agenda - Horizons Regional Council

Transcription

AGENDA
REGIONAL COUNCIL
10.00am
Tuesday
30 JUNE 2009
for further information regarding this agenda, please contact:
Julie Kennedy, 06 952 2800
CONTACT
2 4hr Freephone 0508 800 800
help@horizons.govt.nz
www.horizons.govt.nz
Palmerston North
11-15 Victoria Avenue
Levin
11 Bruce Road
Kairanga
Cnr Rongotea &
Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Rds
Palmerston North
SERVICE
CENTRES
Marton
Hammond Street
Taumarunui
34 Maata Street
REGIONAL
HOUSES
DEPOTS
Wanganui
181 Guyton Street
Taihape
Torere Road
Ohotu
Woodville
Cnr Vogel (SH2) & Tay Sts
POSTAL
ADDRESS
Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 | F 06 9522 929
Notice is given of a meeting of Horizons Regional Council to be held on Tuesday,
30 June 2009 at 10.00am in the Tararua Room, Horizons Regional Council offices,
11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North.
ORDER PAPER
Regional Council
Agenda Pages
10.00 am Tuesday, 30 June
1 - 141
To be held in Public Excluded
Presentation - CentrePort Wellington - March 2009 Quarterly Report
Mr Warren Larsen and Mr William Gorrie
(approximately 11.30am)
RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORTS ARE NOT
COUNCIL POLICY UNTIL ADOPTED BY COUNCIL
NEWS EMBARGO
Items in this agenda may be subject to amendment or withdrawal at the meeting. Items are
embargoed until two days before the date of the meeting.
Reporters who do not attend the meetings should seek confirmation of the agenda material
or proceedings from the Chief Executive prior to any media reports.
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Cr GP Murfitt (Chairman)
Cr L Bailey
Cr LR Burnell
Cr VJF Chettleburgh QSM ED
Cr EB Gordon
Cr MC Guy
Cr AK Main
Cr DB Meads
Cr MW Plowman
Cr PW Rieger QSO
Cr RG Walker JP
Cr J White
AGENDA
30 June 2009
10.00am
PART ONE
Pages
PROCEDURAL ITEMS
1.
2.
Apologies
Public Speaking Rights
Notification to speak is required by 4pm on the working day prior to
the
meeting.
Further
information
is
available
on
www.horizons.govt.nz or by phoning 0508 800 800
3.
Late Items:
To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the
Committee to consider any further items relating to items following
below which do not appear on the Order Paper of this meeting
and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.
Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of
the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987,
and the Chairperson must advise:
(i)
(ii)
4.
The reason why the item was not on the Order Paper, and
The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.
Members’ Conflict of Interest
Members are reminded of their obligation to declare any
conflicts of interest they might have in respect of the items on this Agenda.
5.
Confirmation of Minutes
6.
Petitions/Deputations
7.
Chairman’s Report
8.
Chief Executive’s Report
9.
Members’ Reports
1 - 14
- 26 May 2009
COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.
Endorsement and Adoption of Committee and Advisory Group
Resolutions and Recommendations:
Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group
Strategy & Policy Committee
Deliberations on Draft Community Plan
Environment Committee
Regional Land Transport Committee
2 June 2009
9 June and 16 June 2009
15 - 18
19 - 36
10 June 2009
23 June 2009
37 - 42
43 - 48
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
11.
Final Consideration of Submissions to Draft Community Plan 2009-19 49 - 50
Report No: 09-96
File No: OMS 10 02 09
12.
Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12
Report No: 09-92 (Incl Annex A)
File No: TTP 1 03
13.
One Plan Hearing Committee
File No: OMS 10 13
123 - 126
14.
Electronic Media Clipping Service
File No: OIM 5 00
127 - 132
15.
Affixing of the Common Seal
Report No: 09-93
File No: OMS 5 00
133 - 134
16.
Members’ Questions
51 - 122
PART TWO - PUBLIC EXCLUDED SECTION
The public is to be excluded from the remainder of the Council meeting as the general
subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this
resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 (1) of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this
resolution is as follows:
General subject of each
matter to be considered
PX1
Confirmation of Minutes of
26 May 2009
Pgs 135 - 138
PX2
Endorsement and adoption of
the Strategy and Policy
Committee (Deliberations on
Draft Community Plan)
resolutions and
recommendations of
16 June 2009
Pgs 139 - 141
PX3
CentrePort Wellington –
March 2009 Quarterly Report
(appproximately 11.30am)
Reason for passing this
resolution
As disclosure would not be in
the public interest because of
the greater need to enable
Council to carry on without
prejudice
or
disadvantage
commercial negotiations.
prejudice
or
disadvantage
Grounds under section 48 (1) for
passing this resolution
That the exclusion of the public
from that part of the meeting is
necessary to prevent the
disclosure of information for
which
good
reasons
for
withholding exist.
which
good
reasons
for
withholding exist.
prejudice
or
disadvantage
which
good
reasons
for
withholding exist.
PX4
Councillors to consider moving the Public Excluded minutes of the Council meeting of
26 May 2009 into the Public domain.
M J McCartney
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1
Minutes of the Twentieth meeting of the seventh triennium of Horizons Regional Council held at
10.05am on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, in the Tararua Room, Regional House, 11-15 Victoria Avenue,
Palmerston North.
PRESENT
Crs G P Murfitt (Chair), L Bailey, L R Burnell, V J F Chettleburgh QSM ED,
E B Gordon, A K Main, D B Meads, P W Rieger QSO, R G Walker JP, and
J White.
IN ATTENDANCE
Chief Executive
Mr M McCartney
Group Manager Corporate and Governance Mr C Grant
Committee Secretary
Mrs J Kennedy
ALSO PRESENT
Mr G Carlyon (Group Manager Regional Planning and Regulatory to 11.40am
and from 11.58am), Mr G Shirley (Group Manager Regional Services and
Information from 10.12am to 11.40am and from 11.58am to 2.43pm), Mr A D Cook
(Group Manager Operations from 10.12am to 11.32am and from 12.17pm to 2.00pm),
Mr C Mitchell (Group Manager Environmental Management to 11.32am), Dr J
Roygard (Manager Science from 10.17am to 10.49am and from 1.15pm to 3.00pm),
Ms F Maseyk (Senior Environmental Scientist from 10.17am to 10.49am), Ms A
Russell (Manager Compliance from 2.20pm), Mr G Doull (Senior Design
Engineer from 1.55pm to 2.12pm), Mr B Duffy (Mayor Horowhenua District
Council) and Mr D Ward (Chief Executive Horowhenua District Council) from
12.05pm to 12.30pm, Mr and Mrs G Paton (from 1.05pm to 2.12pm).
APOLOGIES
09-386
Moved
Murfitt/Walker
that an apology be received from Crs Plowman and Guy (Leave of Absence).
CARRIED
PUBLIC SPEAKING RIGHTS
The Chairman advised that Mr and Mrs Paton would be speaking in regard to Item 13, Report No.
09-80, Manawatu River – Foxton Loop.
LATE ITEMS
There were no Late Items advised.
MEMBERS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There were no Conflicts of Interest.
2
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
09-387
Moved
Murfitt/Burnell
that the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2009, as circulated, be confirmed as
a correct record.
CARRIED
PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS
There were no Petitions / Deputations.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
The Chairman presented his report and highlighted that Horizons Regional Council had received a
major Green Ribbon National Award for the WaterMatters Website, and extended congratulations
from Council to Dr Roygard (Manager Science), Mr C Veale (Project Coordinator-Catchment
Information), and staff involved in the project.
09-388
Moved
Murfitt/Main
that the Council congratulates Dr Roygard, Mr Veale, and the team for their
success in being awarded a Green Ribbon National Award for the WaterMatters
Website.
CARRIED
Members discussed the acquisition of a painting of the Rangitikei River mouth at Tangimoana, by
Hilary Robson. Donations from Councillors and Executive went to purchasing the painting.
09-389
Moved
Murfitt/Bailey
that the Chairman’s report be received.
CARRIED
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT
The Chief Executive (CE) spoke to his report and referred to a positive and constructive meeting
held with One Plan hearing panel members, noted the positive response received in regard to the
Territorial Authority Forum held on 14-15 May 2009, and gave an update on Catchment Operations
activities. Mr Cook, Group Manager Operations, answered members questions of clarification
around consent issues in regard to the City Reach Project and the Kopane Bridge Project. The CE
advised discussions were continuing with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in regard to
future funding for the Sustainable Land Use Initiative, reported that the Audit, Risk & Investment
Committee would be looking at the first draft valuation assessment of the Port of Napier
Shareholding at their next financial briefing, commented on regulatory business, and gave an
update on progress in regard to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Resource Management Act
Amendment Bill.
Mr Grant, Group Manager Corporate and Governance gave an update on progress with Shared
Services, and answered Members questions of clarification.
The CE advised he had received a resignation from Ms Meryl Ram, Chief Financial Officer. He
acknowledged her efforts over the the last three years, and wished her well for the future.
3
09-390
Moved
Murfitt/Rieger
that the Chief Executive’s report be received.
CARRIED
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
Cr Bailey attended the Ohau/Manakau, and Makerua Annual Scheme Meetings, an Audit, Risk &
Investment Financial Briefing, One Plan Coast and Te Ao Maori deliberations, the Councillor
workshop on 4 May, the Manawatu Estuary Trust monthly meeting, Catchment Operations
Committee meeting, Territorial Authorities’ Forum on 14/15 May, spoke to the Waitarere Beach
Progressive Association Annual General Meeting, attended the Foxton Community Board meeting,
the Passenger Transport Sub-Committee meeting, the Dairy Industry Forum on 21 May, day one of
the Community Plan Submissions Hearing on 25 May, and Council meeting on 26 May.
Cr Burnell attended the usual meetings, the Territorial Authorities’ Forum on 14/15 May, and One
Plan Te Ao Maori deliberations.
Cr Chettleburgh attended the Territorial Authorities’ Forum on 14/15 May, the International Pacific
College commencement ceremony, the Massey Graduation function in the Square, a meeting in
regard to the Palmerston North Airport, the Palmerston North City Council submissions, the usual
Council/Committee meetings, commented on a Rotary Club charity event, a ‘Reach for the Stars’
talent show, and a Monet Exhibition held in Wellington.
Cr Gordon attended the usual Council/Committee meetings, the Territorial Authorities’ Forum,
chaired the Regional Transport Committee submissions hearing on the Draft Regional Land
Transport Programme, and advised he would be attending a transport summit in Auckland on 3/4
June.
Cr Main attended One Plan deliberations, a Bushy Park Trust meeting, spoke to several groups in
regard to the Long-term Council Community Plan, and attended the Territorial Authorities’ Forum
on 14/15 May, and the usual Council/Committee meetings.
Cr Meads attended the Ohau/Manakau, and Makerua Annual Scheme Meetings, the Manawatu
Drainage Liaison Committee meeting in conjunction with the Taonui Basin landowners, a
Councillor workshop on 5 May, chaired the Catchment Operations Committee meeting on 13 May,
attended the Territorial Authorities’ Forum on 14/15 May, and chaired the Dairy Industry Forum
held on 21 May.
Cr Rieger attended the usual Council/Committee meetings.
Cr Walker advised of two meetings held with constituents in Wanganui, and attended the usual
Council/Committee meetings.
Cr White advised she had spent a considerable amount of time on One Plan deliberations,
attended the Massey Graduation ceremony, advised of a comment made by a member of the
public in regard to the difficulty of reading ‘Across the Region’ publication, when colour wording
was printed on colour background. She attended part of the Territorial Authorities’ Forum, outlined
the timetable for upcoming One Plan Hearings, and requested Leave of Absence from 14 August
to 14 September 2009.
4
09-391
Moved
Rieger/Chettleburgh
that Cr White be granted Leave of Absence from 14 August to 14 September 2009.
CARRIED
09-392
Moved
Murfitt/Bailey
that the public is to be excluded from this portion of the Council meeting as the
general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for
passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under
section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
for passing of this resolution is as follows:
PX2
Port of Napier –
Half Yearly Shareholder
Presentation
Reason
for
passing
this
resolution
As disclosure would not be in the
public interest because of the
greater need to enable Council to
carry on without prejudice or
disadvantage
commercial
negotiations.
That the exclusion of the public from
that part of the meeting is necessary
to prevent the disclosure of
information for which good reasons
for withholding exist.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned to the Public Excluded part of the meeting at 11.30am and resumed at
12.05pm.
ENDORSEMENT AND ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE AND ADVISORY GROUP RESOLUTIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CATCHMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
09-393
Moved
Meads/Waker
that the Council endorses and adopts the resolutions and recommendations of the
Catchment Operations Committee meeting, held on 13 May 2009.
CARRIED
There was discussion and questions of clarification asked in regard to an application to the
Manawatu District Council from MC2 Group Limited for a plan change for Flygers Line, and any
associated resource consent applications.
09-394
Moved
Chettleburgh/White
that the Council receives regular updates on information in regard to MC2 Group
Limited, in regard to an application to the Manawatu District Council for a plan
change for Flygers Line, and any associated resource consent applications.
CARRIED
5
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR REGULATORY BUSINESS WITH DISTRICT COUNCILS
Report No. 09-76
This report was to advise Councillors of an initiative in relation to regulatory business between
District Councils and Horizons Regional Council.
The Chairman welcomed Mayor B Duffy, Horowhenua District Council and Mr D Ward, Chief
Executive, Horowhenua District Council (HDC) to the meeting.
Mr McCartney, Chief Executive Horizons Regional Council (HRC) commented on the significance
of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and applauded the Mayor and Chief Executive of
HDC for their participation and approach in working together with HRC to provide a more stable
working relationship between HDC and HRC.
Mayor Duffy, HDC commented on the tremendous value in working harmoniously together with
HRC, and was confident that an improved working relationship could be achieved. He referred to
the Territorial Authorities’ Forum held in July 2008 and May 2009, and noted that HDC held the
Forum in very high regard. He acknowledged the efforts of Mr Carlyon, Group Manager Regional
Planning and Regulatory for his part in assisting with the MOU.
Councillors acknowledged the importance of the MOU and congratulated those involved for their
efforts. Several punctuation errors were identified as requiring attention.
The MOU between HRC and HDC was signed at the meeting by Mr Brendan Duffy, Mayor, HDC,
Mr David Ward, Chief Executive, HDC, Mr Garrick Murfitt, Chairman, HRC, and Mr Michael
McCartney, Chief Executive, HRC.
09-395
Moved
Bailey/Burnell
that the Council:
a.
receives the report in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding for
Tararua District Council and Horowhenua District Council; and
b.
endorses the approach taken to cooperatively engage in the statutory
obligations Horizons Regional Council and the District Councils have.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12.30pm
The meeting reconvened at 1.05pm
MANAWATU RIVER – FOXTON LOOP
Report No. 09-80
The purpose of this item was to provide Council with an indication of the scope of investigation and
design work involved in assessing options for increasing permanent river flow around the Foxton
Loop.
Mr Cook, Group Manager Operations (GMO) introduced the report and referred to an aerial map to
outline available options. The Save Our River Trust (SORT) had made an approach to Council at
the April Strategy & Policy meeting and asked for assistance with the project. Their objective was
to increase the permanent river flow into the old loop, in order that it could be navigated by small
craft.
6
The GMO elaborated on the options and cost estimates available to permanently increase river
flows around the Foxton Loop, without compromising the operation of the floodway, and features of
the Lower Manawatu Scheme which were all very important to the protection of large rural areas
upstream, and for the protection of the beach community. The impact of the possibility of lower
quality river water being introduced to the Loop, as a result of any work undertaken, was an issue
that would need to be addressed. The issue of resource consents would also need to be
addressed. Horizons Regional Council was opposed to anything that would compromise the
functionality of the Lower Manawatu Scheme.
The Chairman welcomed Mr and Mrs Paton to the meeting. He advised they had ten minutes to
speak in regard to Item 13, Report No. 09-80, Manawatu River – Foxton Loop.
Mr and Mrs Paton – Manawatu River - Foxton Loop
Mrs Paton spoke in regard to the item and supplied Members with a copy of her speaking rights.
She was opposed to any involvement from Council in regard to plans for the development of
recreational and tourist attractions at Foxton, and plans for restoring the River Loop, as presented
by the Save Our River Trust at the April 2009 Strategy & Policy meeting. Mrs Paton believed that
opening up the Loop would exacerbate any future flood event in the area. She was opposed to
further costs being imposed on ratepayers and believed any costs associated with the proposal
should be covered by SORT.
Mr Paton was not convinced that the problem of sedimentation in the Loop could be addressed,
and questioned how the proposed project would be funded. He did not believe it was realistic to
expect ratepayers to fund the project.
Members asked questions of clarification around the history, water quality, and impacts of the
Whirikino Cut on the Foxton Loop. There was comment made around gauging the level of support
from the Horowhenua District Council (HDC) and community for the project. Cr Bailey noted that
historically there had been support from HDC for beautification of the land around the Loop, and
commented on a multi-purpose facility that was currently being investigated by HDC.
It was noted that a written submission from SORT had been made to the Draft Community Plan
2009 2019 Submissions Hearing scheduled for 25, 27, and 28 May, and the submission would be
considered at the Draft Community Plan Deliberations. It was therefore recommended that the
matter be given further consideration at the conclusion of the Draft Community Plan Submissions
Hearing and Deliberations.
Recommendations (e) and (f) were proposed to reflect the discussion.
09-396
Moved
Chettleburgh/Walker
that the Council:
a.
receives the information contained in this report;
b.
notes that present commitments preclude the involvement of Horizons
Regional Council Design staff in any substantial investigation of flow
diversion into the Foxton Loop, for at least the next two years;
c.
notes that in the event that an investigation was undertaken by external
consultants, Horizons’ staff would need to be key participants in a Project
Control Group, but would have difficulty fulfilling that role for the next 12
months;
d.
notes that the minor diversion option is much less likely to be problematic
than a major diversion in terms of design and operational support;
7
e.
notes that a submission has been made to the Draft Community Plan 20092019 process, and the matter will be considered further at the appropriate
time; and
f.
advises Save Our River Trust of the above recommendations.
CARRIED
WATER SCIENCE PROGRAMME
Report No. 09-59
This report was to inform Councillors about the current programme relating to water science work
being undertaken by or on behalf of Horizons Regional Council.
Dr Roygard, Manager Science introduced the presentation.
The Chairman and Members commended Dr Roygard on his impressive presentation, and asked
questions of clarification.
The Chairman requested that additional information on the Water Science Programme be provided
to Council as it became available.
09-397
Moved
a.
Murfitt/Burnell
receives the information contained in the presentation,and provides
additional information as it comes to hand.
CARRIED
AFFIXING OF THE COMMON SEAL
Report No. 09-81
This paper reported on documents to which Horizons Regional Council’s Common Seal had been
affixed.
09-398
Moved
Chettleburgh/White
that the Council acknowledges the affixing of the Common Seal to the following
documents:
•
Lease Agreement: Horizons Regional Council and Parewanui Farms
•
Warrant Card – Blair Sowman
•
Lease Agreement: Horizons Regional Council and Potaka Station Limited
CARRIED
WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE
Members noted the Workshop Attendance 19 February 2009 – 20 May 2009.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
The Chairman advised that the Chief Executive, Cr Main, and himself would be meeting with the
Minister of Local Government at 1.00pm on 18 June 2009.
8
09-399
Moved
Murfitt/Walker
general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for
passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under
PX1
Confirmation of Minutes of
28 April 2009
Reason
for
passing
this
resolution
As disclosure would not be in the
public interest because of the
greater need to enable Council to
carry on without prejudice or
disadvantage
commercial
negotiations.
That the exclusion of the public from
that part of the meeting is necessary
to prevent the disclosure of
information for which good reasons
for withholding exist.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned to the Public Excluded part of the meeting at 3.00pm and resumed at
3.19pm.
The meeting closed at 3.20pm.
Confirmed.
__________________________________
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
______________________________
CHAIRMAN
9
ANNEX A
Chairman’s Report
May 2009
MAY 2009
CHAIRMANS REPORT
To Council
Meetings:

Council Meeting – Pukaha Mount Bruce
Tararua Federated Farmers AGM – Dannevirke
Tararua District Council Meeting
Regional Affairs Committee Wellington (2 Days) (Attached Minutes of Meeting)
Pukaha Mount Bruce – Board Meeting
Tainui Basin Meeting – Kairanga
Council Workshop – Installment Rating
RMA Submission to Select Committee – Wellington
International Airport Function Palmerston North
HRC & HDC joint meeting – Mayor & CE
Ruapehu District Council – Taumarunui
Strategic Session (Chairs of Committee)
TA Forum
Meeting with ratepayers (Whanganui)
Passenger Transport Meeting
Regional Transport Committee – Submissions Hearings
Dairy Forum – Palmerston North
Meeting with Jill and Tim, - Hi Tini Awa
Various Executive Meetings
Community Plan Hearings
Matters to bring to the attention of Council
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Chairman’s mid term Performance Review – underway – timeline out shortly
Queens Birthday 1 June 2009
Green Ribbon Awards 4 June 2009 Wellington
Community Plan Deliberations – 9 June 09
CentrePort invitation to evening social function 11 June 09 Wellington
Rod Titcombe - Farewell
Councillor Strategy Forum – 17-18 June 09
Meeting with the Minister 25 June – Wellington
Community Plan – Final Adoption – 30 June 09
Garrick Murfitt
CHAIRMAN
Encl
RAC Minutes 30/4 – 1/05
10
11
ANNEX B
Chief Executive’s Report
May 2009
MAY 2009
Chief Executive Report
To Council
Planning and Policy
LTCCP
•
The LTCCP hearings commenced yesterday. A total of 117 submissions were
received which compares to approximately 170 submissions received on last years
annual plan.
