rubbish be removed.
Recommendations
4.151 That
the submission of Tim White, Principal Frimley Primary School
(Submission 7), Cheryl Lattey, Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9), Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13), Ken Haines, Rotary Club Stortford Lodge
(Submission 15) and Chris Ford, Disabled Persons Assembly (Submission
19) be allowed insofar as Council will work with key stakeholders in the design
of the sensory garden, the garden will include an indigenous species area and
species with heritage value with associated signage, and provision will be made
for disabled people across the impairment spectrum.
4.152 That
the submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) be allowed and George
Lomas (Submission 1) and Michael Smiley (Submission 14) be allowed
in part insofar as Council will apply for a resource consent to remove the
Necklace Poplar (T51) and, if it can be managed safely, wood made available use
wood turning, and submission of Michael Smiley disallowed in part
insofar as the tree will be removed entirely as the cost of retaining the stump
as play piece is not considered appropriate given the investment in the
playground.
4.153 That
the submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13), Michael Smiley
(Submission 14) and Ben Talbot, on behalf of Years 5 & 6 Frimley
Primary School (Submission 16) be allowed insofar as indigenous trees form
part of succession planning across the park, balanced with retention of the
exotic parkland character, and labels will be provided in the park for
significant and outstanding trees. That the submission of Ben Talbot,
on behalf of Years 5 & 6 Frimley Primary School (Submission 16)
be disallowed insofar as bird feeders are not considered appropriate due to
ongoing service costs.
4.154 That
the submission of George Lomas (Submission 1) and Lou Corkery
(Submission 12) be disallowed in part insofar as the pine, gum and conifer
trees do not meet the criteria of the Tree Removal Policy for removal and
allowed in part insofar as they will continue to be monitored and, if
circumstances change, removed if they meet the criteria.
REMEDY
16: SECTION 3.3 (WATER)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.155 David
Renouf (Submission 6) notes there are freshwater springs within the park,
and would like to see information about water treatment, wells and storage on
park land.
Analysis
4.156 Section
3.3 Water notes that there will be information signage associated with the
water infrastructure, aligned with the Waiaroha site in central Hastings.
Recommendation
4.157 That
the submission of David Renouf (Submission 6) be allowed insofar as
signage will be placed in Frimley Park providing information about the water
infrastructure.
REMEDY 17: SECTION 3.5 (PLANT AND ANIMAL PESTS)
Submissions and Reasons
4.158 Michael Smiley (Submission 14)
requests if rabbits can be controlled to allow some to remain for enjoyment of
park users.
Analysis
4.159 Pest
control in the park is carried out in line with Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council’s Pest Management Strategy. The strategy provides for pests
to be managed when they exceed a certain population level.
4.160 Rabbits
can damage soil and vegetation including trees, and undermine buildings within
parks and reserves. While this is an undesirable outcome, complete
eradication has typically been difficult, impractical and costly.
Recommendation
4.161 That
the submission of Michael Smiley (Submission 14) be allowed insofar as
the Pest Management Strategy does not require complete eradication of rabbits,
and pest control is carried out when necessary.
REMEDY
18: SECTION 4.4 (COMMEMORATIVE FEATURES)
Submissions and
Reasons
4.162 Cheryl
Lattey, Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) would like Council to consult
with the Rose Society when requests for memorials within the rose gardens are
received, given the popularity of requests and service provided by the Society’s
members over time. Hastings District Council (Submission 20)
proposes the inclusion of an additional policy within the Draft Plan to require
consultation with the Hastings Rose Society prior to installation of memorial
features within the rose gardens.
4.163 Reiny
Scheper (Submission 13) requests repair of the sundial in the sunken garden
which was vandalised a long time ago, and requests the installation of a
security camera to ensure it is not vandalised again.
Analysis
4.164 Commemorative
features in Council parks and reserves are supported when they can be provided
in a sustainable manner and when there is adequate space. Benefactors
often have a preference for a park or location within a park which is of
special significance to them and their loved one.
4.165 From
time to time the Parks team receive requests for memorial seats within the rose
gardens, with two requests having been received in 2022. There are a
number of seats containing plaques of various styles within and immediately
adjacent to the rose gardens, with limited capacity for additional seats.
Including a policy in the Draft Plan will allow for dialogue between Council
and the Rose Society as to the number and location of seats, as well as
managing requests for seats from people who have had involvement in caring for
this special part of Hastings District.
4.166 The
condition of the sundial has been assessed and it is likely the damage is due
to concrete breaking down over time, rather than vandalism, and will be
repaired. There is the occasional occurrence of graffiti and vandalism
within Frimley Park, including graffiti on the sundial, however overall the
number of incidences is low. When comparing graffiti across the District,
Frimley Park registers as insignificant. Officers therefore consider that
installation of security cameras at this stage is not warranted.
Recommendations
4.167 That the submissions of Cheryl Lattey,
Hastings Rose Society (Submission 9) and Hastings District Council
(Submission 20) be allowed and that a policy be added to Section 4.4
Commemorative Features as follows:
4.4.5 Require requests for
installation of a commemorative feature within the rose gardens to be
considered in consultation with the Rose Society.