•
The hearing of submissions concludes later this week.
•
Last week hearings took place on submissions to the Regional Roading Programme.
Approximately 40 submissions were received to the draft programme.
One Plan
•
With hearings about to resume informal meetings with key submitters continue.
•
Currently we are meeting weekly with the TLA collective and remain hopeful that a
number of the issues raised by TAs can be refined before the hearings.
•
Without doubt though the main event is the water hearing later this year.
TA Forum
•
The recent TLA Forum was very well received with some positive feedback from a
number of Councils. The forum reinforced the desire for Councils to work together on
issues.
•
The forum also echoed the need for local authorities to hold on to local determination.
There was concern expressed about the fashion around reform arising out of the
Auckland model as well as implications around Govt assuming more influence over
local decisions.
•
The consensus is that the Forum was a success with all but one of our TAs present. I
would like to acknowledge the effort of Horizons staff for helping make the event run
smoothly.
Catchment Operations
•
As winter approaches ground conditions will mean that construction works with
respect to flood upgrades will abate.
•
Overall the construction season has been productive. We would have wished to make
more progress with the Wanganui Scheme however the consent appeal and Historic
Places Trust requirements have interrupted plans slightly. Pleasingly the appeal has
been withdrawn and now the only process issue needing resolution is the historic
places assessment.
•
The major consent issues ahead are the LMS consent in the city and the Oroua
consent (Taonui). We anticipate active participation by a number of landowners and
12
interested parties. We are hopeful that their issues can be resolved. If they cannot
there is a real risk that we could lose the 2009/10 construction season.
•
We remain contract with the SLUI programme delivering 80 farm plans for this year.
With the cooler weather approaching we are gearing up for the planting season.
•
Pleasingly despite the tough economic conditions farmers are still committing to the
implementation works meaning that we now have 1815 hectares under SLUI
management.
•
We have commenced discussions with MAF around future funding as well as
implications around govt funding for our adjusted targets.
•
Given the economic conditions at present as well as the govt budget cutting agenda
there will need to be a concerted effort to resell the Sustainable Hill Country Erosion
Package.
•
This fund (set up in 2007) allocated $10 million over 4 years. It is imperative that we
ensure that programme continues beyond that 4 year period. To that end the
chairman and I will be seeking meetings with key MAF officials in the near future.
Audit, Risk and Investment
•
The ARI committee will be meeting later this week. In addition to the normal monthly
financial report the committee will be discussing the first draft valuation assessment
of the Port of Napier Shareholding.
•
CentrePort has released its draft Statement of Corporate intent. I have asked that
they attend the next S&P or Council meeting as there are some possible changes to
the dividend payment arrangements.
Regulatory
•
The Call In hearing on the Turitea Windfarm is set down for next month. We will be in
attendance speaking to our submission.
•
The consents team, remain busy with steady numbers of consent in process.
•
Currently we are in mediation on a number of appeals and objections to costs.
•
The most significant event last week was the sentencing of Mr Ken Thurstson (and
company) over illegal discharges at a dairy farm and at the Longburn Industrial
premises. The $180,000 fines were the largest imposed in the region and amongst
the biggest nationally.
•
This sentence bought to a close a lengthy process and staff should be applauded for
their professionalism in dealing with the challenging issues and personalities related
to these proceedings.
•
The PAC is meeting this week to consider a number of possible prosecution
recommendations.
RMA Amendments
•
My understanding is that the Minister for the Environment has directed officials to
progress Phase 2 of the RMA changes.
13
•
Members may recall that Phase 1 changes dealt with a number of the administrative
matters aimed at streamlining several RMA processes.
•
We filed a submission to the Bill that related to Phase 1 changes and the Chair,
Policy/Consent Manager and I appeared before the Select Committee and spoke to
our submission.
•
The Minister is hoping to have the Phase 1 Bill passed into Law in July.
•
As significant proposal likely to appear in the Phase 2 Bill is around the establishment
of an Environmental Protection Authority. Depending on the scope of an EPA there
could be significant consequential impacts on the role and function of Local Govt.
•
There is a Regional Affairs Committee Subgroup set up to look into the EPA issues
and the outcome of that is likely to be an EPA thinkpiece paper released to the sector
and MFE.
•
Indications are that the Minister wishes to have the Phase 2 Bill available by the end
of the year.
Shared Services
•
The Directors of LASS met recently to consider proposals for joint Insurance
Brokerage.
•
The due diligence that preceded the determination included seeking proposals from
several brokerage agencies.
•
The outcome is that LASS has recommended to the parent entity that brokerage
services be supplied by Anon.
•
The resultant regional savings shared amongst the parent entities of LASS (i.e the
regions Councils excl PNCC) is between $400k and $500k on current spend. This
saving would be more as increases in insurance costs were signaled for next year.
Waitangi Tribunial
•
The hearings of Wanganui Land claims before the Waitangi Tribunal resume this
week.
•
Horizons will be appearing before the Tribunal this Friday.
Staff/General
•
I have received the resignation from Meryl Ram our Chief Financial Officer. Meryl is
leaving us after three years. During her time we have greatly lifted the financial
reporting accuracy of our business. I wish to acknowledge her effort and wish her well
for the future.
•
Horizons, has received the Technology Green Ribbon Award for the Water matters
Website. This award is given out by the Minister for the Environment recognizes the
improvements in technology in the environmental space.
•
Horizons won this award last year for the Green Rig.
14
•
The Chairman and relevant staff will receive the award at a function in Wellington
next month.
15
Report of a meeting of the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group of Horizons Regional Council
held in the Tararua Room of Regional House at 11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North, at
7.30pm on Tuesday, 2 June 2009.
PRESENT
Crs L Burnell (Chairman), L Bailey, Messrs D Booth (Manawatu Freshwater
Anglers’ Club), B Culley (Manawatu Marine Boating Club), R Anderson,
G Hyde, and B Eccles (Jet Boating New Zealand), K Lane (from 7.47pm
Water and Environment Care Association), M Wheatley (Manawatu Four
Wheel Drive Club), D Stella (Manawatu Coast Guard), T Murdoch (Foxton
Community Board).
IN ATTENDANCE
Area Engineer
Harbourmaster
Maritime New Zealand
Committee Secretary
Mr D McKee
Mr E Lloyd
Mr A Thomson
Mrs J Kennedy
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.
APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Cr G Murfitt, Messrs B Vertongen (Foxton Community Board),
A Wakeling, J Storey (Manawatu Marine Boating Club), I Taylor (Manawatu Fresh Water
Anglers Club).
Moved
Bailey/Burnell
that the apologies of Cr Murfitt, Messrs Vertongen, Wakeling, Storey, and
Taylor, be accepted.
CARRIED
Moved
Bailey/Booth
that the minutes of the meeting of the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory
Group held on 2 December 2008, as circulated, be confirmed as a correct
record.
CARRIED
HARBOURMASTER’S REPORT
Report No: 09-82
The purpose of this item was to provide Members of the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group
(MRUAG) with an update on matters relating to the Office of the Harbourmaster.
16
The Harbourmaster outlined the key points in the report and was available to answer questions
on points raised. Mr Booth, Manawatu Freshwater Anglers’ Club, commented on the excellent
news around expected budgeting for interpretative information for the turbidity charts on the
Horizons website. It was expected that it would be completed in the first half of the new financial
year.
Moved
Bailey/Booth
that the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group
a.
receives the information contained in Report No. 09-82.
CARRIED
LOWER MANAWATU RIVER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Report No: 09-85
The purpose of this item was to inform Members of the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group
(MRUAG) of Lower Manawatu Scheme (LMS) management issues, that may have some impact
on the recreational use of the river during the period June to December 2009.
Mr Derek McKee, Area Engineer spoke to the report and answered Members questions of
clarification in regard to Lower Manawatu River Management Issues.
The Chairman congratulated Mr McKee on the impressive work that has been undertaken as part
of the City Reach Upgrade Programme.
The Area Engineer advised of a number of structures (groynes) uncovered on the bank of the
River. The structures have been sandblasted and preserved, and it was intended that a plaque,
detailing the history of the structures, would be attached.
Moved
Bailey/Burnell
a.
receives the information contained in Report No. 09-85.
CARRIED
REVIEW OF MANAWATU RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION AND
SAFETY BYLAWS 2004
Report No 09-84
The purpose of this item was to provide members of the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group
(MRUAG) with an overview of review process for the Manawatu River and Tributaries Navigation
and Safety Bylaws 2004, and to introduce discussion on comments received to date.
The Harbourmaster gave a presentation outlining the timeline and background to the Bylaw
Review. There was discussion and consideration given in regard to the comments received by
Members on the current Bylaws, and issues that could be considered in the Review. In regard to
the proposed timeline, and the suggested consultation period of 19 December 2009-31 January
2010, it was suggested that February 2010 would be a more suitable date.
17
At the end of discussions, the Harbourmaster summarised the following action points:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide feedback to submitters who were not at the meeting on their submissions and
discussions to date.
Discuss Jet Boating New Zealand submission with Palmerston North City Council and
kayak clubs.
Define exact position for placement of a five knot speed signs in The Loop.
Continue discussions with Fish and Game in regard to five knot speed restriction in the
Manawatu Estuary during duck shooting season.
Further discuss with Palmerston North City Council their desire for the review to consider
future commercial boat operations.
Consider a change of wording in Clause 3.7.1 – Reserved Areas.
Moved
Burnell/Bailey
a.
discusses the written comments;
b.
provides guidance to the Harbourmaster on proposed amendments to
the Manawatu River and Tributaries Navigation and Safety Bylaws; and
c.
requests the Harbourmaster to draft amendments to Manawatu River
and Tributaries Navigation and Safety Bylaws, and present at the
December meeting of the Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group.
CARRIED
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Report No: 09-83
The purpose of this report was to present the Manawatu River Calendar of Events to the
Manawatu River Users’ Advisory Group for information.
Moved
Bailey/Booth
a.
receives the information contained in Report No. 09-83, and notes that
no upcoming events have been notified to the Harbourmaster.
CARRIED
GENERAL BUSINESS
Mr Booth commented that the Manawatu Freshwater Anglers’ Club had missed the deadline for
submissions to the Feilding Wastewater consent. Mr Lane advised that the Water and
Environment Care Association, Manawatu Estuary Trust, and Fish and Game had made
submissions. There was discussion around the consent conditions.
18
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Advisory Group was provisionally scheduled for 1 December 2009.
The Chairman thanked the Group for their attendance and input.
Confirmed.
CHAIRPERSON
HARBOURMASTER
19
Report of the public meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee to deliberate on submissions
made to the Draft Community Plan 2009-2019 held in the Tararua Room of Council’s offices at
11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North on Tuesday, 9 June at 10.05am, and Tuesday,
16 June 2009 at 10:02am.
PRESENT
9 June 2009
Crs G P Murfitt (Chair), L Bailey, L R Burnell, V J F Chettleburgh
QSM ED, E B Gordon (to 5.10pm), M C Guy (until 12.34pm, from 2.56pm
to 3.56pm), A K Main (until 5.44pm), D B Meads, M W Plowman,
P W Rieger QSO, R G Walker JP (until 5.45pm) and J J White.
16 June 2009 Crs G P Murfitt (Chair), L Bailey, L R Burnell (until 11.12am),
V J F Chettleburgh QSM ED, E B Gordon, M C Guy, A K Main,
D B Meads, M W Plowman, P W Rieger QSO, R G Walker JP, and
J J White.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
IN ATTENDANCE
Group Manager Regional Planning & Regulatory
Committee Secretary
Mr G Carlyon
Ms K Booth
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr E Duggan (Strategic Projects), Mr C Mitchell (Group Manager Environmental
Management), Mr A Cook (Group Manager Operations), Mr C Grant (Group Manager
Corporate & Governance), Mr G Shirley (Group Manager Regional Services &
Information), Mr A Beveridge (Environmental Manager, Biodiversity), Ms M Ram (Chief
Financial Officer), Ms F Maseyk (Senior Environmental Scientist, Mrs C Atkinson
(Communications Manager), and Mr P Burke (Communications Adviser), at various times
throughout the meeting, and Mr J Philpott (from 12 noon to 12.34pm).
IN ATTENDANCE
Chief Executive
Group Manager Regional Planning & Regulatory
Committee Secretary
Mr M McCartney
Mr G Carlyon
Ms K Booth
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr E Duggan (Strategic Projects), Mr C Mitchell (Group Manager Environmental
Management), Mr A Cook (Group Manager Operations), Mr C Grant (Group Manager
Corporate & Governance), Mr G Shirley (Group Manager Regional Services &
Information), and Mr J Watson (Manager Catchment Information/Data), at various times
throughout the meeting.
20
APOLOGY
An apology was noted from the Chief Executive, Mr M McCartney, who was in Auckland. Cr
Guy advised he would be leaving the meeting to attend another meeting at 1.00pm.
DCP 09-08
Moved
Murfitt/White
That an apology be received from the Chief Executive.
CARRIED
LATE ITEMS
There were no Late Items.
Cr Guy asked for clarification on his ability to vote on recommendations, as he had not attended
the Hearings. There was discussion on the Chairman’s comments prior to the Hearings that if
Members had not heard a submission, then they could not deliberate on it. The Chairman noted
that this meeting would be making interim decisions which would be voted on by all Councillors
at the Council meeting on 30 June 2009. Members expressed their views as to whether or not
Members could deliberate on submissions which they had not heard, and whether there was a
difference between voting at the Deliberations meeting and voting at the Council meeting on
30 June. A motion was then put.
DCP 09-09
Moved
Chettleburgh/Meads
That all Councillors present have the right to debate and vote on
deliberations of the Draft Community Plan.
Against: Crs White, Walker, Plowman, Bailey
Abstain: Crs Gordon, Main
CARRIED
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Cr White noted a conflict of interest with Regional Archives.
The Chairman advised that the meeting would make interim decisions during the day, which
would be ratified at the June Council meeting.
Members commented positively about travelling to hear submissions at Ohakune and Wanganui
and the value of mixing with ratepayers at those venues. They expressed concern that some
submitters appeared to have misinformation about Horizons’ activities and the possible rates
increases, and requested that the letters to submitters at the end of the process, clearly explain
the situation. The theme from Ohakune submitters was that they could not afford ongoing rate
increases that would compound up to 19% over three years, however it was noted the rating
impacts on that community would be much less than that. The Chairman explained that media
releases had been prepared by the Communications team to explain the situation.
21
The Chairman asked Members for comments on the minutes.
Page 3, submission of Tararua District Council (TDC), where Mayor Reynolds said the shares in
Port of Napier were originally held by TDC. The Chairman advised that the shares were not
originally held by TDC and he had discussed that comment with Mayor Reynolds.
Page 4, submission of Ruapehu District Council (RDC). Cr Plowman advised the RDC had
asked for a full section 32 analysis of the proposed One Plan, and also asked for an economic
analysis to be carried out for hill country in the Ruapehu district with the likely effects of the One
Plan, and this was not clear in the minutes.
Page 6, Mr Gordon McKellar’s oral submission. The Chairman and Chair of Catchment
Operations Committee advised that there was no intention of further investigation into the total
contributor rating of the Lower Manawatu Scheme (LMS), and trusted Mr McKellar had not
received the wrong impression. The Chairman asked for the wording to be deleted.
Page 10, submission of Mr and Mrs Sivyer. Amendment to last sentence. Replace “One Plan”
with “Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI)”. The Chairman confirmed that it was SLUI that was
voluntary, not the One Plan.
Page 11, submission of Mr Matthews. Amend “Mr Fraser” to read “Mr Matthews”.
DCP 09-10
Moved
Murfitt/Gordon
That the minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee meetings to hear
submissions on the Draft Community Plan 2009-2019 held on 25. 27, 28
May and 2 June 2009, as circulated and with the following amendments,
be confirmed as a correct record:

‘Mangone’ to be corrected to Mangaone.
Page 4, Ruapehu District Council, 3rd sentence to finish at “…One
Plan.” New 4th sentence
“They asked for a full section 32
analysis of the proposed One Plan, and an. economic analysis
in order to give sufficient guidance for the future of hill country
environment.”
Delete “…and noted there would be further investigation into the total
contributor rating of the LMS.” from report on Mr Gordon McKellar’s
oral submission as this was not the intention.
Mr Chris Teo-Sherell be amended to Dr Chris Teo-Sherell.
Page 10, Mr and Mrs Sivyer, last sentence. Replace “One Plan” with
“Sustainable Land Use Initiative”.
Page 11, submission of Mr David Matthews. Amend “Mr Fraser” to
read “Mr Matthews”.
Page 11, Peoples of Uenuku. ‘peoples’ to read “Peoples”.
CARRIED
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN 2009-2019
Report No: 09-89
The report provided management responses and recommendations regarding submissions
made to the Draft Community Plan 2009-19.
Members then discussed the annexed Submissions summary and asked questions of
clarification.
22
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Rate Increase Affordability
Members commented on submitters’ genuine appeal for affordability, and observed that many
ratepayers were unfortunately confused about their possible rates increases through the way
that information was communicated, whereas the intention was to be clear and transparent.
Members expressed their concern that people had received the wrong message and said they
would reconsider how to communicate this in the future. They noted that some submitters also
asked the Council to concentrate on its core business.
Tb Vector Funding & Biosecurity Activity
Some Members spoke in support of restoring the funding to the Animal Health Board (AHB) to
$500,000, without impacting on the general rate but instead funding through a surplus in the
targeted rate. Other Members spoke against increasing AHB funding. It was noted by Members
that some submitters had not understood that Horizons undertook possum control once the AHB
stepped down.
Moved
Meads/Plowman
That the Committee recommends to Council:
a.
That the Council restores the funding to the Animal Health Board from
$400,000 to $500,000.
Following comments about the motion, and discussion about a possible targeted rate surplus, Cr
Chettleburgh proposed an Amendment to the motion.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-11
Moved Chettleburgh/Gordon
a.
That the $400,000 for Animal Health Board funding be increased by the
amount of surplus funds available from the Possum Control targeted rate
collection up to a maximum of $100,000.
Against: Crs Walker, White, Main, Bailey, Murfitt
CARRIED
The Amendment became the substantive motion and was put to the meeting. Members
continued discussing the work of the AHB, and the request of many submitters for this work to
carry on. The Group Manager Environmental Management (GMEM) provided clarification on the
funding.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-12
a.
That the $400,000 for Animal Health Board funding be increased by the
amount of surplus funds available from the Possum Control targeted rate
collection up to a maximum of $100,000.
Against: Crs Walker, White, Main, Bailey
Abstained: Crs Guy, Murfitt
CARRIED
23
Lower Manawatu Scheme (LMS) Rating
The Group Manager Operations (GMO) tabled a spreadsheet identifying differential options for
rural flood protection categories. He clarified the columns in the spreadsheet, and explained
why Option 1 was the preferred option. The GMO advised that this suggested redistribution
would have no impact on rates. Both the GMO and Cr Meads (Chair of Catchment Operations
Committee) clarified Members’ questions.
Members discussed the management
recommendation which was amended.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-13
Moved Meads/Burnell
That the Committee recommends that Council:
a.
acknowledges the scientific validity of the proposed Lower Manawatu
Scheme Rating system in its Draft Community Plan form, but modifies the
differentials for the rural flood protection categories to reflect Option 1 (as
outlined below) of the Options dated 8 June 2009, to recognise issues of
fairness, reasonableness and affordability:
Rating Category Description
Original differentials
Amended differentials
(Option 1)
100%
75%
50%
25%
5%
80%
70%
45%
20%
100%
80%
60%
40%
10%
85%
75%
50%
25%
Flood Protection 1
Flood protection 2
Flood Protection 3
Flood Protection 4
Flood Protection 5
Flood protection Spillways A
Flood Protection Spillways B
Flood protection Spillways C
Flood Protection Spillways D
CARRIED
River and Drainage Scheme Activity Pages 12- 20.
The Chairman asked Members to consider the other recommendations in the Rivers and
Drainage – Scheme Activity. The GMO clarified Members’ questions as each recommendation
was discussed, and undertook to clarify issues, where appropriate, in his responses to
submitters.
Scheme Rating changes
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-14
Moved Meads/Murfitt
a.
That Council adopts the proposed scheme rating changes, as scheduled
in the table distributed at the meeting and outlined below.
24
SCHEME
CHANGE
Manawatu Drainage
Reduce rate increase to 3.5% and modify
reserves drawdown to maintain scheme
account balance
Reduce rate increase to 3% for
maintenance, plus what is required for
capex. Transfer savings to principal
repayment
Reduce rate increase to 3%, utilizing
interest savings and transfer any residual
to reserves.
Apply interest savings to reducing rate
increase
Reduce rate increase to 8% utilizing
interest savings
Maintain proposed rates and apply interest
savings to principal reduction
Add $5k to reserves, reduce closing
balance. Reduce rates to reflect savings in
interest costs.
Reduce rates increase to 10% utilizing
interest savings
Reduce rates increase to zero , any
residual interest savings to scheme
balance
Maintain proposed rating level per
consultation, increase principal repayment
Transfer additional $80 from scheme
balance to reserves. Reduce rate increase
to 15% using interest savings. Increase
works expenditure $30k for silviculture
Makerua Drainage
Koputaroa Drainage
Moutoa Drainage
Te Kawau Drainage
Rangitikei
Lower Whanganui
Whangaehu/
Mangawhero
Upper Manawatu
Matarawa
Upper Whanganui
Lower Manawatu
Pohangina-Oroua
Lower Kiwitea
Akitio
SER
Upper Whanganui
Tutaenui
Ohau-Manakau
Lower
Manawatu
Special Project
Makirikiri
Pakihi
Ashhurst
Foxton East
Hokio
Whirikino
TOTALS
Reduce rates increase to nil utilizing
interest savings
Reduce rates increase to nil utilizing
interest savings and scheme balance
Reduce rates increase to zero, any residual
interest savings to scheme balance
Reduce rates increase to reflect interest
savings
Maintain rates per recent consultation,
apply interest savings to principal reduction
Hold rates at 2008-09 level utilizing interest
savings
Reduce rates to reflect interest savings
Maintain proposed rate increase – apply to
principal reduction
Maintain proposed rate increase – apply to
principal reduction
CARRIED
COMMENT
Transfer to reserves
will be addressed in
prep for Annual
Report. Silviculture
expend. Will require
transfer
from
reserves – won’t
attract Gen. Rate
Scheme review
pending
–
increased costs
anticipated
Increased project
costs anticipated
SCHEME
RATE
IMPACT
-$9,573
GENERAL
RATE
IMPACT
-$2,100
-$5,918
Nil
-$4,131
-$1,751
-$8,666
-$2,410
-$3,863
-$77
Nil
Nil
Nil
-$9,671
-$2,232
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
-$3,318
-$1,010
Nil
Nil
-$12,780
-$1,885
-$6,629
-$742
-$1000
-$191
Nil
Nil
-$3,318
-$1,010
-$829
-$207
Nil
Nil
-$42,446
-$19,889
-$305
Nil
-$77
Nil
Nil
Nil
-$126
-$406
-$813
-$105,548
-$32
-$102
-$203
-$41,357
25
Funding Impact Statement changes
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-15
a.
Moved Main/Meads
That the Funding Impact Statement in the Draft Community Plan be
amended to reflect the corrected rating information in respect of the
Ohau-Manakau and Upper Whanganui Schemes.
CARRIED
Pohangina-Oroua Scheme
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-16
a.
Moved Meads/Burnell
That landowner contribution on erosion protection work to a maximum
cost of $100,000 attracts 20% General Rate. (Additional rating impact of
$15,000).
CARRIED
Ohau-Manakau Scheme
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-17
Moved Bailey/Burnell
a.
That the new rating system for the Ohau-Manakau Scheme, as included in
the Draft Community Plan be confirmed for adoption;
b.
That the Ohau-Manakau Scheme flood protection upgrade proposals, as
included in the Draft Community Plan, be confirmed.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 12.34pm
The meeting resumed at 1.15pm.
Lower Manawatu Scheme
The GMO clarified Members’ questions in regard to the progress and timeframes of this
proposed realignment, and communication to the public about the project.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-18
a.
That the proposals for realignment of the Manawatu River in the vicinity of
Anzac Park Cliffs, as included in the Draft Community Plan, be confirmed.
CARRIED
26
Lower Whanganui Scheme
Cr Plowman advised he did not support the Scheme.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-19
a.
Moved Main/Walker
That Council’s position as regards the development/consultation process
for Stages 2 & 3 of the Lower Whanganui Scheme Flood Protection
proposals, as explained in the Draft Community Plan be confirmed, and
that Wanganui District Council’s desire to be involved as a partner in that
process be noted and welcomed.
CARRIED
The GMO distributed, for Members’ information, a model providing for recreational/amenity
enhancement works for the Lower Whanganui River Scheme. He clarified Members’ questions
in regard to funding, and commented that good feedback had been received from the community
on the enhancement project. Members discussed the level of funding for both the Lower
Whanganui and Lower Manawatu Scheme enhancement projects, with the option for a review of
the programme. The management recommendation was amended.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-20
a.
Moved Meads/Bailey
That Council approves the special general rate assistance to the Lower
Whanganui Scheme and the Lower Manawatu Scheme enhancement
projects for the first three years of the Community Plan to a total of
$50,000 per Scheme. The programme will be reviewed at the end of this
period.
CARRIED
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-21
a.
Moved Murfitt/Burnell
That no other changes are made to the Community Plan in regard to
submissions on the River and Drainage - Scheme Activity.
CARRIED
Rangitikei Environment Group
Cr Gordon spoke in support of funding being reinstated to the Rangitikei Environment Group
(REG) so they could continue with their pest plant control in the Rangitikei area. Members
discussed funding through a targeted rate, and working together with the REG on focus areas.
The motion was amended.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-22
Moved Gordon/Meads
a.
that funding of $85,000 is reinstated for the Rangitikei Environment Group
as a targeted rate.
27
b.
that the programme be developed on sites of significance in agreement
with the Rangitikei Environment Group.
CARRIED
The Chairman then asked Members to consider a new motion in regard to funding. Mr Duggan
tabled funding options for Members to discuss.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-23
Moved Gordon/Meads
a.
that the $85,000 for the Rangitikei Environment Group be funded through
a differentiated uniform charge - 50% funding from properties 4ha and
over and 50% of funding from properties under 4ha.
CARRIED
Note: Resolution DCP 09-23 was revisited at 3.17pm after new information was provided by Mr
Duggan on rate options ‘by capital value’, ‘by differentiated UAC’, and by ‘UAC’. In accordance
with Standing Orders, 75% of the members then present and voting, resolved to move a new
resolution (see DCP 09-29 – copied below for ease of viewing).
Copy of (Interim Decision)
DCP 09-29
Moved Main/Bailey
a.
that the $85,000 for the Rangitikei Environment Group be funded through a
differentiated uniform charge - 70% funding from properties 4ha and over and
30% of funding from properties under 4ha for properties in the Rangitikei district
area.
Against: Crs Chettleburgh, Guy, Plowman
CARRIED
Pest Plant and Living Heritage Level of Service and Funding
Cr White spoke in support of reinstating funding for the Living Heritage activity, and the GMEM
clarified that the funding would be applied to pest plant control in priority habitat sites. Crs
Burnell and Walker did not support the motion as they were against rates increases. Mr Duggan
clarified the rating impacts of this proposed funding.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-24
Moved White/Main
a.
That in 2009-10 it reinstates funding of $125,000 and $125,000 ($250,000
in total) in 2010-11 into the Living Heritage Activity. The focus for this will
be pest plant control in priority habitat sites.
Against: Crs Walker, Burnell
CARRIED
28
One Plan
Cr Plowman said that he did not support the One Plan, and put a motion to abandon the One
Plan.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-25
Moved Plowman/Walker
That it abandons the One Plan.
For the Motion: Cr Plowman
LOST
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-26
Moved Main/Murfitt
a.
to reduce the interest payments on the One Plan and the corresponding
internal interest income;
b.
submissions on the Strategic Management activity.
Against: Cr Plowman
CARRIED
Port of Napier (PoN) Shares and Investment Interest rate
The Chairman spoke to this matter.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-27
Moved Bailey/Rieger
a.
To reduce the provision for interest earned on deposits and increase the
General Rate correspondingly;
b.
that Port of Napier share sale be investigated and proceeded with if
Council decides sale is in the best interests of the Region;
c.
submissions on the Investment activity.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 3.00pm.
Members expressed a desire to revisit the Resolution passed in respect of funding for the
Rangitikei Environment Group in regard to the effect on lower income ratepayers. The
Chairman advised that in accordance with Standing Orders, if new information was received
29
concerning a matter already resolved at the meeting, the previous resolution could be altered or
revoked by the consent of 75% of the members then present and voting. As requested by
Councillors, Mr Duggan presented Members with rate options for properties of differing land
sizes, for their consideration. They fully discussed the options and signalled a willingness to
amend the previous resolution.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-28
Moved Murfitt/Main
That the Committee would like to revisit the interim decision DCP 09-23.
Against: Two Councillors
For the Motion: Nine Councillors
CARRIED
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-29
Moved Main/Bailey
a.
that the $85,000 for the Rangitikei Environment Group be funded through
a differentiated uniform charge - 70% funding from properties 4ha and
over and 30% of funding from properties under 4ha for properties in the
Rangitikei district area.
Against: Crs Chettleburgh, Guy, Plowman
CARRIED
Iwi Budget reduction and Inclusion of the Peoples of Uenuku as an iwi
Cr Plowman advised he would abstain as he had not received the Agenda in time to read all of
the annexed management replies and recommendations.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-30
Moved Murfitt/Bailey
a.
To alter the wording of the Maori Land Rate Remission (MLRR) policy on
page 266 of the Draft Community Plan to allow the Chief Executive to
consider and approve or decline all MLRR applications and to report
annually to the Council;
b.
To add the Peoples of Uenuku as an iwi to the Community Plan on page
19 of the Plan;
c.
submissions on the iwi activity.
Abstained: Cr Plowman
CARRIED
30
Green RIG, Waste and Environmental Education
Members asked questions about sponsorship of the Green RIG and about its re-theming project.
They asked to see more information on the Green RIG activity in the Community Plan.
Comment was made that these were difficult economic times to achieve sponsorship, and
Members discussed funding of the Green RIG should sponsorship not be realised.
In reference to page 52 of the Agenda, Members said they were not happy with the comment in
the 2nd bullet point under Environmental Education (management reply). It was agreed to delete
the wording “I am unsure what UN Agenda 21 is but”.
Members amended (a) of the recommendations, and included a new (b).
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-31
Moved Murfitt/White
a.
To make changes to the Draft Community Plan and reporting of the Green
RIG to better reflect funding, and performance;
b.
that the Green RIG be reported separately in the Community Plan.
c.
submissions on the Environmental Reporting and Education Activity.
Against recommendation (c) – Cr Plowman
CARRIED
Emergency Management – Flood Mapping in Tararua District
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-32
Moved Chettleburgh/Murfitt
a.
To increase emergency management funding for flood modelling in
Tararua District by:
•
•
b.
Year 1 - $101,000 CAPEX with an additional operational
commitment of $10,100/year (from year 2) for 10 years, being
Pahiatua modelling and Woodville LiDAR.
Year 2 - $71,000 CAPEX with an additional operational
commitment of $7,100/year (from year 3) for 10 years, being
Woodville modeling;
submissions on the Emergency Management Activity.
CARRIED
31
Transport Group of Activities:
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-33
Moved Gordon/Chettleburgh
a.
To add participation in a joint strategic transport study to its list of
activities, with the cost to be met from the existing budget;
b.
submissions on the Transport Planning activity.
CARRIED
Cr Bailey amended recommendation (a) to include an investigation into any other anomalies.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-34
Moved Bailey/Chettleburgh
a.
To classify Waitarere Beach as rural for the purposes of passenger
services transport rating and investigate whether similar anomalies exist;
b.
submissions on the Passenger Services activity;
c.
That no changes are made to the Community Plan in regard to
submissions on the Road Safety and Sustainability activity.
CARRIED
Long Term Financial Strategy (LTFS) Building up of Reserves
Members discussed whether or not to build up cash reserves, and agreed to review the situation
again in Year 4 of the Community Plan. Cr Rieger amended the recommendation.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-35
Moved Rieger/Meads
a.
that Council does not build up any more cash reserves for emergency
purposes and Council is to review this position in Year 4 of the Community
Plan and the Community Plan be amended accordingly.
CARRIED
32
Revenue and Financing Policy
In response to Members’ questions about the Council’s rate collection process, the Chief
Financial Officer advised that staff worked sympathetically with those ratepayers who were
having financial difficulties. Members asked further questions of clarification.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-36
Moved Rieger/Burnell
a.
To reduce the admin fee for direct debits for instalment payments from 3%
to 2% in the Community Plan;
b.
Reinsert the rate remission policy for Environmental Works into the rate
remissions policies in the Community Plan;
c.
submissions on the Revenue and Financing Policies.
CARRIED
Resource Consents, Multi Inspection Compliance Fees and Dam PIMs
Mr Duggan spoke to this activity.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-37
Moved Bailey/Main
a.
To set Consent Hourly rates at the 2008-09 level in the Community Plan;
b.
That the multi inspection fees be added to the Draft Community Plan as
suggested in the staff submission;
c.
That additional words be inserted into the Draft Community Plan to clarify
charging for PIMs as suggested in the staff submission;
d.
submissions on the Resource Consent and Pollution Management
Activity.
CARRIED
Foxton River Loop
Cr Bailey referred Members to the submission from Save Our River Trust Incorporated on page
282 of the Submissions Hearing Agenda, and said the submitters were asking Council to fund a
feasibility study. The GMO explained that there was no funding currently available, nor staffing
resources available for several years, however he and the Group Manager Regional Planning
and Regulatory (GMRPR) said there was an opportunity to better understand the scope of the
project. Members discussed the matter and made a recommendation.
33
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-38
Moved Meads/Burnell
a.
offers management discussions with the Save Our River Trust to better
understand the project scope and issues over the next twelve months.
CARRIED
Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) and Land Management
Cr Plowman advised he did not support SLUI.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-39
Moved Main/White
a.
submissions on Land Management Activity, including the Sustainable
Land Use Initiative.
Against: Cr Plowman
CARRIED
OTHER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Comments
Cr White did not agree with a submitter suggestion that Horizons was not involved with
economic development in the Region, and asked that the response letter to the submitter clarify
how involved the Council was.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-40
Moved White/Walker
a.
That no changes are made to the Community Plan in regard to general
submissions.
Against: Cr Plowman
CARRIED
Climate Change
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-41
Moved Rieger/Meads
a.
submissions on Climate Change.
CARRIED
34
Water Quality and Quantity Activity
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-42
Moved Main/Chettleburgh
a.
submissions on Water Quality and Quantity Activity.
CARRIED
River and Drainage General
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-43
Moved Burnell/Bailey
a.
submissions on River and Drainage – General Activity.
CARRIED
Community Relationship Activity
Members noted comments from submitters on Horizons’ publications, about using black and
white for wording, in preference to coloured wording on coloured backgrounds.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-44
Moved Bailey/Walker
a.
submissions on the Community Relationships activity.
Against; Cr Plowman
CARRIED
Information Activity
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-45
Moved White/Rieger
a.
submissions on the Information activity.
CARRIED
35
CAPEX:
Mr Duggan clarified Members’ questions in regard to CAPEX budgets and depreciation.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-46
Moved Chettleburgh/Rieger
a.
That no changes are made to the Community Plan in regard to the
CAPEX (excluding the changes made to flood mapping in Tararua District
DCP 09-32 above).
CARRIED
The Chairman mentioned he had received requests for rating invoices to show funding to the
Animal Health Board on a separate line to ordinary possum control programme.
(Interim Decision)
DCP 09-47
Moved Rieger/Plowman
a.
That there is separation of the Animal Health Board funding on rates
invoices from Possum Control funding.
CARRIED
The GMRPR advised Members that a note had been received from CentrePort Limited while he
was in the meeting, but that further and fuller information would be distributed to Members once
it was received.
Mr Duggan presented a summary of the rates position following the interim decisions at the
meeting and he clarified Members’ questions. The Chairman suggested he arrange another
meeting prior to the Council meeting on 30 June 2009 to consider further, the rates position as
summarised by Mr Duggan.
The Chairman thanked Members and staff for their input into the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6.06pm on 9 June 2009.
The meeting resumed at 10.02am on 16 June 2009.
APOLOGY
There were no apologies.
LATE ITEMS
There were no Late Items.
The Chairman advised a letter had been received from National MP, Nicky Wagner (DeputyChair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and a Member of the Emissions
36
Trading Scheme Review Committee), congratulating Horizons Regional Council for winning the
Ministry of Environment Green Ribbon Award – Innovative Solutions for the Environment - for its
Water Matters website.
The Chairman reminded Members that at the end of the Deliberations meeting on 9 June 2009,
they were considering the results of their interim decisions on the proposed rates percentages
for Years 1, 2 and 3 of the Community Plan (Long-term Council Community Plan [LTCCP]).
Management had since discussed the outcomes and the Chief Executive would put forward their
suggestions for Members’ consideration. Following the Chief Executive’s explanation that the
presentation included some confidential information, Members agreed to hear, and discuss, all
of the presentation in Public Excluded.
Moved Chettleburgh/Burnell
DCP 09-48
general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason
for passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under
PX1
Presentation and deliberation
on submissions to the Draft
Community Plan 2009-19
Reason
for
passing
this
resolution
prejudice
or
disadvantage
commercial negotiations and to
protect the privacy of natural
persons.
which
good
reasons
for
withholding exist.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned to the Public Excluded part of the meeting at 10.08am and resumed at
1.59pm.
The Chairman referred to his comments in the Public Excluded part of the meeting where he
asked Members to consider the interim decisions made on 9 June 2009 relating to the AHB
funding (DCP 09-12), and funding for plant pests (DCP 09-24), as some Councillors had
expressed a wish to revisit these at the Council meeting on 30 June 2009.
Throughout discussions on the submissions to the Draft Community Plan, Members expressed
their preference that submitters receive letters giving clear and explanatory responses to their
submissions, which would also clarify statutory and legislative requirements where appropriate.
______________________________
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
______________________________
CHAIRMAN
37
Report of the ninth meeting, seventh triennium, of the Environment Committee of Horizons
Regional Council held in the Tararua Room, Regional House, 11-15 Victoria Avenue,
Palmerston North, commencing at 10.00am on Wednesday 10 June 2009.
PRESENT
Crs AK Main (Chair), J White (Deputy Chair), L Bailey, L Burnell, VJF Chettleburgh QSM
ED, and GP Murfitt (ex officio).
IN ATTENDANCE
Crs EB Gordon (to 3pm), MC Guy and DB Meads.
Chief Executive
Group Manager Regional Planning
& Regulatory
Group Manager Environmental
Management
Committee Secretary
Mr M McCartney (to 12.20pm)
Mr G Carlyon (from 11.15am)
Mr C Mitchell (to 1.45pm)
Mrs L Carter
ALSO PRESENT
Mr G Cooper (Manager-Land, from 10.00am to 10.10am and from 11.25am to 12.20pm),
Mr R Munneke (Manager-Policy), Ms F Maseyk (Senior Environmental Scientist –
Ecology,to 1.45pm), Mr J Roygard (Manager – Science), Ms A Russell (Manager
Environmental Compliance, from 1.00pm), Mr P Taylor (Plan Implementation Coordinator,
from 1.40pm), Mr T Hynes (Animal Health Board from 1.00pm to 1.17pm), Mr A Innes
(Animal Health Board from 1.00pm to 1.17pm).
The Manager-Land introduced SLUI scholarship recipients to the meeting. Eight scholarships
were awarded although not all recipients were present due to Massey exams. Those present
were: Joel Perry, Bridget Telfer, Shane Brownlie, James Lawn, and Amy Taylor. Other
recipients not present were Stuart Standen, Andrew Gray and Helen Free. The students told
members where they came from and why they had chosen to attend Massey University. The
students and Manager-Land then left the meeting.
Council Chair addressed the meeting to advise that the Strategy session set down for 16/17
June 2009 was to be rescheduled for a later date to be advised. There would be a meeting on
the morning of 16 June to continue discussions on the Long-term Council Community Plan
(LTCCP).
APOLOGIES
An apology was received from Cr M Plowman.
LATE ITEMS
There were no late items.
MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no Members’ conflict of interest issues.
38
ENV 09-63
Moved
Burnell/White
that the minutes of the Environment Committee meeting held on 15 April
2009, as circulated, and with the spelling of Wanganui changed to
Whanganui in the comments on Environmental Management Progress
Report, be received and confirmed as a correct record.
CARRIED
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Report No: 09-88
The purpose of this item was to inform the Environment Committee of progress made towards
outputs listed in the following activity areas of the 2006-16 Long-term Council Community Plan.
•
•
•
•
•
Land Management Activity
Water Quantity and Quality Management Activity
Habitat Protection
Strategic Management Activity
Biosecurity
The report covered the period to 22 May 2009.