4.168 That
the submission of Reiny Scheper (Submission 13) be allowed in part
insofar as the damage to the sundial will be repaired and disallowed in part
insofar as installation of security cameras at this stage is unjustified.
REMEDY
19: SECTION 5.3 (CONCESSIONS)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.169 Fire
and Emergency NZ (Submission 17) requests the inclusion of an objective and
policy requiring event organisers to consult with Fire and Emergency during
planning for an event, to ensure the risks associated with fire are
sufficiently considered when planning and holding events on reserves,
particularly during fire season.
Analysis
4.170 Event
organisers are required to apply to Council for a concession prior to holding
an event on a park or reserve. The application form requires information
regarding the event, including an Event Operations Plan (health and
safety). Officers consider inclusion of a policy to discuss the event
with Fire and Emergency is unnecessary given information required during the application
process which provides the opportunity for Council to advise applicants to seek
permission from Fire and Emergency, and specific identification of fire as a
restricted activity in Section 1.7 Restricted Activities.
Recommendation
4.171 That
the submission of Fire and Emergency NZ (Submission 17) is disallowed in
that a specific objective and policy requiring Fire and Emergency consultation
is unnecessary as this is already provided for in the Plan, District Wide
Reserve Management Plan and Bylaws and the application process also provides
the opportunity to provide this advice to concession applicants.
REMEDY
20: SECTION 5.11 (SAFETY AND VANDALISM)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.172 Cancer
Society Hawke’s Bay (Submission 18) requests the provision of shade
protection over park benches and Aquatic Centre pool; seeks sun protection
policy as a key principle in Draft Plan with equity lens over evaluation and
prioritisation of shade to reduce risk of skin cancer; requests provision of
Smokefree and Vapefree signage; notes sun protection is an important workplace
health and safety issue for Council workers, and recommends a shade audit as
part of planning for outdoor locations primarily for children.
Analysis
4.173 Section
2.5 Playgrounds and Section 2.9 Park Furniture requires consideration of
protection from sun in playgrounds and when siting furniture. Extensive
natural shade is provided for across the park by the large number of mature
trees and shade sails were installed over the playground in 2021 as a result of
a shade audit undertaken in 2018. Shade within the Frimley Aquatic Centre
is provided by a number of shade sails and trees. There are a number of
signs across the park noting the park is smoke free.
4.174 As
Sections 2.5 and 2.9 of the Draft Plan require consideration of protection from
sun for playgrounds and furniture, and smoke free signage is in the park,
therefore officers do not consider an additional policy is necessary to address
these issues when developing facilities within the park.
Recommendation
4.175 That
the submission of Cancer Society Hawke’s Bay (Submission 18) be
allowed in part insofar as the Draft Plan provides for consideration of shelter
from sun in playgrounds and when locating park furniture, and Smoke Free
signage is located within the park and disallowed in part insofar as additional
policies within the Plan are considered unnecessary.
REMEDY 21:
SECTION 5.12 (COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS)
Submissions
and Reasons
4.176 Michael
Smiley (Submission 14) suggests a ‘Friends of Frimley Park’
group be formed, potentially joining the Rose Society to support park
activities.
Analysis
4.177 Volunteers
work in parks and reserves across the District, as individuals or in
groups. Their time and effort can greatly enhance their chosen park or
reserve, and is supported by Council with resources and guidance.
4.178 Officers
support the suggestion of a volunteer group working within the park. The
focus of the group would largely depend on the particular interest of the group
or individuals, and can be facilitated through contact with the Parks team.
Recommendation
4.179 That
the submission of Michael Smiley (Submission 14) be allowed and a
volunteer group be supported if there is adequate public interest expressed to
the Parks team.
FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
4.180 The
tables in Attachment 4 identify the financial implications to be
considered as part of the adoption of submissions made to the Draft Plan.
In summary, the proposed capital works programme and Action Plan adopted by
Council on 23 June 2022 for consultation purposes totalled $1,950,000.
4.181 Officers
recommend the proposed capital works programme and Action Plan be amended as a
result of the submissions by the addition of $20,000 to provide shade
sails over the new playground seating area (Remedy 7, Section 2.5 Playgrounds,
above), with a revised total budget of $1,970,000 as shown in Attachment
4.
4.182 It
is also noted that all proposed capital and operations budget requirements are
considered by Council as part of the Annual and Long Term planning process
alongside all Council’s competing priorities.
5.0 Options
– Ngā
Kōwhiringa
Option One -
Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa
Tūtohunga
5.1 Option
One is that Council adopts the recommendations on submissions and adopts the
Draft Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan, as amended by
submissions.
5.2 Reserve
Management Plans contain policies which regulate how a reserve is managed and
identify key actions required in the future development of them. As such,
they are fundamental planning tools to ensure that reserves are developed in a
planned and coordinated manner to achieve the best environmental and economic
outcome. Without Reserve management Plans, work undertaken can be in an ad hoc
manner, without taking into account the key objectives of the public or budget
and environmental considerations.
Advantages
· The
process as prescribed by the Reserves Act will be complete.