Members asked questions of clarification and staff provided additional background information
where required.
Regional Land Initiatives:
A brief verbal report on the Emissions Trading Scheme workshop was requested. It was agreed
the Manager-Land would give this when he returned to the meeting.
The Group Manager Environmental Management (GMEM) noted a proposed workshop to be
hosted by Horizons (presented by MAF) on emissions trading was not yet on the calendar as
MAF was waiting for answers from Central Government before finalising their presentation.
Land Monitoring Research:
In response to a question the Manager-Science advised there was growing interest on the part
of farmers in the outcome of projects.
The Chief Executive noted it would be appropriate to publicise funding received from Envirolink
and other sources apart from rates at the time of the release of the LTCCP.
Water Quantity and Quality Management Activity:
Two members noted they had received negative feedback re the telephone survey conducted on
water quality. It was agreed the questions asked and the results obtained in the survey would
be provided to the next meeting of the Committee.
Groundwater Monitoring and Research:
The Manager-Science provided additional information on the investigation into potential sources
of groundwater for the Waituna West Rural Water Scheme, noting results and recommendations
of the investigation had been forwarded to the Manawatu District Council.
Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Improvement:
In response to a question re the willow clearance programme on the Moawhango River, the
GMEM advised this work was funded by Genesis.
39
Bush Remants:
A map showing the various native habitat and biodiversity sites was tabled for members’
information.
Community Biodiversity:
The Chief Executive elaborated on the preparation of draft Totara Reserve Management Plan
prepared by Manawatu District Council and the lack of engagement with Horizons as principal
funding partner, noting the opportunity was now belatedly available for this Council to have input.
A meeting had been arranged to talk about future ongoing management issues.
Strategic Management:
The Manager-Science gave an update on plans to secure a monitoring site in Taumarunui,
noting the Baptist Church site was the option decided on.
The Manager-Land gave a brief overview of the workshop he attended on the emission trading
scheme in relation to forestry.
Environmental Education:
In response to a question, the GMEM advised the Genesis sponsorship of the Green RIG was
for a period of 10 years. It was noted that the costs associated with the Green RIG’s attendance
at Mystery Creek National Field Days was shared with Genesis. The site cost was paid by
Genesis.
New Projects/Emerging Issues:
The Manager-Policy advised the Upukongaro site was progressing very well. It was noted that
there were several potential partners who could become involved in the continued development
of the walkway/cycleway from this site. It was mentioned that the Transport Committee needed
to be aware of the implications in view of Central Government’s plans for a national network of
cycleways.
Strategy Reviews:
It was noted that the date in para 124 should read 2009-2019.
Biosecurity Progress Report:
The GMEM agreed to add historical information to the graph depicting Frontline enquiries.
The GMEM updated members on possum control operations. A map was provided showing the
status of various operations.
The Chief Executive verbally reported on his attendance at the Reform in Paradise Conference
held annually by the Environmental Defence Society (EDS). He noted the two main drivers of
the Conference were keen to see the development of an environmental protection authority for
New Zealand similar to European models. However, the Chief Executive felt there was
considerable support at the Conference for the subsidiary concept which was making decisions
at local levels. The Regional Council sector felt an EDS model could add value in some areas
and potentially provide a national monitoring role on the state of New Zealand resources.
The meeting adjourned at 12.20pm.
40
VECTOR MANAGEMENT, ANIMAL HEALTH BOARD, AND TB FREE COMMITTEE REPORT
Report No. 09-86
This report informed the Environment Committee of the Vector Management, Animal Health
Board, and TB Free Committee activity for the Region, for the period April-May 2009.
Animal Health Board staff provided updates to the report and answered questions of clarification.
Mr T Hynes advised the Bovine Tb Strategy Review consultation document had now been
approved for public release. Copies of the Review were provided to members.
ENV 09-64
Moved
White/Bailey
that the Committee recommends that Council:
a.
receives the information contained in Report No. 09-86 and
Annex.
CARRIED
It was agreed that the GMEM should prepare a submission on the Animal Health Strategy
(closing date 30 June 2009) for perusal by the Environment Committee Chair and Council Chair.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRESS REPORT - (Continued)
Report No. 09-88
Pest Plant Biosecurity:
Concern was expressed about the spread of weeds by mowers and whether appropriate
attention was paid to this issue by contractors.
There was discussion on the unsatisfactory appraisal in regard to pest plants in the KiwiRail
corridor. The Council Chair agreed to raise with local Members of Parliament the matter of
KiwiRail having insufficient funds to deal with this problem.
Progress on Zero Density and Containment Species:
It was noted the issue of control of Purple loosestrife at Lake Horowhenua was still not resolved.
ENV 09-65
Moved
Burnell/White
a.
Annexes.
CARRIED
41
REGULATORY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY REPORTS
Report No. 09-87
This report presented three items for the information of Members:
a.
b.
c.
Watertake Monitoring Report
Environmental Team Report – 1 April to 31 May 2009
Consents Granted – April and May 2009
A brief presentation was made on the Watertake Monitoring Report. Members asked questions
of clarification.
A presentation was made on the Environmental Team Report – 1 April to 31 May 2009.
Members asked questions of clarification. Staff provided updates as required.
Members discussed the difficulties being experienced in relation to the old landfill located at
Levin.
The Group Manager Regional Planning & Regulatory (GMRPR) noted there was a considerable
sum outstanding in unpaid fines across the Consents and Compliance departments, and he
intended to bring a paper to the next Strategy and Policy Committee meeting seeking formal
support for the measures to be put forward to deal with this issue.
It was noted that the comments on page 78 of the agenda relating to the Levin Landfill Review
should read …dialogue between Horowhenua District Council and the affected parties, not
Horizons Regional Council and the affected parties.
ENV 09-66
Moved
Chettleburgh/Burnell
a.
Annexes.
CARRIED
A question was asked about Manawatu District Council plan change proposals relating to land in
Flygers/Rangitikei Line. The Manager-Policy advised this Council was working through issues
with Manawatu District Council.
An informal briefing on this matter would be provided before commencement of the next
Environment Committee. It was noted that Councillors on the One Plan General Hearing would
need to exclude themselves from any such briefing.
Confirmed
_________________________________
____________________________
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
CHAIRPERSON
42
43
Report of the seventh meeting, seventh triennium, of the Regional Transport Committee held at
1.00pm on Tuesday 23 June 2009, in the Tararua Room, Horizons Regional Council, 11-15
Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North.
PRESENT
Crs EB Gordon (Chair), GP Murfitt (ex officio from 1.04pm), Mayor B
Duffy (Horowhenua District Council), Mayor M Reynolds (Tararua
District Council), Mayor S Morris (Ruapehu District Council), Cr G
Cruden (Palmerston North City Council), Cr M Bell (Manawatu District
Council), Mr RW Smith (Access & Mobility, Dr C Cheyne
(Environmental Sustainability), Ms L Tamehana (Public Health),
Inspector N Wynne (Safety and Personal Security).
IN ATTENDANCE
Group Manager Regional Services Mr GP Shirley (from 1.06pm)
and Information
Manager Transport Services
Mrs A Redgrave
Committee Secretary
Mrs JA Kennedy
ALSO PRESENT
Crs M Guy, M Plowman, Ms K Lowe (Transport Planner), Mr W
Wallace (Transport Planner), and various other interested groups.
APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Crs Chettleburgh (Leave of Absence),
Brown, Anderson, and Ms Chetwynd.
LT 09-68
Moved
Duffy/Bell
that the Committee accepts the apologies of Crs Chettleburgh (Leave
of Absence), Brown, Anderson, and Ms Chetwynd.
CARRIED
PUBLIC SPEAKING RIGHTS
No requests for public speaking rights had been notified.
LATE ITEMS
There were no Late Items notified.
MEMBERS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts of interest noted.
44
LT 09-69
Moved
Bell/Wynne
that the minutes of the Regional Land Transport Committee held on
9 March 2009, as circulated, be received and confirmed as a correct
record.
CARRIED
ENDORSEMENT AND ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Passenger Transport Subcommittee Meeting – 17 February 2009
LT 09-70
Moved
Bell/Cruden
that the Minutes of the Passenger Transport Subcommittee meeting
held on 19 May 2009, as circulated, be received and confirmed as a
correct record.
CARRIED
REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAMME (RLTP) 2009-12
Report No: 09-91
This report was to approve the draft Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12.
Ms Lowe, Transport Planner (TP) drew Members attention to the recommended amendments to
submissions responses which had been agreed to at the workshop held earlier that morning.
The TP outlined the background and main points in the report. She reminded Members that a
number of local authorities were still in the process of signing-off on their Long-term Council
Community Plans, and any changes made after the Regional Land Transport Programme was
approved would be reflected in the document before it was forwarded to the New Zealand
Transport Agency. Members should also be aware that as Councils did not know the final
criteria the New Zealand Transport Agency would use in assessing the priority of projects
identified, there could be changes to the regional priorities when the National Land Transport
Plan was released.
Members asked questions of clarification around Regional funding, and the criteria used for
assessing where projects would fit on the priority list.
There were a number of formatting and grammatical changes noted, and the Manager Transport
Services undertook to amend these.
Recommendation (a) was amended to include the changes as agreed at the workshop held
earlier that morning.
45
LT 09-71
Moved
Duffy/Reynolds
a.
approves the officers’ recommendations regarding submissions
on the draft Regional Land Transport Programme with
amendments to submission responses as follows:
P96: DC Parham:
•
•
Response to submitter to include explanation of strategic
study and the possible consequences of the outcomes on
statehighway routes. Roberts Line and James Line will be
considered in the strategic study and will try to estimate what
future demand will be.
All suggested options for
improvement will be considered.
Strategic study will help to clarify future demand and desired
outcomes.
P102: Palmerston North City Council, in relation to increased
financial assistance rate for Upstream Crossing:
• RTC notes that a request for its support for this application for
increased financial assistance will be presented in due
course.
P10: Rangitikei District Council:
• The RTC notes that an application for funding has been
made for an open drain between Ruatangata Road and
Whangaehu Rive.;
• Noted that Mayor Leary’s preference is for the stock effluent
facility to be located at Hunterville (verbal submission).
• RTC to ask NZTA to take Rangitikei’s view re site of facility
into account.
P 108: Belinda Howard:
• NZTA has been investigating sites for stock effluent facilities
for a number of years; this has not been without difficulty but
a suitable site has recently been confirmed.
•
RTC notes that the crash reduction study is now complete
and requests that Rangitikei send results of the crash
reduction study to submitter.
P108-111: Lindsay Burnell, Rural Women NZ, J and S Cohen,
M Cohen:
• This section of the network is part of the Levin to Wellington
Airport Corridor, now designated a route of national
significance and improvements will form part of a major
upgrade.
P111, 112: Jenny Olsson, Noel Olsson:
•
The RTC notes that this has now been included in the PNCC
Long-term Council Community Plan;
46
b.
receives and confirms the minutes of the Submissions Hearing
to hear submissions on the Draft Regional Land Transport
Programme 2009-12 held on 20 May 2009, as a correct record;
c.
approves the Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12 with
any amendments;
d.
agrees that any changes in local authority Long-term Council
Community Plans that are made after the Regional Land
Transport Programme 2009-12 is approved will be reflected in the
Regional Land Transport Programme before the document is
forwarded to NZTA; and
e.
lodges the Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12 to the
Horizons Regional Council for approval on 30 June 2009.
CARRIED
REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT STRATEGY REVIEW
Report No: 09-90
This report was to outline a proposed process and timeline for the review of the Regional Land
Transport Strategy (RLTS).
Mrs Redgrave, Manager Transport Services (MTS) introduced the item and highlighted that
Palmerston North City Council, Manawatu District Council, Horizons Regional Council and the
New Zealand Transport Agency had agreed to participate in a joint transport study of the
Manawatu-Palmerston North area. It was intended that the Study would be included in the draft
Regional Land Transport Strategy Review (RLTS). As discussed at the workshop held earlier
that morning, the timeline for the draft RLTS, which had been included in the March Regional
Transport Committee agenda, may need to be extended in order for the Study to be included.
Members were asked to express their thoughts and to advise the MTS of any transport issues
they would like to see captured in the draft Issues paper. Mr Smith, representing Access and
Mobility advised he would like to see more detail around improving access to strategic roading.
Mayor Morris thanked the MTS for a well presented paper. Mayor Reynolds commented she did
not agree that routes which functioned as alternatives in times of State Highway closure, were
doing so adequately. Cr Cruden asked that wording relating to the Environment Court Hearing
into the road stopping process for Milson Line be amended to better reflect the parties positions.
The MTS took note of the comments made.
LT 09-72
Moved
Duffy/Morris
a.
receives the report on the commencement of the Regional Land
Transport Strategy review; and
b.
approves the draft Issues paper for release for public
consultation, with any agreed amendments.
CARRIED
47
There were no Members’ Questions.
___________________________________
MANAGER TRANSPORT SERVICES
______________________________
CHAIRMAN
48
49
A Significant decision?
If Yes
Do recommendations meet
Significance Policy (contained
within the LTCCP)
Item No: 11
Date: 30/06/2009
Report No: 09-96
File No: OMS 10 02 09
Y
Y
FINAL CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS TO
DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN 2009-19
PURPOSE
1.
This report provides Council with information regarding final considerations regarding the
Community Plan (CP) 2009-19
FINANCIAL IMPACT
2.
If the CP attached is adopted the rate impacts will be:
Year
2008-09 AP as
adopted
2009-10 CP
2010-11 CP
2011-12 CP
3.
General Rate
10,225
Scheme
Rates
7,620
10,708
4.72%
11,335
5.86%
12,373
9.16%
7,996
4.93%
8,565
7.12%
9,207
7.50%
Other Rates
Total Rates
10,203
28,048
11,070
8.50%
11,742
6.07%
12,187
3.79%
29,774
6.16%
31,642
6.27%
33,767
6.72%
A more detailed summary of rate changes is provided on page 12 of the attached CP.
BACKGROUND
4.
The Draft CP was released for public consultation on Wednesday 8 April 2009 and
submissions closed at 5.00 pm Friday 8 May 2009.
5.
At hearing meetings held in Palmerston North (25 May and 28 May 2009), Ohakune
(27 May 2009), and Wanganui (27 May 2009) Council heard oral submissions and
viewed some of the written submissions. On 2 June 2009 Council viewed the remaining
written submissions.
6.
On 9 June Council meet to consider the submissions. During this meeting some
additional items were added to the CP by Council. Also Council received an indication
from management regarding investment income which would have seen further rates
increases. At the end of the meeting Council was concerned at the level of rates rises,
particularly regarding years 2 (2010-11) and 3 (2011-12) of the CP and decided to
adjourn the meeting until 16 June 2009.
7.
The resumption of the meeting on 16 June was held as public excluded, as management
suggested to Council a number of service level reductions to lessen the rate requirement
from year 2 onwards. Council made interim decisions to accept these cuts but also
indicated they wished to revisit two items on which they had made interim decisions.
These items were Animal Health Board (AHB) expenditure and funding in year 1 (200910), and the increase in pest plant management on high priority habitats from year 2
onwards. The Chairman took a straw poll to indicate possible Council positions on these
items and the attached CP has been amended to include these position.
50
8.
For the AHB Tb vector management funding the straw poll position was to reduce
expenditure to $400,000 in the 2009-10 year. In addition the $100,000 targeted pest
animal rate surplus (previously used to offset the increased Tb funding) has been
transferred to year 3 of the plan, to offset the targeted rate portion of Councils own pest
animal management programme.
9.
For pest plant management on high priority sites the straw poll position was to keep the
increase over the draft plan sent out for consultation, to $125,000 for the ten year life of
the plan.
10.
It should be noted that all changes have now been processed through our budgeting
system, and that the results are slightly better than originally suggested. It should also
be noted that the Chairman’s report has been amended to let the community know the
reasons why we have not met the statutory deadline (30 June 2009) for the adoption of
the CP.
COMMENT
11.
Council now needs to finalise its position for the adoption of the CP. The document has
been to Audit New Zealand but cannot be hot reviewed by the Office of the Auditor
General until it is finalised by Council. Management has booked this review for 1 July
2009 but will be forced to delay this review if Council makes any changes to the
document, other than have been included in the attached CP. This delay would mean
we will have difficulty in adopting the CP on July 7 2009, which will result in the delay of
sending the rate notices out to ratepayers. The late posting of rate notices will have
significant implications on public relations, Councils cashflow, and interest income.
RECOMMENDATIONS
12.
Management recommends to Council that:
a.
the Animal Health Board TB vector management expenditure is reduced to
$400,000 in the 2009-10 financial year. In addition the $100,000 targeted pest
animal rate surplus (previously used to offset the increased Tb expenditure) is
transferred to year 3 (2011-12) of the Plan to offset the targeted rate portion of
Councils own pest animal management programme;
b.
the increase in pest plant management expenditure on high priority sites be kept
to an increase of $125,000 over the Draft Community Plan sent out for
consultation, for the ten year life of the Plan; and
c.
the attached Community Plan 2009-19 be sent to the Office of the Auditor
General for hot review and eventual adoption by Council on 7 July 2009
Ed Duggan
ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
ANNEX
A
Community Plan 2009-19
(Attached as a separate document for Councillors and available for inspection at
Regional House, Palmerston North)
51
If Yes
within the LTCCP)
N
Item No: 12
Date: 30/06/2009
Report No: 09-92
File No: TTP 1 03
REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAMME (RLTP) 2009-2012
PURPOSE
1.
To formally approve the Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-2012.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
2.
No financial impact to Horizons Regional Council as a result of this decision. Horizons
Regional Council’s activities in the Regional Land Transport Programme have been
included in the 2009-19 Community Plan (LTCCP) budgets.
BACKGROUND
3.
Major amendments to the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) came into effect on
1 August 2008. These require the preparation of a three-year Regional Land Transport
Programme (RLTP) which combines all the programmes of transport works and services
of approved organisations1 in the Region which receive subsidies from the National Land
Transport Fund (NLTF) managed and allocated by the New Zealand Transport Agency
(NZTA).
4.
While the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) must prepare the three-year programme,
this does not duplicate the work of the district and city councils and NZTA (State
Highways) who develop detailed plans and costings for the roading and other transport
improvements in the programme, and implement all activities once funding is approved.
The RTC’s role is one of coordination, assessment and prioritisation, and other than for
its own activities (such as passenger transport) the Regional Council does not contribute
rate funding. The administrative cost of preparing the programme has been met by
NZTA.
5.
This programme has been prepared by the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) and
has undergone a full Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) in accordance with the Local
Government Act 2002. The SCP was undertaken at the same time as Council’s draft
Community Plan 2009-2019. The first programme must be completed by 30 June 2009.
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OF RLTP
6.
The Act prescribes the process of approving the programme prepared by RTC’s. Once
the RTC has approved the programme, which took place at its meeting of 23 June 2009,
it must be lodged with the Regional Council for approval.
7.
After considering the programme the Council may either:
•
1
Approve the programme without modifications and forward it to the NZTA ready
for inclusion into the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP); or
Approved organizations in the Manawatu Wanganui region-all district and city councils, Horizons Regional Council and the New Zealand Transport
Agency (State Highway Division). These organisations all receive funding from the National Land Transport Fund.
52
•
Refer the programme back to the RTC requesting that the RTC reconsider one or
more aspects of the programme.
8.
Should the Council decide to refer the programme back to the RTC, the RTC may, after
reconsidering the aspects referred back to it, forward to the Council an amended
programme (a repeated SCP process is only needed if the amendments sought by the
Council were deemed significant under the RTC’s Significance Policy2); and/or forward to
the council any additional information that the Council has requested of it, or that the
RTC considers will help the Council with its decision.
9.
Once the Council has received the amended programme it can then either:
•
Approve the programme or amended programme and forward to the NZTA; or
•
Forward the programme or amended programme to the NZTA stating that it is not
approved and the reasons why it has not been approved.
10.
When the NZTA receives the programme or amended programme it must treat it as
approved by the Council and it must also consider the Council’s statement of reasons
why it was not approved.
11.
Copies of the programme must be forwarded to the NZTA by 15 July 2009. Should the
programme not be approved at this time it will be lodged with NZTA as a draft and once
the programme is finalised it will be submitted to NZTA by way of a review item.
12.
The NZTA will adopt the NLTP on 31 August 2009.
THE REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAMME FOR 2009-12
13.
Every three years the regional council must ensure that the RTC prepares a Regional
Land Transport Programme. This is the first time the programme has been prepared.
14.
The programme allows all approved organisations in the Region and the NZTA to
recommend funding for activities or combinations of activities that contribute to the
Region’s outcomes as identified in its current Regional Land Transport Strategy and any
outcomes, objectives and impacts identified by the government in any national land
transport strategy or the relevant Government Policy Statement.
15.
The programme must include, in order to seek payment from the National Land
Transport Fund:
16.
•
the proposed activities and combinations of activities for the three financial years it
relates to;
•
an indication of significant activities for the following three years;
•
a 10-year financial forecast.
The RTC is required to prioritise certain projects in the programme. The purpose of
prioritising projects is that funding will be used for the highest priority projects should
funding be limited.
As part of the process to develop an RLTP, the RTC was required to develop a policy on significance for
any changes to the programme during the three years it is in place.
2
53
17.
The prioritised list of activities must contain:
•
all state highway activities
•
major local road improvements over $4.5 million and/or on regional arterial routes3
•
new public transport services or activities
•
projects recommended for Regional (R) funding by the RTC
•
community activities (eg. travel plans and road safety education)
18.
In order to prioritise these activities and combination of activities, the RTC was required
to determine its key transport priorities for the Region. Activities or combinations of
activities to be included in the programme would therefore be prioritised according to
which of the transport priorities the project proposes to address. Therefore, in general,
projects that address the highest priority are to be ranked higher than projects
addressing a lower priority. The full prioritisation process is explained in the programme
on page 40.
19.
The three priorities the RTC determined for this programme are:
Priority 1: Maintaining a safe transport system .
The RTC has given the highest priority to those activities which make a significant
contribution to maintaining the current standard of the transport network and addressing
road safety. This will be achieved through such activities as:
•
maintenance, operations and renewals programmes
•
minor safety improvements
•
improvements to remedy crash blackspots
•
education activities to change driver behaviour and thereby reduce road crashes
Priority 2: Managing travel demand and improving accessibility
The second key priority for the RTC is to address issues of the sustainability and
accessibility of our transport system. This will be achieved through activities which:
•
make the best use of our existing transport network and systems
•
promote the uptake of public transport by all sectors of the community
•
promote walking and cycling trips, either through engineering improvements or by
promotional methods
•
encourage travel behaviour change
•
improve access and mobility for sectors of the community which are transport
disadvantaged, in a cost-effective and appropriate
3 The RTC was required to define minor and major capital works. Any projects with a total cost of less than $4.5 million are therefore deemed minor
capital works and are not required to be prioritised.
54
Priority 3: Improving route security and efficiency.
The third priority for the RTC is to address regional issues of network security and
efficiency. This will be achieved through activities which:
•
improve the efficiency of strategic inter-district and inter-regional links
•
protect the function of these links by providing viable alternatives where necessary
20.
The draft Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12 was publicly notified for
submissions on 8 April 2009, with submissions closing on 8 May 2009.
21.
Total proposed transport expenditure (including rates funding) for the period 2009-12 is
$467.9 million. A copy of the final programme is attached at Annex A.
22.
It is important to note that transport activities included in the programme must be
consistent with each Council’s LTCCP. This means the programme cannot include a
project if the Council’s own LTCCP does not, as there is no provision for the local share
of the cost of this project. However, the converse can apply, in that the RTC may decide
it does not wish to include a project which is being promoted by one of the approved
organisations.
23.
The list of activities featured in Figure 5 of the proposed programme is current at the time
of writing this report. As some Councils have not yet adopted their final LTCCPs, any
projects that are later confirmed to have been removed from LTCCP’s will be removed
from the list of activities appearing in the programme, before final submission to NZTA.
24.
The projects at the top of the list, with priority 0, are those that are already under
construction or where funding has been committed to the project. These are included in
the list to present a complete picture of activities underway in the Region. Transport
studies to inform future investment have also been given priority 0.
25.
The prioritised list reflects the importance the RTC would like to see placed on the
various transport activities when NZTA allocates transport funding. However it is
important to note that the Region’s priority lists will be assessed against national
priorities; it is therefore possible that some projects cannot be funded (or cannot be
funded as early as liked). In other cases projects may need to be funded from different
funding sources (such as the Regional (R) fund) if they are to proceed.
GOVERNMENT POLICY STATEMENT ON LAND TRANSPORT FUNDING (GPS)
26.
In August 2008 the then Labour Government released the first Government Policy
Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS). The purpose of the GPS is to describe
what the government wants to achieve through funding in the land transport sector, how
much funding will be provided for the sector, what areas of transport will be funded, and
how funding will be raised. The programme has to be consistent with the current GPS.
27.
The aim of this first GPS was to reduce travel by single occupancy vehicles, increase the
amount of freight moved by coastal shipping and rail, reduce fatalities and hospital
admissions from road crashes, increase the use of public transport, and have more
people travelling on foot or by cycle.
28.
The funding ranges for all types of transport activities reflected this desire in the GPS.
The draft programme released for consultation reflected this desire by allocating
funding according to the regionalised funding ranges indicated by the GPS.
55
29.
However the new National Government has amended the GPS and released a new
version of it in May 2009. The new GPS reflects the current government’s main priority
for land transport which is for investment to support national economic growth and
productivity, including increased investment in state highway construction.
30.
This is reflected in the GPS by increasing the amount of funding available for state
highway maintenance, renewal and construction from the previous GPS and, in relative
terms, decreasing funding in other activity classes that was proposed in the original
GPS. However in real terms most activity classes will have increased funding from
previous years.
31.
Regionalised funding ranges that were included in the draft programme have therefore
been omitted as these were not produced in the updated GPS due to the short
timeframe for developing it. Regionalised funding ranges will be reproduced when the
final NLTP is released in August 2009.
ROADS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
32.
As part of the new GPS, the government has listed seven initial Roads of National
Significance (RONS) as a statement of national development priorities. This serves as a
focus for transport investment to achieve economic growth and productivity. The seven
roads are:
•
Puhoi to Wellsford – State Highway 1
•
Completion of the Auckland Western Ring Route – State Highway 20/16/18
•
Auckland Victoria Park bottleneck – State Highway 1
•
Waikato Expressway – State Highway 1
•
Tauranga Eastern Corridor – State Highway 2
•
Wellington Northern Corridor (Levin to Wellington) – State Highway 1
•
Christchurch motorway projects
33.
The purpose of listing roads as nationally significant is to ensure that these priority
roading developments are fully taken into account when NZTA develops the NLTP.
Future planning of the transport network needs to reflect the importance of these roads
from a national perspective.
34.
Of importance for the Region is the Wellington Northern Corridor project as the area
from Otaki to Levin is part of the Horizons Region. The largest project on this stretch of
road in this Region to be included in the programme is the Levin Bypass project with a
total cost of $154.9 million. The investigation phase of the project will commence in
2009-10 with construction due to begin in 2012-13.
56
RECOMMENDATIONS
35.
It is recommended that the Council:
a.
receives the officer’s report on the Regional Land Transport Programme
2009-12;
b.
approves the Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12; and
c.
lodges the Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-12 with the New Zealand
Transport Agency for inclusion in the National Land Transport Programme
2009-12.
W Wallace
TRANSPORT PLANNER
ANNEX
A
Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-2012.
2009–2012
ANNEX A TO ITEM 12
Report No. 09-92
The Regional Land Transport
Programme
57
58
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Introduction
1.2
Area covered by the programme
1.3
National Context
1.3.1
NZ Transport Agency’s role
1.4
Regional Context
1.4.1
Regional Land Transport Strategy
1.4.2
Horizons Regional Transport Committee (RTC)
1.4.3
Horizons Regional Council’s role
1.4.4
Territorial Authorities’ role
1.4.5
Regional Land Transport Programmes
1.4.6
Long Term Council Community Plans
The Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) 2009-12
5
2.1
Process adopted and consultation
5
2.2
Statement of regional transport issues, problems and
opportunities
6
2.2.1
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport
Funding
6
2.3
Statement of regional transport priorities
11
2.4
Proposed RLTP activities
11
2.5
Prioritisation process
39
2.6
Activities with inter-regional significance
39
2.6.1
Standard and capacity of State Highway 1
40
2.6.2
Standard of Napier-Taihape Road
40
2.7
Nationally or regionally significant activities
40
2.8
Activities proposed to be varied, suspended or abandoned.
40
2.9
Activities approved for funding but not yet completed
40
2.10
Contribution of RLTP activities to regional and national
transport priorities
40
2.11
Assessment of the relationship of Police activities to the RLTP 45
1.
2.
THE REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAMME 2009-12
iii
Foreword
Contents
i
CONTENTS
Appendix 4
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Glossary of terms and acronyms
Legislative Requirements
Summary of Significance Policy for variation to
the RLTP
10-year forecast expenditure profiles
Funding the RLTP
3.1
Anticipated expenditure across funding ranges
3.2
Statement of significant expenditure to be funded
from other sources
3.3
Monitoring of the RLTP
Appendices
3.
54
55
51
52
49
49
47
49
59
ii
FOREWORD
60
the maintenance, operation, renewal and improvement of local roads, including any new
roads or road sections
the maintenance, operation, renewal and improvement of state highways, including any
new roads or road sections
public transport services
public transport infrastructure
walking and cycling facilities
community focused activities
transport planning
·
·
·
·
The RTC wishes to attribute the highest priority to those activities which make a significant
Priority 1: Maintaining a safe transport system
The RTC has identified its main priorities for the transport system over the next three years
and has assessed how well the programme of activities addresses these. The three main
priorities are:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
The RLTP is composed of the land transport programmes of the seven territorial authorities
in our Region, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Horizons Regional Council. It
requests funding for:
This Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) has been prepared by the Regional
Transport Committee (RTC) for the Horizons Region. It brings together all the proposed
transport activities for which this Region is seeking national funding between July 2009 and
June 2012.
Foreword
iii
promotional methods
disadvantaged, in a cost-effective and appropriate manner
improve the efficiency of strategic inter-district and inter-regional transport links
FOREWORD
The RTC has prepared a priority list which sets out the order of importance the Committee
has placed on the various activities in the programme. In accordance with its main priority
issues for the Region, the RTC has given the highest priority to maintenance and operational
activities on the state highways, and projects which will be highly effective in addressing road
safety. (The list of regional prioritised activities is to be found in Section 2.4 in this document)
The transport issues which make up these broad priority areas are important regionally,
nationally or both. In preparing the programme the RTC must ensure that it contributes to
the New Zealand Transport Strategy objectives and is consistent with the Government Policy
Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS) and our own Regional Land Transport Strategy.
·
·
The third priority for the RTC is to address regional issues of network security and efficiency.
This will be achieved through activities which:
Priority 3: Improving route security and efficiency
·
·
·
·
·
The second key priority for the RTC is to address issues of the sustainability and accessibility
of our transport system. This will be achieved through activities which:
61
E B Gordon (Bruce)
Chair of the Regional Transport Committee
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those individuals and organisations that have
contributed to the preparation of this document. We believe the RLTP represents an
important step forward in developing a truly regional approach to transport planning and
programming, and that it will help us to deliver better transport outcomes.
In May 2009 the Government released an updated version of the Government Policy
Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS) setting out its priorities for transport over the
next three years and allocating funding to transport activities in accordance with those
priorities. The Government’s highest priority for land transport is to increase economic
productivity and growth in New Zealand. Due to the time of release of the document it has
not been possible to incorporate the changes in priorities into the Programme in any
significant way; however, the Regional Transport Committee recognises that the new
direction may have an impact on what transport activities can be funded in the Region over
the 2009-12.
This programme is estimated to cost a total of $467 million over the 2009-12 period,
including funding from both local and regional rates and the National Land Transport Fund.
iv
FOREWORD
62
Introduction
Horizons Regional Councillor, Chair of the Committee
Horizons Regional Councillor, Deputy Chair of the Committee
Horowhenua District Council
Manawatu District Council
Palmerston North City Council
Rangitikei District Council
Ruapehu District Council
Tararua District Council
Wanganui District Council
New Zealand Transport Agency
Environmental Sustainability representative
Safety and Security representative
Economic Development Representative
Public Health representative
Access and Mobility representative
Cultural representative
Bruce Gordon
Vern Chettleburgh
Brendan Duffy
Matt Bell
Gordon Cruden
Don Brown
Sue Morris
Maureen Reynolds
Allan Anderson
Jenny Chetwynd
Christine Cheyne
Neil Wynne
Richard Forgie
Lauren Tamehana
Bob Smith
Position vacant
This programme sets out our funding applications for the 2009-12 financial years. It provides
an indication of the significant activities for 2012-15 and a 10-year forecast of anticipated
expenditure and revenue. The RTC’s main task is to prioritise these funding applications so
that if there is insufficient funding to carry out all the projects, the most important ones are
The RTC is required to prepare a programme covering transport activities undertaken in the
Manawatu-Wanganui (Horizons) Region for which funding is sought from Central
Government. The programme describes land transport priorities for the Region and how the
proposed transport projects will address these. The legislative requirements relating to the
RLTP are summarised in Appendix 2.
Position
Name
This Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) has been prepared by the Horizons
Regional Transport Committee (RTC).
1.
1
the issues and outcomes that are identified in the Regional Land Transport Strategy
2006
·
INTRODUCTION
The prioritisation process is described in further detail in Section 2.5. The RTC must also
assess the programme to determine how well it addresses regional and national transport
issues.
the outcomes and objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008 and the
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2009-10 to 2018-19; and
·
given priority. This prioritisation is based on the identification of the issues facing Horizons’
transport system and how each transport activity will contribute to:
63
Area covered by the programme
The programme covers the 10 shown territorial authorities that are fully or partly
within our Region’s boundaries and have chosen to be included in the Horizons Region.
1.2
2
Palmerston North City Council
·
·
·
National Context
Stratford District Council (Taranaki)
Taupo District Council (Waikato)
Waitomo District Council (Waikato)
Three-year regional and national land transport programmes instead of annual.
The Government has set out, in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport
Funding (GPS), its priorities, funding forecasts and the short to medium-term outcomes
it wishes to achieve through the allocation of land transport funding.
Regional transport committees now have greater responsibilities and functions. They
need to identify which projects are to be prioritised for funding from national funds in
their region.
·
·
·
Some other changes include:
One of the key changes for transport planning and funding under the Act was the
establishment of a new Crown entity, the NZ Transport Agency, which took over the
functions of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand from 1 August 2008.
The amendments to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 took effect on 1 August
2008. Their provisions have a significant impact on the way the transport sector operates.
1.3
·
·
·
Three other territorial authorities that are partly within the Horizons Regional Council
boundary have chosen not to be included in the Horizons Region for programme matters.
These councils and their regions are:
·
·
·
·
These territorial authorities are the:
INTRODUCTION
64
NZ Transport Agency’s role
·
·
·
·
assists and advises approved organisations in the preparation of three- year regional land
transport programmes;
provides guidance on the development and assessment of activities in the programmes.
is represented on each RTC; and
decides which activities that are listed in a Regional Land Transport Programme will be
included in the National Land Transport Programme, and whether to approve funding
for those activities when they are ready to progress
The NZ Transport Agency has several other roles. It:
In developing the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), the NZ Transport Agency
allocates funds so that outcomes are consistent with the national targets set in the GPS.
1.3.1
The New Zealand Transport Strategy sets the long-term direction for all parts of the
transport sector and for the activities of transport Crown entities and local authorities. The
strategy has five transport objectives: ensuring environmental sustainability, assisting economic
development, assisting safety and personal security, improving access and mobility, and
protecting and promoting public health.
The NZ Transport Agency must give effect to the GPS when allocating funding from the
National Land Transport Fund. It can only allocate funding to activities listed in a regional land
transport programme or to national activities.
The GPS released in May 2009 sets out the funding available for the next 10 years for
transport activities, with a particular emphasis on the 2009-12 and 2012-15 periods. The GPS
aims to allocate transport funding according to the government’s main priority for land
transport investment – to increase economic productivity and growth. The GPS replaces an
earlier version released in August 2008, which set targets for the performance of the
transport system and funding ranges for particular types of activities.
The purpose of developing a three-year programme is to bring a longer term regional
perspective to land transport planning.
3
Regional Land Transport Strategy
1.4.1
Horizons Regional Transport Committee (RTC)
Prepare a Regional Land Transport Programme
Prepare a Regional Land Transport Strategy
Prepare any regional fuel tax scheme that it may propose
Provide advice on transport matters requested by the regional council
·
·
·
INTRODUCTION
ensure that the RTC prepares a Regional Land Transport Programme
consider and approve a Regional Land Transport Programme by 30 June 2009
vary the Regional Land Transport Programme in accordance with statutory requirements
Horizons Regional Council’s role with regard to this programme is to:
Horizons Regional Council’s role
Two representatives of the Regional Council
One representative of each local council in this Region
One representative of the NZ Transport Agency
One cultural representative
One representative of each of the five objectives listed in the New Zealand Transport
Strategy 2008.
1.4.3
·
·
·
·
·
The RTC membership comprises:
·
·
·
·
The RTC’s role is to:
1.4.2
While the New Zealand Transport Strategy sets the national direction of the transport sector,
the Regional Land Transport Strategy sets the direction within the Horizons Region for the
short to medium term. The Regional Land Transport Strategy identifies the major land
transport issues that are to be addressed through the activities described in this programme.
These issues are outlined in detail in Section 2.2.
Regional Context
1.4
65
Territorial Authorities’ role
Regional Land Transport Programmes
the maintenance, operation, renewal and improvement of local roads, including any new
roads or road sections
the maintenance, operation, renewal and improvement of state highways, including any
new roads or road sections
public transport services
public transport infrastructure
walking and cycling facilities
community focused activities
transport planning
Long Term Council Community Plans
A Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) is prepared by each council every three
years and contains planning and financial information for the next 10 years. Councils prepare
and consult on their LTCCPs in the first half of 2009 and these present outcomes agreed
with their local communities, the level of rates expected for the next 10 years and other
relevant information.
1.4.6
Minor variations may be made to the programme at any time in accordance with the policy
for significance adopted by the RTC. A summary of this policy is contained in Appendix 3.
The RTC must give a priority order to all activities except local road maintenance and
renewals, existing public transport services and minor capital work. However, the NZ
Transport Agency decides whether to include activities of any grouping in the National Land
Transport Programme.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Regional Land Transport Programmes consist of activities for which funding is sought from the
National Land Transport Fund. These include:
1.4.5
The territorial authorities control the roads in their districts or cities and are responsible for
their upkeep and improvement. Horizons has developed close relationships with the
territorial authorities and provides advice on how their plans fit with regional objectives.
1.4.4
4
This programme has an impact on every LTCCP in the Region because the level of
Government subsidy received will affect the size of each transport programme and the
amount of income required from city, district or regional rates. For an activity to be included
in the RLTP it must first appear in an LTCCP. The reason for this is that the Government
funding is a partial subsidy which can only be approved once the regional council or territorial
authority has confirmed its share of the project cost (known as “local share”). The RLTP is
consulted on during the same time period as the LTCCPs and it is important that the final
RLTP reflects adopted LTCCPs throughout our Region.
INTRODUCTION
66
The Regional Land Transport Programme
2009-12
Process adopted and consultation
The Regional Transport Committee prepares the draft Programme. The development
process involves meetings and workshops with key partners and the Regional Advisory Group.
Key projects are prioritised in accordance with the process outlined in Section 2.5.
Approved organisations submit their draft activities, together with 10 year budgets and
supporting information, to NZ Transport Agency by 14 November 2008.
Figure 1. Summary of the process used to develop the
programme
A consultation process was undertaken using the special consultative procedures specified by
the Local Government Act 2002 in conjunction with Horizons Regional Council’s Long Term
Council Community Plan process.
The development of this Regional Land Transport Programme has involved assessment,
analysis and input by stakeholders. The RTC oversees this process with the assistance of the
Regional Advisory Group, which is made up of officers from Horizons Regional Council, the
seven territorial authorities and the NZ Transport Agency.
2.1
This chapter outlines the key transport issues and priorities for the Region and proposes a
programme of transport activities. Section 2.10 contains an assessment of the programme
which evaluates how these activities will address the issues and contribute to meeting regional
and national transport sector targets.
2.
5
NZ Transport Agency prepares and releases the National Land Transport Programme by
31 August 2009.
Implementation of the Programme begins 1 July 2009.
Horizons Regional Council forwards the approved Programme to the NZ Transport Agency
and other parties identified in the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
Horizons Regional Council approves the Programme, including regional recommendations
on the use of regional (R) funds by 30 June 2009.
The Regional Transport Committee prepares a final Programme and recommends its
adoption to Horizons Regional Council by 23 June 2009.
The Regional Transport Committee holds a public Hearing of Submissions
(20 May 2009).
Public consultation on the draft Programme is undertaken, using the special consultative
procedures specified by the Local Government Act 2002 (8 April - 8 May 2009).
The Regional Transport Committee approves the draft Programme for public consultation
by 9 March 2009.
67
Statement of regional transport issues, problems and
opportunities
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding
·
Improvements in journey time reliability
Easing of severe congestion
More efficient freight supply chains
Better use of existing transport capacity
·
·
·
·
Improvements in the provision of infrastructure and services that enhance transport
efficiency and lower the cost of transportation through:
Impacts that contribute to economic growth and productivity
The new GPS sets out the specific impacts the government wishes to achieve through the
use of the National Land Transport Fund. Short to medium term impacts are:
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS) released in May 2009
provides a direction for the Government’s funding priorities for improving the land transport
sector. The GPS is for the 10 year period 2009-10 to 2018-19.