· The
delivery of capital projects to enhance within the park will commence, with the
result of enhancing the recreational and landscape value of this premier park
which attracts visitors from across the District.
· Community
expectations identified during this process will be met.
Disadvantages
· Council will need
to consider the impacts of additional capital expenditure in successive Long
Term Plans.
Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa
Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei
5.3 Option
Two is that the recommendations on submissions are not adopted, and the Draft
Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan also not be adopted. This would mean
that Frimley Park would continue to be managed under the District Wide Reserve
Management Plan and developed in an ad hoc manner.
Advantages
· Proposed
capital expenditure would be reduced.
Disadvantages
· This
step would result in failure to meet expectations set with the community
through the process of preparation of the Plan.
6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua
6.1 Following
the hearing, the Plan will be amended as per the decisions of Council and
presented to the Council meeting on 15 December for ratification.
Projects programmed and adopted in the Action List will then be included for
consideration in successive Long Term Plans.
Attachments:
|
1⇨
|
Submission #1 George Lomas
|
PRJ20-89-0065
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
2⇨
|
Submission #2 K Lewis
|
PRJ20-89-0066
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
3⇨
|
Submission #3 Monique Bradshaw
|
PRJ20-89-0067
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
4⇨
|
Submission #4 Susan Tidswell
|
PRJ20-89-0068
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
5⇨
|
Submission #5 Richard Bradshaw Frimley Shops Building
|
PRJ20-89-0069
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
6⇨
|
Submission #6 David W Renouf
|
PRJ20-89-0070
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
7⇨
|
Submission #7 Tim White Frimley Primary School
|
PRJ20-89-0071
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
8⇨
|
Submission #8 Karyl Bishop
|
PRJ20-89-0072
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
9⇨
|
Submission #9 Cheryl Lattey
|
PRJ20-89-0073
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
10⇨
|
Submission #10 Mary Brooker
|
PRJ20-89-0074
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
11⇨
|
Submission #11 Regan Wallis
|
PRJ20-89-0075
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
12⇨
|
Submission #12 Lou Corkery
|
PRJ20-89-0076
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
13⇨
|
Submission #13 Reiny Scheper
|
PRJ20-89-0077
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
14⇨
|
Submission #14 Michael Smiley
|
PRJ20-89-0078
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
15⇨
|
Submission #15 Ken Haines
|
PRJ20-89-0079
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
16⇨
|
Submission #16 Ben Talbot Frimley School
|
PRJ20-89-0080
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
17⇨
|
Submission #17 Fleur Rohleder Fire & Emergency NZ
|
PRJ20-89-0081
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
18⇨
|
Submission #18 Crystal Lau Cancer Society HB
|
PRJ20-89-0082
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
19⇨
|
Submission #19 Chris Ford Disabled Persons Assembly
|
PRJ20-89-0083
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
20⇨
|
Submission #20 Hastings District Council
|
PRJ20-89-0085
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
21⇨
|
Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan Hearing - ATTACHMENT
2 REMEDY LIST
|
PRJ20-89-0090
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
22⇨
|
Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan Hearing - ATTACHMENT
3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS
|
PRJ20-89-0089
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
23⇨
|
Frimley Park Reserve Management Plan - Hearing ATTACHMENT
4 PROPOSED CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAMME AND ACTION PLAN
|
PRJ20-89-0088
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
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 proposal promotes the wellbeing of
communities in the present and for the future by providing good quality
recreational and community facilities.
|
|
Māori
Impact Statement -
Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori
The policies requiring reference to the
Te Aranga Design Principles and Toi-tū Hawke’s Bay Arts and Culture Framework which will require
involvement of mana whenua in projects within the park, will strengthen the
cultural narrative across the park, including for use as an outdoor classroom
by surrounding schools.
|
|
Sustainability
- Te
Toitūtanga
The Plan promotes sustainability by
retention and improved management of the existing tree assets; providing
facilities to encourage active transport to the park with improved pedestrian
linkages into and through the park, as well as bicycle parking facilities.
|
|
Financial
considerations -
Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni
The Plan requires $1,970,000
of funding to be set aside in the Draft Long Term Plan, as set out in Attachment
4. This will be considered by Council alongside other competing
priorities.
|
|
Significance
and Engagement -
Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga
This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's
Significance and Engagement Policy as being of moderate significance
given the level of expenditure, 10 year timeframe for implementation of
capital expenditure projects, and use of the park by people from across the
District.
|
|
Consultation
– internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho
Consultation was undertaken in line with
the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977. Extensive consultation was
undertaken with stakeholders and user groups, as outlined in Section 3
above.
|
|
Risks
|
REWARD – Te Utu
|
RISK – Te Tūraru
|
|
Development of a sensory garden space for use by all
members of the community.
Expanded playground catering to a greater age range of
children.
Increased parking supply and traffic safety measures.
Increased access into and though the park.
Retention of existing tree assets.
Park used as an ‘outdoor classroom’
|
If inadequate funds are made available over the 10 year
timeframe of the Plan, there is potential risk to Council’s
reputation in not delivering projects.
|
|
|
Rural
Community Board –
Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori
As Frimley Park is located within an
urban area, the Rural Community Board has not been consulted.
|