2.2.1
Most of the issues, problems and opportunities identified in this section have been identified
through the current Regional Land Transport Strategy (adopted in 2006). The first
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding, released in August 2008, identified
three specific targets for the Horizons Region which were also taken into consideration in
identifying the issues that we should address. National objectives and targets from the New
Zealand Transport Strategy and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy
have also been considered.
The Horizons Region is at the centre of many road, rail and air links connecting us with
neighbouring regions and facilities. However, with the exception of Palmerston North City,
the Region is not experiencing population growth and does not have many of the transport
issues affecting other regions.
2.2
6
Better access to markets, employment and areas that contribute to economic
growth
A secure and resilient transport network
Reductions in deaths and serious injuries as a result of road crashes
More transport choices, particularly for those with limited access to a car where
appropriate
Reductions in adverse environmental effects from land transport
Contributions to positive health outcomes
Figure 2 below identifies the Region’s land transport issues from the Regional Land Transport
Strategy (RLTS). It establishes links between regional issues, the objectives of the Land
Transport Management Act, the GPS impact statements and the National Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Strategy (NEECS) target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It highlights
that the resolution of regional issues is contributing to key national land transport objectives
and targets.
Of these, the section of State Highway 1 from Levin to Otaki forms part of the Horizons
Region.
These are:
·
Puhoi to Wellsford – State Highway 1
·
Completion of the Auckland Western Ring Route – State Highway 20/16/18
·
Auckland Victoria Park Bottleneck – State Highway 1
·
Waikato Expressway – State Highway 1
·
Tauranga Eastern Corridor – State Highway 2
·
Wellington Northern Corridor (Levin to Wellington ) – State Highway 1
·
Christchurch Motorway Projects
The GPS gives particular emphasis to seven Roads of National Significance (RoNS), which will
serve as a focus for investment to achieve economic growth and productivity.
·
·
·
·
Other Impacts
·
·
68
Regional crash targets are unlikely
to be achieved. Significant
improvements in fatalities have
reached a plateau in recent years
and serious injury rates may be
deteriorating
Annual growth in traffic on this
section of SH1 is 2-3% since
1990. Substandard curves,
restricted sightlines and side traffic
access points are contributing to
safety issues
Possible growth at Ohakea Air
Base may cause increased
pressure on this stretch of the
highway. Ongoing monitoring is
required.
Road safety – further
improvements required in
order to meet Road Safety to
2010 targets
The safety and capacity of
State Highway 1 between
Levin and Otaki
Standard and capacity of State
Highways 1 and 3 between
Bulls and Sanson – while recent
measures have postponed the
need for increased capacity,
regular monitoring is required
Assisting economic
development
√
√
√
√
√
7
Improving access and
mobility
√
√
√
Protecting and
promoting public health
Improvements in
infrastructure and
services that enhance
transport efficiency and
lower the cost of
transportation
√
√
√
√
Better access to markets,
employment and areas
that contribute to
economic growth
√
√
√
√
√
A secure and resilient
transport network
Other Impacts
More transport choices,
particularly for those
with limited access to a
car where appropriate
Impacts that contribute to economic
growth and productivity
Reductions in deaths and
serious injuries as a result
of road crashes
Links with national objectives and targets
Government Policy Statement impacts
Reductions in adverse
environmental effects
from land transport
Land Transport Management Act
objectives
Assisting safety and
personal security
Ensuring environmental
sustainability
Current Situation
Regional Land Transport Issue
Contributions to positive
health outcomes
√
NEECS
Target
√
Reduced CO 2 emissions
Figure 2. Links between national and regional issues and targets
69
Current Situation
Prone to slips and has
experienced a number of serious
road crashes, also extremely
windy
Many east-west vehicles bypass
Palmerston North using a
network of roads between
Manawatu Gorge and Mt Stewart
Such links are important
alternative routes whenever State
Highways are closed and
improvements could facilitate
economic development in these
areas
Safety and level of service
issues on State Highway 4, a
key link between the
Wanganui and Ruapehu
Districts, and as an alternative
to State Highway 1
Re-designation and
rationalisation of State Highway
3 route between Mt Stewart
and Manawatu Gorge – need
to remove this from the urban
area of Palmerston North
Need for improvements to
secondary strategic links that
are playing an increasing role as
east-west links and alternative
routes (Pahiatua Track and
Saddle Road, Napier-Taihape
Road, Route 40) and for
tourism/economic
development purposes
(Whanganui River Road)
sustainability
Assisting economic
development
√
personal security
√
√
√
mobility
√
Protecting and
√
√
Improvements in
infrastructure and
lower the cost of
transportation
√
√
√
that contribute to
economic growth
√
√
√
√
√
√
transport network
√
Other Impacts
objectives
of road crashes
from land transport
8
NEECS
Target
√
Reduced CO2 emissions
70
health outcomes
Current proposition to close
Milson Line, which carries most of
the Feilding to Palmerston North
traffic, will increase flows on a
number of routes which would
otherwise not have needed
upgrading for some time
Significant declines in walking and
cycling rates in urban areas. 13%
of trips to work in Palmerston
North were by bike in 1986; by
2006 this had declined to 5%
Only 1.5% of commuters in
Palmerston North travel by public
transport, a halving of the rate
since 1986
Redefinition and rationalisation
of strategic links between
Feilding and Palmerston North.
Need to cater for future
growth of PN in the Eastern
Growth corridor
Declining walking and cycling
activity
Declining use of the public
transport system in urban areas
by commuters
sustainability
√
√
Assisting economic
development
√
√
√
√
√
9
mobility
√
√
that contribute to
economic growth
√
√
transport network
Protecting and
√
Improvements in
infrastructure and
lower the cost of
transportation
√
√
√
Other Impacts
√
√
from land transport
of road crashes
health outcomes
√
√
NEECS
Target
√
√
√
Reduced CO 2 emissions
objectives
personal security
Current Situation
71
Current Situation
An ageing population and the
closure of commercial, health and
social services in small towns
create a demand for public
transport which cannot be met
with conventional scheduled
services
Increased road maintenance and
renewal costs for territorial
authorities
The need to provide costeffective and appropriate public
transport in small towns and
rural areas
Pressure on rural networks by
forestry and agricultural traffic
√
sustainability
Assisting economic
development
√
√
personal security
√
mobility
√
Protecting and
√
√
that contribute to
economic growth
√
√
√
transport network
Improvements in
infrastructure and
lower the cost of
transportation
Other Impacts
√
objectives
of road crashes
√
from land transport
10
health outcomes
√
NEECS
Target
√
Reduced CO2 emissions
72
Statement of regional transport priorities
·
The second key priority for the RTC is to address issues of the sustainability and accessibility
of our transport system. This will be achieved through activities which:
·
·
·
·
The RTC wishes to attribute the highest priority to those activities which make a significant
The region’s priorities for transport activities over the next six years are:
The RTC recognises that the government’s priorities for transport funding have since
changed (as reflected in GPS May 2009). However, as the RLTP must be adopted by the
Regional Council by 30 June 2009, it was not possible to determine how this might influence
the region’s statement of regional priorities and re-prioritise all the activities in the
programme accordingly, especially as the draft programme had already been consulted on.
The RTC recognises however, that the NZ Transport Agency (when developing the
National Land Transport Programme) must give effect to the GPS. Therefore there may be
some differences in the priority order NZ Transport Agency assigns to the region’s funding
requests. The RTC acknowledges that the programme may be less consistent with the new
GPS than it was with the earlier version; however it does not consider that it is inconsistent.
Figure 2 in part demonstrates this, and the assessment of the RLTP against the requirements
of Section 14 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 in Figure 6 also supports this
conclusion.
After analysis of the regional and national transport issues and priorities, the RTC
determined its key priorities for transport activities over the next six years. In doing so, it
took into account the need to be consistent with the GPS dated August 2008.
2.3
11
promotional methods
disadvantaged, in a cost-effective and appropriate manner
Proposed RLTP activities
improve the efficiency of strategic inter-district and inter-regional links
do not use Crown (C) or R funds
·
Figure 3 contains the list of prioritised activities for 2009-12, major projects from this list are
also shown on the map in Figure 4. The projects at the top of the list, with priority 0 are
those that are already under construction or where funding has been committed to the
project. These have been included on the list in order to present a complete picture of
activities underway in the region during the three-year programme period.
Transport studies to inform future investment have also been given priority 0.
Any proposed activities which meet these criteria therefore do not have to be included in
the prioritised list.
are not on a regional arterial route
have a capital cost of less than or equal to $4.5 million
·
·
The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires the RTC to assign an order of priority
to all state highway activities, new public transport services and all local road capital
improvements not classified as “minor”. For the purposes of determining what should be in
this list, the RTC has agreed that minor capital works are capital projects associated with
local roads, including associated property purchase, that meet all the following criteria:
2.4
·
·
The third priority for the RTC is to address regional issues of network security and efficiency.
This will be achieved through activities which:
Priority 3: Improving route security and efficiency
·
·
·
·
73
MDC
MWSH
Study
Study
Study
Study
Investigation, Design,
Property purchase &
Construction
State Highways
Construction
Construction
Construction
Palmerston North Manawatu Joint Transport
Study
Study
Study
Study
North of Levin to Otaki (Levin Bypass)
Maintenance, Operations & Renewals 2009/12
Emergency Works West Wanganui SH 4 Okura
Stream Bridge South
Emergency Works Braeburn Riverbank West
Wanganui SH 4
Emergency Works West Wanganui SH 4
657,300
746,100
MWSH
4,414,400
5,076,000
2,472,200
2,550,000
700,000
28,482,482
400,000
62,500
62,500
62,500
62,500
5,064,900
Total cost
2009 ($)
26,648,532
2,975,000
3,250,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
27,061,400
5,482,000
Total cost
2011($)
26,108,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
RanDC
RuaDC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
2008 ($)
12
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
PNCC
HRC
MWSH
MWSH
Construction
Ohingaiti-Makohine Realignment SH 1
Org
Phase name
Project name
Key to Organisations:
DOC
Department of Conservation
HDC
HRC
Horizons Regional Council
MDC
MWSH NZ Transport Agency Manawatu–Wanganui Highway and Network Operations
PNCC Palmerston North City Council
Figure 3. Prioritised list of activities
0
61,223,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
58,716,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RLTP
priority
74
MWSH
MWSH
Study
Study
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Study
Construction
Property purchase,
Design & Construction
Construction
Manawatu-Wanganui Kiwirap Black Route Safety
Study
Manawatu-Wanganui safe, sustainable and efficient
routes study
Railway Road Improvement
Taihape Napier Road Seal Extension
Foxton South Curves SH 1 (Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
River Rd / Raetihi-Pipiriki Road
River Rd / Raetihi-Pipiriki Road
Makerua Intersection SH 56/57 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Urban Wanganui Transportation Study
Duddings Lake North Passing Lane SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui Roading route efficiency
group)
Papatawa Realignment SH 2
Preventative Maintenance 9/12 (ManawatuWanganui Route security and environmental
group)
Wikitoria Intersection SH 3/4 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
MWSH
MWSH
WDC
MWSH
WDC
RuaDC
MWSH
RanDC
PNCC
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
State Highways
Minor improvements 2009/12
Org
Phase name
Project name
13
85,000
889,918
889,918
5,700,000
1,682,000
Total cost
2008 ($)
211,000
226,600
4,872,000
55,000
750,000
750,000
33,000
33,000
2,083,772
Total cost
2010 ($)
1,640,000
226,600
2,948,000
395,817
395,817
33,000
33,000
2,116,362
Total cost
2011($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
20,000
2,086,626
1,890,200
200,000
100,000
120,000
750,000
750,000
60,000
5,154,922
1,100,000
34,000
34,000
2,170,600
Total cost
2009 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RLTP
priority
75
Phase name
Group allocation
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Investigation & Design
Group allocation
Investigation
Investigation
Community Advertising 9/12 - ManawatuWanganui
Whakaruatapu Stream Bridge Replacement &
Realignment SH 2
Linnet-Huia St Curve Improvement
SH 1(Manawatu-Wanganui Road safety group)
Millrick-Kendall Realignment SH 57 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Wilson Road South Curve Improvements SH 56
(Manawatu-Wanganui Road safety group)
Muhunoa Road Intersection SH 1 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Passing Lane Merge Treatments (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Levin-Makerua Passing Lanes SH 57 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Community Programmes 2009/12
Waiauti Bridge Realignment SH 1 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Hapokopoko Stream North Realignment SH4
(Manawatu-Wanganui Road safety group)
Mangaweka South Realignment SH 1
Tahoraiti Railway Crossing SH 2
Waitarere Road Realignment SH 1(ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
HRC
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Org
Project name
0
Total cost
2008 ($)
14
53,000
52,000
25,000
1,084,627
669,000
541,000
103,000
31,000
53,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
249,000
2,643,765
74,000
1,121,504
85,000
637,000
456,000
556,000
106,000
318,000
1,858,224
60,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
22,000
3,288,370
1,863,000
1,151,784
55,000
764,000
664,000
1,863,679
70,000
Total cost
2011($)
261,000
3,262,483
1,125,000
1,908,000
2,476,000
1,736,566
Total cost
2012 ($)
1,740,000
1,962,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RLTP
priority
76
MWSH
MWSH
Investigation, Design &
Construction
Construction
Construction
Property purchase
Construction
Construction
Construction
Property purchase &
Construction
Construction
Old West Road (North) seal widening SH 57
Cobham Bridge South - Wikitoria SH 3
Ratana Hill SH 3 (Manawatu-Wanganui Road
safety group)
Manawatu River Bridge SH3 Ashhurst
Cycle/walkway
Turitea Stream Bridge Widening SH 57
Strategic Plan Initiatives 9/12 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Safety Retrofit 9/12 (Manawatu-Wanganui Road
safety group)
Property Acquisitions 9/12 (Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Pavement Smoothing 9/12 (Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Scour Investigation 9/12 (Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Seismic Retrofit 9/12 (Manawatu-Wanganui Road
safety group)
Manawatu Hill Realignment SH 2
Pahiatua Track Route Realignment 2009/12
TDC
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Design
Corby Road South Curves SH 2 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety group)
Org
Phase name
Project name
15
20,000
Total cost
2008 ($)
4,000,000
77,000
274,000
175,000
288,956
441,304
862,618
690,094
51,500
103,000
21,000
525,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
1,700,000
2,253,000
2,064,000
180,000
266,556
454,544
888,496
710,797
636,540
1,113,945
55,000
287,100
Total cost
2011($)
4,511,000
546,364
1,092,727
Total cost
2012 ($)
3,000,000
150,000
61,000
170,000
479,439
428,451
837,493
669,994
50,000
80,000
10,000
1,100,000
20,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
5,770,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
RLTP
priority
77
Phase name
Construction
Design
Construction
Investigation
Construction
Investigation
Construction
Gorge Woodville Seal Widening SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui Improved traffic
management group)
Drainage Safety Profiling SH 56/57 (ManawatuWanganui Improved traffic management group)
Golf Road South Passing Lane SH 1 (ManawatuWanganui Improved traffic management group)
Hansen Line and Taonui North Curves SH 3
management group)
Lismore Corner SH 4 (Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic management group)
Carlton / Alma / Jackson Intersection SH 3
management group)
London Street High School Safety Improvements
Package SH 3 (Manawatu-Wanganui Improved
traffic management group)
Mount Stewart North Passing Lane SH 3
management group)
Piriaka Rail Bridge Approaches SH 4 (ManawatuWanganui Improved traffic management group)
Improved Driver Information 9/12 (ManawatuWanganui Improved traffic management group)
Concord Line Curve Realignment SH 3
management group)
Bulls Bridge Cycleway SH 3
Rehabilitation Seal Widening 9/12 (ManawatuWanganui Roading route efficiency group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Org
Project name
0
Total cost
2008 ($)
16
279,164
100,000
20,000
223,331
927,000
30,000
435,000
41,000
66,000
41,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
287,539
1,081,500
230,031
265,000
21,000
307,000
414,000
796,000
1,487,000
42,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
296,165
1,052,413
236,932
22,000
328,000
1,582,000
Total cost
2011($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
RLTP
priority
78
MWSH
PNCC
PNCC
Construction
Implementation
Group allocation
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Property purchase,
Design
Construction
Construction
Rauma Railway Walkway SH 1
Palmerston North Bus Service Improvements
Travel Planning 2009/12
Passenger Transport - Bus terminal
Manawatu River Bridge Whirokino Cycle/Walkway
SH 1
Rangitikei Line / Tremaine Ave Intersection
Improvement SH 3 (Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic management group)
Rangitikei Line / JFK Drive SH 3 (ManawatuWanganui Improved traffic management group)
Rangitikei / Tremaine Signal Upgrade - Local share
Strategic Roading Network - Feilding to
Palmerston North
Strategic Roading - North Eastern Link
New Bridge - Manawatu River
Sanson South Passing Lane SH 1 (ManawatuWanganui Roading route efficiency group)
Mangamahu - Bridge Renewal - Wylies Bridge No.46
Mangamahu - Bridge Renewal - Wylies Bridge No.46
RanDC
WDC
MWSH
MDC
PNCC
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
PNCC
PNCC
HRC
Org
Phase name
Project name
17
Total cost
2008 ($)
42,000
1,482,000
515,000
2,500,000
823,000
636,000
61,800
1,500,000
63,000
364,485
61,800
Total cost
2010 ($)
155,000
155,000
1,525,000
529,000
3,500,000
127,308
4,500,000
63,000
374,002
159,135
Total cost
2011($)
1,365,000
1,365,000
21,272,000
800,000
4,000,000
404,309
Total cost
2012 ($)
2,800,000
75,000
200,000
515,000
619,000
114,000
352,500
40,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
21,761,000
200,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
11,120,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
11
10
10
9
9
RLTP
priority
79
MWSH
MWSH
Construction
RuaDC
Construction
Construction
Okahukura Saddle Road Seal Extension
RanDC
MWSH
Construction
Turakina Valley Rd Seal Extension
MWSH
MWSH
Construction
Design
Dalvey Road South Passing Lane SH 2 (ManawatuWanganui Roading route efficiency group)
Woodville Stock Effluent Disposal Facility SH 2
(Manawatu-Wanganui Route security and
environmental group)
Taihape Stock Effluent Disposal Facility SH 1
National Park Stock Effluent Disposal Facility SH 4
Construction
SH 3 / 54 Intersection (Manawatu-Wanganui
Roading route efficiency group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Construction
Marangai Road South Passing Lane SH 3
group)
MDC
Org
Design
Construction
Kopane Bridge Replacement
Oroua Road North Passing Lane SH 3
group)
Otamaraho Curve Passing Lane Extension SH 2
group)
Phase name
Project name
0
25,000
Total cost
2008 ($)
18
206,000
1,054,378
113,000
85,000
41,000
1,000,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
212,000
53,000
531,000
21,000
422,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
219,000
655,000
1,088,000
1,095,000
Total cost
2011($)
800,000
1,130,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
800,000
1,449,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
400,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
16
16
16
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
RLTP
priority
80
Figure 4. Location of key prioritised activities
19
81
20
En
R
S
In
Special Purpose
Road (SPR)
Annual
allocation
Minor improvements
2009/12
Maintenance,
Operations & Renewals
2009/12
Administration support
- Roading 2009/12
Maintenance,
2009/12
Community
Programmes 2009/12
Group
allocation
Local Roads
Annual
allocation
- Roading 2009/12
Demand
management
& community
programmes
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
Activity class
SS
Objectives
HRC
HDC
HDC
HDC
DOC
DOC
DOC
Org
Total
cost 2008
($)
1,084,627
4,091,502
150,000
48,200
430,000
34,400
10,470
Total cost
2009 ($)
1,121,504
4,177,819
150,000
50,100
430,000
34,400
10,470
Total cost
2010 ($)
1,151,784
4,298,292
150,000
52,100
260,000
20,800
6,330
Total cost
2011 ($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
3,357,915
12,567,613
450,000
150,400
1,120,000
89,600
27,270
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
1
RLTP priority
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Expected duration
(months)
Minor improvements
2009/12
Phase name
Project name
Environmental Sustainability
Responsiveness
Sustainability
Integration
All transport activities proposed for inclusion in the programme are detailed in Figure 5, grouped by organisation.
Key to Objectives:
SS
Safety and security
AM
Access and mobility
ED
Economic development
PH
Public health
Figure 5. Full list of activities
0
82
RTC support for R
funding
Construction
Construction
Local Roads
Construction
Kopane Bridge
Replacement
Minor improvements
2009/12
Stewart Road/Awahuri
Feilding Road
Intersection
Improvement
MDC
MDC
MDC
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
Studies and
Strategies
Public
transport
services
SS
AM
ED
In
AM
21
200,000
920,318
1,000,000
200,000
510,285
157,000
4,031,076
62,500
352,500
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
12
MDC
HRC
MDC
HRC
HRC
HRC
Total
cost 2008
($)
966,908
3,500,000
579,296
206,000
4,474,573
374,002
Total cost
2011 ($)
800,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
200,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
250,000
943,325
2,500,000
530,421
190,000
4,185,371
364,485
Total cost
2010 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
450,000
2,830,551
1,000,000
7,200,000
1,620,002
553,000
12,691,020
62,500
1,090,987
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
13
12
0
9
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
Strategic Roading
Network - Feilding to
Palmerston North
36
36
Annual
allocation
12
Administration 2009/12
- Roading 2009/12
Study
Palmerston North
Manawatu Joint
Transport Study
Expected duration
(months)
36
Activity class
Objectives
36
Implementation
Palmerston North Bus
Service Improvements
Org
RLTP priority
Passenger Transport
Programme 2009/12
Phase name
Project name
83
Construction
36
MWSH
MWSH
Construction
5,076,000
746,100
Emergency
Reinstatement
SS
657,300
Emergency
Reinstatement
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
4,414,400
Emergency
Reinstatement
SS
SS
Walking and
cycling facilities
Demand
management
& community
programmes
In
Studies and
Strategies
Total
cost 2008
($)
5,064,900
2,472,200
2,550,000
700,000
53,000
1,182,828
11,639,533
57,000
62,500
Total cost
2009 ($)
22
3,250,000
60,000
1,218,312
11,927,643
58,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
70,000
1,254,862
12,222,947
60,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
61,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
63,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
64,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
13,390,900
3,218,300
3,207,300
5,114,400
183,000
3,656,002
35,790,123
363,000
62,500
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
0
0
0
0
1
0
R
RTC support for R
funding
Ohingaiti-Makohine
Realignment SH 1
MWSH
Construction
MWSH
MWSH
MDC
MWSH
36
36
36
MDC
Construction
Annual
allocation
Maintenance,
2009/12
- Roading 2009/12
5
MDC
Emergency Works
West Wanganui SH 4
Okura Stream Bridge
South
Emergency Works
Braeburn Riverbank
West Wanganui SH4
Emergency Works
West Wanganui SH4
Construction
Cycleway Construction
Expected duration
(months)
12
Activity class
Objectives
Group
allocation
Study
Palmerston North
Manawatu Joint
Transport Study
Org
RLTP priority
Community Advertising
9/12 - ManawatuWanganui
Phase name
Project name
0
84
36
36
State Highways
Construction
Construction
Property
purchase,
Design &
Construction
Construction
Design &
Construction
Minor improvements
2009/12
Makerua Intersection
SH 56/57 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety
group)
Duddings Lake North
Passing Lane SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Roading route efficiency
group)
Papatawa Realignment
SH 2
Preventative
Maintenance 9/12
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Route security and
Hapokopoko Stream
North Realignment SH4
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
SS
R
AM
SS
85,000
Total
cost 2008
($)
23
2,086,626
1,890,200
200,000
120,000
2,170,600
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
36
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Objectives
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Activity class
226,600
2,948,000
2,116,362
Total cost
2011 ($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
74,000
226,600
4,872,000
2,083,772
Total cost
2010 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
74,000
2,539,826
9,795,200
200,000
120,000
6,370,734
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
2
0
0
0
0
0
R
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
36
MWSH
Org
RLTP priority
36
Phase name
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
85
36
36
36
36
Investigation,
Design,
Property
purchase
Construction
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Construction
Construction
North of Levin to Otaki
(Levin Bypass) SH1
Foxton South Curves
Realignment SH 1
Whakaruatapu Stream
Bridge Replacement &
Realignment SH 2
Linnet-Huia St Curve
Improvement SH
1(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Millrick-Kendall
Realignment SH 57
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Wilson Road South
Curve Improvements
SH 56 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety
group)
Muhunoa Road
Intersection SH 1
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
ED
Total
cost 2008
($)
541,000
103,000
31,000
60,000
400,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
456,000
556,000
106,000
318,000
1,858,224
2,975,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
664,000
1,863,679
5,482,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
2,476,000
1,736,566
26,108,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
1,962,000
61,223,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
58,716,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
456,000
1,097,000
5,311,000
349,000
5,458,469
60,000
154,904,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
R
RTC support for R
funding
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Objectives
MWSH
Activity class
24
RLTP priority
36
Phase name
Org
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
0
86
Phase name
Construction
Investigation &
Design
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Investigation
Investigation
Design
Project name
Passing Lane Merge
Treatments (ManawatuWanganui Road safety
group)
Levin-Makerua Passing
Lanes SH 57
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Waiauti Bridge
Realignment SH 1
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Mangaweka South
Realignment
SH 1
Tahoraiti Railway
Crossing SH 2
Waitarere Road
Realignment SH
1(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Corby Road South
Curves SH 2
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Expected duration
(months)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Total
cost 2008
($)
25
20,000
53,000
52,000
25,000
669,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
36
96
60
36
36
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Objectives
MWSH
Activity class
22,000
3,288,370
1,863,000
55,000
764,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
261,000
3,262,483
1,908,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
249,000
2,643,765
85,000
637,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
20,000
22,000
563,000
9,246,618
3,796,000
140,000
2,070,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
RLTP priority
36
Org
87
RTC support for R
funding
Phase name
Investigation &
Design
Design &
Construction
Construction
Construction
Property
purchase
Construction
Construction
Project name
Ratana Hill SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Wikitoria Intersection
SH 3/4 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety
group)
Strategic Plan Initiatives
9/12 (ManawatuWanganui Road safety
group)
Safety Retrofit 9/12
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Property Acquisitions
group)
Pavement Smoothing
group)
Scour Investigation 9/12
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
0
Expected duration
(months)
36
36
36
36
36
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
SS
SS
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
SS
SS
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
SS
SS
SS
Total
cost 2008
($)
170,000
479,439
428,451
837,493
669,994
20,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
175,000
288,956
441,304
862,618
690,094
211,000
21,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
180,000
266,556
454,544
888,496
710,797
1,640,000
55,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
525,000
1,034,951
1,324,299
2,588,607
2,070,885
1,871,000
76,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
5
5
5
5
5
0
3
R
RTC support for R
funding
36
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Objectives
MWSH
Activity class
26
RLTP priority
36
Org
88
209
36
36
Construction
Property
purchase &
Construction
Investigation &
Design
Design &
Construction
Seismic Retrofit 9/12
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Road safety group)
Manawatu Hill
Realignment SH 2
Gorge Woodville Seal
Widening SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
Drainage Safety Profiling
SH 56/57 (ManawatuWanganui Improved
traffic management
group)
36
Design &
Construction
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
PH
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
PH
PH
SS
SS
20,000
Total
cost 2008
($)
27
435,000
41,000
66,000
41,000
150,000
61,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
Construction
Hansen Line and Taonui
North Curves SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
Lismore Corner SH 4
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
36
Design &
Construction
Golf Road South
Passing Lane SH 1
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Activity class
Objectives
MWSH
Org
1,582,000
2,253,000
2,064,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
4,511,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
5,770,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
307,000
414,000
796,000
1,487,000
42,000
77,000
274,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
742,000
414,000
837,000
3,135,000
83,000
12,781,000
2,399,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
RLTP priority
36
Phase name
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
89
RTC support for R
funding
36
Design
Design &
Construction
Construction
Investigation
Construction
Investigation
Carlton / Alma / Jackson
Intersection SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
London Street High
School Safety
Improvements Package
SH 3 (ManawatuWanganui Improved
traffic management
group)
Mount Stewart North
Passing Lane SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
Piriaka Rail Bridge
Approaches SH 4
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
Improved Driver
Information 9/12
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
Concord Line Curve
Realignment SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
36
36
36
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
PH
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
PH
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Total
cost 2008
($)
20,000
223,331
927,000
30,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
230,031
265,000
21,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
236,932
22,000
328,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
20,000
690,294
22,000
1,192,000
349,000
30,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
8
8
8
8
8
8
RLTP priority
MWSH
Objectives
Activity class
28
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
36
36
Phase name
Org
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
0
90
Construction
Design
Marangai Road South
Passing Lane SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
group)
Oroua Road North
Passing Lane SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
group)
Construction
Design
36
Construction
Rangitikei Line /
Tremaine Ave
Intersection
Improvement SH 3
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Improved traffic
management group)
Rangitikei Line / JFK
Drive SH 3 (ManawatuWanganui Improved
traffic management
group)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
AM
AM
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
AM
PH
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
AM
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Total
cost 2008
($)
29
41,000
515,000
619,000
279,164
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
36
36
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Objectives
Activity class
1,095,000
296,165
Total cost
2011 ($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
21,000
422,000
42,000
636,000
287,539
Total cost
2010 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
62,000
1,517,000
42,000
515,000
1,255,000
862,868
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
14
14
13
12
12
8
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
Sanson South Passing
Lane SH 1 (ManawatuWanganui Roading
route efficiency group)
36
Construction
Rehabilitation Seal
Widening 9/12
(Manawatu-Wanganui
group)
Org
RLTP priority
36
Phase name
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
91
36
Investigation,
Design &
Construction
Design
Construction
Construction
SH 3 / 54 Intersection
(Manawatu-Wanganui
group)
Dalvey Road South
Passing Lane SH 2
(Manawatu-Wanganui
group)
Woodville Stock
Effluent Disposal Facility
SH 2 (ManawatuWanganui Route
security and
Taihape Stock Effluent
Disposal Facility SH 1
(Manawatu-Wanganui
Route security and
36
36
Construction
State Highways
36
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Renewal of
State
Highways
R
R
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
R
AM
AM
AM
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
New &
improved
infrastructure
for State
Highways
Objectives
MWSH
Activity class
Total
cost 2008
($)
28,482,482
206,000
113,000
85,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
26,648,532
212,000
53,000
531,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
27,061,400
219,000
655,000
1,088,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
1,130,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
1,449,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
82,192,414
219,000
206,000
212,000
53,000
1,299,000
3,752,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
0
16
16
16
15
14
14
RLTP priority
National Park Stock
Effluent Disposal Facility
SH 4 (ManawatuWanganui Route
security and
Maintenance,
2009/12
36
Design &
Construction
Otamaraho Curve
Passing Lane Extension
SH 2 (ManawatuWanganui Roading
route efficiency group)
Org
30
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
36
36
Phase name
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
0
92
Phase name
Study
Study
Study
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Investigation,
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Investigation,
Design &
Construction
Project name
Palmerston North
Manawatu Joint
Transport Study
Manawatu-Wanganui
Kiwirap Black Route
Safety Study
Manawatu-Wanganui
safe, sustainable and
efficient routes study
Old West Road
(North) Seal Widening
SH 57
Cobham Bridge South Wikitoria SH 3
Manawatu River Bridge
SH3 Ashhurst
Cycle/walkway
Turitea Stream Bridge
Widening SH 57
Bulls Bridge Cycleway
SH 3
Rauma Railway
Walkway SH 1
Expected duration
(months)
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
MWSH
Walking and
cycling facilities
Walking and
cycling facilities
Walking and
cycling facilities
Walking and
cycling facilities
Walking and
cycling facilities
Walking and
cycling facilities
Transport
planning
Transport
planning
SS
SS
In
10,000
Total
cost 2008
($)
31
40,000
100,000
50,000
80,000
525,000
1,100,000
34,000
34,000
62,500
Total cost
2009 ($)
48
71
45
48
24
43
MWSH
MWSH
Studies and
Strategies
Objectives
MWSH
Activity class
159,135
1,052,413
636,540
1,113,945
33,000
33,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
404,309
546,364
1,092,727
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
61,800
1,081,500
51,500
103,000
287,100
33,000
33,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
665,244
2,233,913
1,284,404
2,389,672
822,100
1,100,000
100,000
100,000
62,500
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
9
8
4
4
3
2
0
0
0
RLTP priority
12
Org
93
RTC support for R
funding
36
36
Investigation &
Design
Annual
allocation
Group
allocation
Construction
Construction
Construction
Property
purchase,
Design &
Construction
Property
purchase
Manawatu River Bridge
Whirokino
Cycle/Walkway SH 1
- Roading 2009/12
Travel Planning 2009/12
Railway Road
Improvement
Rangitikei / Tremaine
Signal Upgrade - Local
share
Strategic Roading North Eastern Link
New Bridge Manawatu River
Featherston Street
widening
1
36
30
4
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
ED
In
In
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
ED
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
S
1,682,000
Total
cost 2008
($)
2,800,000
75,000
1,100,000
114,000
122,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
1,235,000
1,482,000
515,000
823,000
63,000
131,000
61,800
Total cost
2010 ($)
1,525,000
529,000
63,000
146,000
127,308
Total cost
2011 ($)
21,272,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
21,761,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
11,120,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
1,235,000
59,960,000
1,119,000
823,000
2,782,000
240,000
399,000
189,108
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
13
12
12
0
10
11
R
R
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
26
Demand
management
& community
programmes
Walking and
cycling facilities
Objectives
PNCC
PNCC
MWSH
Activity class
32
RLTP priority
48
Phase name
Org
Expected duration
(months)
Project name
0
94
Phase name
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Local Roads
Construction
Construction
Project name
Ashhurst Street
Improvements
Ferguson Street
Widening (Linton to
Pitt )
Grey / Albert
Roundabout
Pahiatua Aokautere
Road Realignment &
Reconstruction
James Line
reconstruction - stage II
Minor improvements
2009/12
Ferguson / Ruahine
Intersection upgrade
Grey St Clearway
Expected duration
(months)
3
6
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
R
SS
In
SS
SS
R
Total
cost 2008
($)
33
257,000
636,778
250,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
9
24
4
4
PNCC
Activity class
Objectives
9
Org
678,670
Total cost
2011 ($)
54,000
379,000
217,000
325,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
444,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
641,683
772,000
290,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
1,440,000
1,077,000
340,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
1,957,131
1,151,000
1,440,000
290,000
1,738,000
915,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
95
RTC support for R
funding
RLTP priority
Phase name
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Study
Study
Investigation &
Construction
Construction
Project name
Walding St safety
upgrade
Park Rd / Cook St
intersection upgrade
Passenger Transport Bus terminal
Passenger Transport
Road Improvements
Palmerston North
Manawatu Joint
Transport Study
Aokautere Bypass Study
Pedestrian & Cycle
Bridge
Cycling / walking
improvements 09/12
0
Expected duration
(months)
12
10
12
6
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
R
Transport
planning
Walking and
cycling facilities
S
In
Studies and
Strategies
Walking and
cycling facilities
S
In
SS
Public
transport
infrastructure
Public
transport
infrastructure
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
Total
cost 2008
($)
88,000
62,500
118,000
300,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
34
144,000
48,000
1,500,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
52,000
4,500,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
108,000
70,000
4,000,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
3,327,000
72,000
444,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
3,400,000
74,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
88,000
6,835,000
62,500
434,000
10,000,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
9
0
10
RLTP priority
8
4
PNCC
Activity class
Objectives
4
Org
96
RTC support for R
funding
Construction
Cycling / walking
improvements 09/12
Construction
Local Roads
Investigation,
Design &
Construction
Annual
allocation
Turakina Valley Rd Seal
Extension
Minor improvements
2009/12
Mangamahu - Bridge
Renewal - Wylies
Bridge - No.46
Maintenance,
2009/12
- Roading 2009/12
RuaDC
RanDC
RanDC
RanDC
RanDC
RanDC
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
S
S
5,700,000
35
251,520
10,815,721
865,250
5,154,922
246,400
7,867,600
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
36
12
36
36
36
Walking and
cycling facilities
Walking and
cycling facilities
Total
cost 2008
($)
264,100
11,443,928
155,000
865,250
178,200
12,683,300
1,556,000
Total cost
2011 ($)
1,365,000
800,000
1,112,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
800,000
465,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
235,100
11,124,382
865,250
174,500
9,211,700
1,382,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
400,000
586,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
750,720
33,384,031
1,520,000
2,595,750
2,000,000
10,854,922
599,100
29,762,600
3,719,000
1,382,000
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
13
15
0
RLTP priority
Construction
RanDC
PNCC
PNCC
PNCC
Activity class
R
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
Taihape Napier Road
Seal Extension
36
36
12
12
Expected duration
(months)
Annual
allocation
Construction
Cycling / walking
improvements 09/12
Org
Objectives
Maintenance,
2009/12
- Roading 2009/12
Phase name
Project name
97
Phase name
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Local Roads
Special Purpose
Road (SPR)
Investigation
Construction
Project name
River Rd / RaetihiPipiriki Road
Okahukura Saddle Road
Seal Extension
Waitaanga Road Seal
Extension
Mountain Road (SPR)
9km Bridge
Minor improvements
2009/12
Minor improvements
2009/12
Mountain Road (SPR)
Hair Pin at 13.0 km
Mountain Road (SPR)
7.6km Fatality Site
0
Expected duration
(months)
12
36
36
60
60
RuaDC
RuaDC
RuaDC
RuaDC
RuaDC
RuaDC
RuaDC
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
SS
ED
ED
Objectives
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
25,000
889,918
Total
cost 2008
($)
100,000
48,024
668,352
1,054,378
750,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
49,464
752,579
750,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
50,000
50,944
781,288
50,000
50,000
395,817
Total cost
2011 ($)
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
Total cost
2014 ($)
100,000
50,000
148,432
2,202,219
50,000
50,000
1,079,378
2,785,735
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
15
0
RLTP priority
RuaDC
Activity class
36
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
60
Org
98
Group
allocation
Group
allocation
Cycling and Shared Use
Path Implementation
Stage 2
Cycling and Shared use
Path Implementation
Stage 3
Annual
allocation
Local Roads
Minor improvements
2009/12
Maintenance,
2009/12
- Roading 2009/12
Construction
WDC
WDC
WDC
TDC
TDC
TDC
TDC
TDC
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
PH
PH
ED
SS
Total
cost 2008
($)
37
377,000
185,000
10,625,000
858,800
380,000
3,000,000
183,000
9,375,650
Total cost
2009 ($)
36
36
36
36
36
3
36
36
RuaDC
Objectives
Coast Road Seal
Extension 09-12
Expected duration
(months)
36
Activity class
393,000
177,000
11,285,000
912,400
405,000
1,700,000
194,000
11,113,639
Total cost
2011 ($)
403,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
412,000
Total cost
2013 ($)
382,000
168,000
10,955,000
885,600
395,000
4,000,000
189,000
10,694,280
Total cost
2010 ($)
421,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
1,236,000
1,152,000
530,000
32,865,000
2,656,800
1,180,000
8,700,000
566,000
31,183,569
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
5
RLTP priority
Construction
Annual
allocation
Maintenance,
2009/12
- Roading 2009/12
Org
R
RTC support for R
funding
Pahiatua Track Route
Realignment 2009/12
Phase name
Project name
99
Construction
Investigation,
Design &
Construction
Investigation,
Design &
Construction
Local Roads
Construction
Study
River Rd / RaetihiPipiriki Road
Mangamahu - Bridge
Renewal - Wylies
Bridge - No.46
Fitzherbert Avenue
Extension - New Road
construction
Minor improvements
2009/12
Preventative
Maintenance - Somme
Parade
Urban Wanganui
Transportation Study
Expected duration
(months)
36
36
36
6
12
WDC
WDC
WDC
WDC
WDC
WDC
Transport
planning
Renewal of
Local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
New &
improved
infrastructure
for local roads
AM
AM
SS
ED
Objectives
WDC
Activity class
540,000
889,918
Total
cost 2008
($)
10,591,400
100,000
760,000
750,000
Total cost
2009 ($)
38
11,041,800
55,000
850,000
750,000
Total cost
2010 ($)
11,606,500
880,000
155,000
395,817
Total cost
2011 ($)
1,365,000
Total cost
2012 ($)
Total cost
2013 ($)
55,000
Total cost
2014 ($)
33,239,700
155,000
540,000
2,490,000
55,000
1,520,000
2,785,735
Total
project cost
to 2014 ($)
0
13
0
RLTP priority
60
Org
R
R
RTC support for R
funding
Maintenance,
2009/12
Phase name
Project name
0
100
Prioritisation process
All state highway activities.
Major local road improvements over $4.5 million and/or on regional arterial routes.
New public transport activities or services.
Projects recommended for Regional (R) funding by the Horizons RTC.
Community activities (e.g. travel plans and road safety education).
Medium
Medium
Low
Efficiency
·
the seriousness and urgency of the transport issue being addressed, taking into account
any relevant strategies and national, regional or local priorities
the effectiveness of the proposed activity in addressing the issue or problem, and in
delivering regional and national strategic objectives
·
safety and capacity on State Highway 1 between Levin and Otaki, of significance to
Horizons and the Greater Wellington Regions.
standard of the Napier-Taihape road linking the Hawkes Bay and Horizons regions.
·
Activities with inter-regional significance
·
2.6
Recent changes in government priorities as reflected in the GPS mean that a new set of draft
assessment criteria was developed and released in June 2009. As noted elsewhere it has not
been possible to re-assess all the projects in the Horizons RLTP and prioritise accordingly in
the available timeframe. However, the RTC notes that the NZ Transport Agency is required
to prepare a National Land Transport Programme which gives effect to the GPS, and that
the new assessment criteria may therefore result in different priorities for regional projects.
Projects were grouped according to their contribution to one of the three broad regional
priorities. These groupings and the assessment profiles were used to determine a proposed
regional priority list, which can be found in Section 2.4.
3. Prioritisation process
Effectiveness
Seriousness and urgency
For example, the Ohingaiti–Makohine Realignment project has been assigned an MML
profile. This means:
The Regional Land Transport Strategy identifies two significant inter-regional issues.
They are:
39
The economic efficiency of the proposed activity. This is a measure of value for money
based on a benefit/cost ratio (BCR). Where the BCR is less than 2 – Low; between 2
and 4 – Medium; greater than 4 – High.
Prioritised projects were rated High (H), Medium (M) or Low (L) for each of the three
factors resulting in an assessment ‘profile’ for the project.
·
Prioritised projects were individually assessed in accordance with the NZ Transport Agency’s
project assessment and prioritisation process. This involved consideration of:
2. Complete initial project assessment
Priority 3: Improving route security and route efficiency
As discussed earlier, broad regional priorities were developed. These are:
1. Determine broad regional priorities
To assist in the prioritisation of the above projects, the RTC has adopted the following
process:
·
·
·
·
·
The prioritised list of activities for the three financial years 2009-10 to 2011-12 must contain:
As required by the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the RTC has prioritised certain
projects submitted by approved organisations and the NZ Transport Agency. This indicates
how the Region would like national funding to be allocated to the highest priority projects if
funding is limited.
2.5
101
Standard and capacity of State Highway 1
Standard of Napier-Taihape Road
Nationally or regionally significant activities
In March 2009 the government identified a number of nationally significant routes. These
include the Northern Corridor from Levin to Wellington of which a section (Levin to Otaki)
is in the Horizons Region. Investigations into improvements of this route will be fast tracked
2.7
Seal extension of the Horizons portion of the road is now underway and the project
appears as a committed activity in the proposed programme.
The road is only partially sealed and this prevents it being used more frequently. If sealed,
the route could play an increased role in the movement of freight and tourist traffic between
the regions, as well as being a viable alternative when SH3 is closed through the Manawatu
Gorge.
The Napier-Taihape Road is a strategic link between the Horizons and Hawke’s Bay regions
especially when the Manawatu Gorge road (State Highway 3) is unavailable due to slips.
2.6.2
This regional programme proposes several small to medium safety improvements on SH 1
south of Levin. A strategy study to identify further areas for improvement is underway in the
2008-09 year.
The standard of the route is also variable and is unsatisfactory for a corridor of this
importance, as substandard curves, restricted sightlines and side traffic access points are
contributing to safety issues.
Improving the standard and capacity of State Highway 1 between Levin and Otaki is an issue
of significance to both Horizons and the Greater Wellington regions. This stretch of SH1
has experienced considerable growth in traffic volumes of between 2% and 3% annually
since 1990. The portion of SH1 between Levin and Otaki is now at a stage where significant
safety and capacity issues are emerging.
The route is of strategic importance for both regions as it is the main freight corridor into
and out of Wellington. Therefore, it plays a significant part in the economies of both
regions.
2.6.1
0
40
Activities approved for funding but not yet completed
Contribution of RLTP activities to regional and national
transport priorities
Under Section 16(a) of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the RLTP must contain
the Horizons RTC’s assessment of how the programme complies with Section 14 of the
Land Transport Management Act 2003. Figure 6 sets out these requirements and
demonstrates how the programme complies with them.
2.10
Figure 5 identifies activities which have already been approved for inclusion in the National
Land Transport Programme but which are not yet complete. These are activities which have
funding allocated in 2008-09 and beyond.
2.9
No known activities are proposed to be varied, suspended or abandoned.
Activities proposed to be varied, suspended or
abandoned.
Upstream bridge on the Manawatu River (construction commencing 2012).
Information about the timing and cost of this activity is to be found on the list of
activities in Figure 5.
·
2.8
the Manawatu Hill Realignment (construction commencing 2012). Information about
the timing and cost of this activity is to be found on the list of activities in Figure 5.
·
The RTC has determined that the following activities likely to be recommended for
inclusion in the NLTP for 2012-15 are regionally significant:
and $166.7 million dollars of investigation, design, property purchase and construction
funding has been added to the programme for this between 2009-10 and 2016-17.
102
Section 14(a) (ii)
Section 14(a)((i)
The RTC has identified safety as its highest regional priority and has placed those projects and programmes which make a significant contribution to safety at
the top of its list. It considers that those safety improvements which cannot be funded from the N (National) fund should have first call on its R (Regional)
funds.
Contribute to safety and
personal security
REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAMME 2009-12
41
Furthermore, as the assessment of the relationship of this programme to police activities (section 2.11) demonstrates, there are close working links between
road controlling authorities, the Regional Council and the Police. Programmed safety activities are usually part of a coordinated road safety action plan to
address road safety from all angles through education, enforcement and engineering activities.
The RLTP contains a number of targeted infrastructure projects to improve the crash record of certain sections of the network. It also contains
programmes of community focused activities such as road safety education and the promotion of safe walking and cycling as transport methods. A proposal
for an improved bus terminal in Palmerston North is partly aimed at addressing both the safety and personal security concerns of bus passengers.
The programme contains a number of activities which promote economic development in the Region. For example, committed activities such as the sealing
of the Napier-Taihape Road and the sealing of the Whanganui River Road directly address the needs of tourism and agriculture. The improvement of
strategic links between Feilding and Palmerston North, and improvements to routes around Palmerston North facilitate economic activity in these areas.
The review of the RLTS in 2009-10 will further refine the Region’s strategic direction and allow it to be responsive to emerging trends and changes in
national strategic direction. The RTC’s Significance Policy (see Appendix 3) for variations to this programme will also ensure that the Region can remain
responsive to changing community needs, or issues which emerge through the monitoring of the programme’s implementation.
Each major activity has been assessed and prioritised in accordance with the issues and priorities set out in the Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS),
having regard to the New Zealand Transport Strategy. The RTC is confident that it has prioritised the programme to ensure that its top priority activities
will contribute to a sustainable and safe transport system. The funding plan set out in the RLTP demonstrates that the proposed activities are affordable to
the Region.
How the RLTP complies
Contribute to assisting
economic development
Contribute to an affordable,
integrated, safe, responsive,
and sustainable land transport
system
Section 14 requirements
Figure 6. How the RLTP complies with Section 14 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003
103
Contribute to public health
Contribute to improving
access and mobility
Section 14 requirements
42
Activities to increase public transport use also have a public health benefit through a reduction in transport emissions and an increase in physical activity, as
each bus trip normally starts and ends with a walking trip.
The RTC considers that the programme will make some contribution to protecting and promoting public health, through activities aimed at encouraging
walking and cycling. These include community focused activities to change travel behaviour and encourage use of walking and cycling for short trips, and
infrastructure improvements such as cycle and pedestrian or shared facilities.
The RLTP contains a proposed improvement to the Palmerston North bus service to increase the frequency of bus services at peak times. It is estimated
that the improvements will increase patronage on the service by 16%.
The RTC considers that the RLTP makes an appropriate contribution to improving access and mobility in the Horizons Region. Access and mobility is
addressed in this programme through continued support for existing public transport services in the Horizons Region, including urban bus services and a
number of commuter and shoppers’ services between towns. The Region supports the continuation of Total Mobility services with increased provision
made for growth in the scheme. Community van services in a number of small towns in the Region provide appropriate and cost-effective public transport
where fixed route scheduled services cannot be sustained.
How the RLTP complies
104
Section 14(a)(iii)
Section
14(b) (ii)
Take into account any
national land transport
strategy
Consistent with Regional Land
Transport Strategy
The Government Policy Statement 2009 was released in May 2009, after the draft RLTP had been prepared and released for consultation. The GPS sets
out the specific impacts the government expects to be achieved through the use of the National Land Transport Fund.
Consistent with the
Government Policy Statement
43
There is currently no national land transport strategy in place.
The RLTP incorporates funding for activities which will address some of the other impacts the government wishes to achieve, particularly in the area of
road safety which is the region’s highest priority. Activities which address serious safety issues have been given the highest priority in the programme. The
RTC considers that the RLTP also makes an appropriate contribution to providing greater transport choice, reducing adverse environmental effects and
contributing to positive health outcomes through activities such as increased public transport services, the provision of Total Mobility, walking and cycling
activities etc.
The RTC considers that the proposed programme of works is highly consistent with the Regional Land Transport Strategy. The broad regional priorities set
out in Section 2.3 are derived from the current RLTS and have been used to determine the priority order placed on activities and projects in the
programme.
The GPS also states that cost-effective measures to improve the efficiency of existing networks are to be considered as well as investment in new
infrastructure. The RLTP’s broad Priority 2 is to manage travel demand and improve accessibility, which is consistent with this statement in the GPS, and a
number of activities have been promoted under this priority area.
As a result of the Government’s announcements regarding Roads of National Significance, funding has been added to the Horizons RLTP to investigate
improvements to the Levin to Otaki section of SH1. Two small improvements on this section of the network were already included in the programme. The
GPS states that regional transport committees should ensure that investment in nationally important infrastructure and corridors is given priority because of
its contribution to national economic growth and productivity. The Horizons RTC has responded to this by placing investigation funding for improvements
to SH1 Levin to Otaki at priority 0, essentially as committed expenditure. This is the only section of the regional network where significant issues as
outlined above currently exist. The RLTP is therefore consistent with this stated aim of the GPS.
The GPS states that regional transport committees should give priority to transport initiatives that i) improve the provision of infrastructure and services that
enhance transport efficiency and lower the cost of transportation through journey time reliability improvements, easing of severe congestion and more
efficient freight supply chains and ii) provide better access to markets, employment and areas that contribute to economic growth.
The RTC considers that the programme will make some contribution to environmental sustainability through activities to increase walking and cycling and
public transport use, and through the construction of stock truck effluent facilities on regional state highways.
Contribute to environmental
sustainability
105
Take into account likely
funding from any source
Take into account relevant
national and regional policy
statements under the
Resource Management Act
1991
Take into account National
Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Strategy
44
reduce energy use through reducing the need for travel
progressively improve the energy performance of the transport fleet
improve the provision and uptake of low energy transport options
engineering and education measures in the programme to promote walking and cycling;
measures to increase public transport use; and
the proposed development of workplace travel plans by the Palmerston North City Council
Consider methods to reduce reliance on private transport through urban development planning and district land transport
programmes.
To have land transport systems and public utility networks which meet the needs of the Region, while avoiding, remedying or
mitigating adverse effects.
District Councils should “Provide for the safety and efficiency of the district’s land transport infrastructure through provisions
in district land transport programmes.”
Method 19A.4:
Objective 30:
Under Method 30.3,
The RTC has considered the available sources of funding in developing this programme and believes that its activities are affordable. Section 3 outlines
proposed funding sources for the activities in the programme.
There are a number of activities in the programme which could be said to support Objective 19a and Objective 30, particularly those which promote road
safety and low energy transport options, as described above.
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Region.
Objective 19a:
Activities identified in the RLTP take into account some of the objectives, policies and methods identified in the Regional Policy Statement.
The objectives identified in the Regional Policy Statement as having particular relevance to the programme are:
·
·
·
The RTC considers that activities in the programme contribute to the first and third objective through:
1.
2.
3.
The RTC has taken into account the transport objectives set out in the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2001.
The objectives for transport are to:
106
Assessment of the relationship of Police activities to the
RLTP
Each RSAP specifies a range of education, engineering and enforcement interventions. Many
of these will address national issues and reflect key priorities in the Road Policing Strategy,
such as the “fatal five” – speeding, drink/drugged driving, restraints, dangerous/careless driving
and high-risk behaviours. Others may focus on district-specific issues where particular
circumstances increase the risk of certain types of crashes.
District Road Safety Action Plans (RSAPs) provide the main visible link between police and
other activities carried out under this RLTP. In all seven districts in the Region, police are
fully involved in the development and implementation of RSAPs. These district or clusterwide plans bring together the required engineering, enforcement and education activities to
address road safety issues in the district. They involve a collaborative process whereby the
key partners, namely the NZ Transport Agency, local authorities, police, ACC and
community representatives, agree on risks, identify objectives, direct tasks, set targets,
develop plans and monitor and review progress.
The participation of a Police representative on the RTC (representing “safety and personal
security”) and in the development of the Regional Land Transport Strategy ensures that
there is coordination of Police and other transport activities at the regional strategic level.
The Strategy is due to be reviewed in 2009-10 and funding for this review is contained in the
proposed RLTP. The revised strategy will incorporate police activities into a number of its
policies and specific actions on road safety, travel demand management and the promotion
of walking and cycling.
Road policing activity is directed by the Road Policing Strategy 2010 and is delivered through
the National Road Policing Programme. Funding for regional road policing activity is
delivered in line with the above strategy, the Central Police District Policing Plan, the
Regional Road Safety Plan, risk-targeted patrol plans and district Road Safety Action Plans.
As required under Section 16(b) of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the RTC has
assessed the relationship of Police activities to the RLTP. The RTC considers that proposed
Police activities for the Region are consistent with many activities identified in the RLTP.
2.11
45
Community focused activities target specific user groups as well as specific issues, where it is
clear that these groups are over-represented in crash statistics. An example of the close link
between education programmes provided under this RLTP and police activities is found in
the Manawatu/Rangitikei Districts. Driver Reviver stops on long weekends, involving police
road safety coordinators, ACC and others educate drivers on the dangers of driving long
distances without stopping for rests.
This RLTP contains funding for community focused activities. These are largely education
programmes to address road safety and transport sustainability issues. In many cases these
programmes form part of a district initiative in which police are key partners. The
mechanism for developing these activities is once again the RSAP, where activities are jointly
planned and each agency has a role to play.
The proposed RLTP for 2009-12 contains a significant number of safety improvements on
specific sections of our roads, where police activity is an integral part of the solution. For
example, the Tararua District RSAP identifies loss of control crashes as an issue, identifies
problem road sections and lists a number of minor engineering improvements such as
improved signage and surfacing to reduce these. The RSAP also specifies speed
enforcement to be undertaken on these problem routes.
The Road Policing Programme also makes provision for police education activities and there
are close links between the work undertaken by police in this area and community education
programmes run by local or regional councils. An example of this in the Horizons Region is
the Young Cyclist of the Year competition. This is run by the police education officers in
conjunction with Horizons road safety coordinators. It teaches safe road cycling practices to
Year 5-8 school children and encourages children to cycle to school.
The RSAP will specify what police enforcement, education or engineering improvements
may be required to address the issue and how the parties will work together to improve
safety in this area. Funding for the engineering and education activities of the RSAP is then
sought through this RLTP. Police state that in 2009-10, road policing in the Region will be
increasingly targeted at risk areas or issues to achieve better overall outcomes.
107
2.5
3
2
1
1
Support
Clerical
Intel
86.6
10
Speed camera
TOTAL
1.6
Traffic alcohol
4
Traffic management
Crash analysis
11.6
School road safety education
Crash attendance
1.1
13.6
Community services
Visible road safety and general enforcement
5.8
14.3
Restraints
15.1
Drinking or drugged driver control
Police resourcing for Horizons Region
per year
(full-time equivalents)
Allocation of police resources as per the 2008-09
Road Policing Programme in the Horizons Region
Speed control
Target area
Figure 7.
The table below outlines the level of police resource dedicated to the various types of road
policing activities in each district in the Region in 2008-09. As the Road Policing Programme
for 2009-10 will not be available until July 2009, it has been assumed for the purposes of this
assessment that activities will continue at 2008-09 levels for the three years of the RLTP.
The RTC is assured that as long as traffic police resourcing remains at current levels, joint
road safety activities will continue to be effective in the Region.
Police, territorial authorities and the NZ Transport Agency also work closely together on
traffic management for large events and crash investigation. The police state that processes
are in place to ensure that they are notified of public events, are able to assess the likely
traffic implications and can respond accordingly. The results of police crash investigations are
reported to the NZ Transport Agency and territorial authorities, and any engineering faults
at the crash site are discussed in detail.
46
108
Funding the RLTP
47
Forecast Expenditure 2009-2019 ($)
4,007,809
293,697,723
410,889,562
165,393,380
185,061,060
146,342,017
369,014,651
55,699,594
10,746,000
32,019,112
13,544,206
0
0
1,686,425,114
Activity Class
Transport planning
Maintenance and operation of local roads
Renewal of local roads
Maintenance and operation of State Highways
Renewal of State Highways
New & improved infrastructure for local roads
New & improved infrastructure for State Highways
Public transport services
Public transport infrastructure
Walking and cycling facilities
Demand management & community programmes
Rail and sea freight
Regional development
Total All Activities
Figure 8. Forecast anticipated expenditure and revenue 2009-19
FUNDING THE RLTP
National ($)
3,719,434
166,184,889
233,745,497
165,393,380
185,061,060
36,019,857
341,095,751
33,419,756
6,017,760
24,387,612
8,543,724
0
0
1,203,588,720
Funding Sources
Regional ($)
Local ($)
0
288,375
0
127,512,834
0
177,154,065
0
0
0
0
54,764,195
48,907,365
27,918,900
0
0
22,279,838
0
4,728,240
0
7,631,500
0
5,000,482
0
0
0
0
82,683,095
393,079,549
0
0
0
0
0
6,650,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,650,600
Other sources ($)
The section sets out a financial forecast of anticipated revenue and expenditure on activities for the 10 financial years from 1 July 2009 and discusses the allocation of Regional funds to proposed
activities. The information contained within this section of the RLTP has been collated by activity class and is presented in greater detail in Appendix 4.
3.
109
48
Transport planning
Maintenance and operation of
local roads
Maintenance and operation of
State Highways
New & improved infrastructure
for local roads
New & improved infrastructure
for State Highways
Public transport infrastructure
Walking and cycling facilities
Demand management &
community programmes
Rail and sea freight
Regional development
Total All Activities
Activity Classes
0
6,390,013
6,477,600
0
0
450,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,317,613
480,000
640,000
0
0
89,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,209,600
HDC
0
DoC
18,911,396
0
0
3,357,915
0
0
14,871,411
0
0
0
0
0
0
682,070
HRC
46,508,174
0
0
0
175,000
0
0
0
10,480,551
0
0
23,867,826
11,922,297
62,500
48,886,124
0
0
240,000
3,026,000
6,218,000
0
0
14,090,131
0
0
11,945,547
13,159,946
206,500
41,289,603
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,905,672
0
0
22,191,593
11,192,338
0
34,390,646
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,896,846
0
0
15,204,000
11,289,800
0
Total Anticipated Expenditure 2009-12
MDC
PNCC
RanDC
RuaDC
45,608,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,743,600
0
0
18,705,000
14,160,000
0
TDC
40,573,517
0
0
0
1,152,000
0
0
0
5,486,817
0
0
18,314,000
15,465,700
155,000
WDC
177,167,583
0
0
183,000
6,631,041
0
0
79,736,602
0
40,061,060
50,393,380
0
0
162,500
NZTA
467,862,856
0
0
3,780,915
10,984,041
6,218,000
14,871,411
79,736,602
59,143,217
40,061,060
50,393,380
117,345,566
84,060,094
1,268,570
Total Horizons
Region
As part of the release of the GPS in May 2009, the government has announced that it will
increase Fuel Excise Duty (FED) and Road User Charges (RUC) in October 2009, October
2010 and July 2011 to assist with funding the expenditure targets it has set out in the GPS.
The full list of transport activities in Figure 5 identifies individual projects which the RTC
suggests should be R funded.
The RTC has considered how it would like to see the remaining R funds allocated and has
determined that these should be spent on new and improved infrastructure of local roads
and State Highways. The recommended allocations in these classes are shown in Figure 8.
FUNDING THE RLTP
Figure 9. Total anticipated expenditure for Horizons region for the period 2009-12
Regional or R funding is additional revenue collected nationally through a 5c per litre tax
added to fuel sales from 1 April 2005 and allocated to each region on a population basis.
The estimated total amount of R funding available for this Region in the 10 year period from
1 April 2005 is $116.8 million. The intention of the fund is to provide for additional transport
outcomes which would otherwise not be able to be funded from national funds and the NZ
Transport Agency seeks the RTC’s recommendations on how the R fund should be allocated.
As at January 2009, it was estimated that $40.1 million of this fund had been either spent or
committed, with approximately $76.7 million still to be allocated to activities in the Region.
Any R funds remaining at the end of the 10 year period will remain available to the Region.
110
Anticipated expenditure across funding ranges
Statement of significant expenditure to be funded from
other sources
Monitoring of the RLTP
measuring actual expenditure against budget across activity classes
·
Monitoring reports will be produced annually during the period of this programme.
measuring progress on the delivery of the programmed activities and projects listed in
Section 2
·
A number of monitoring indicators have been included in the Regional Land Transport
Strategy and these provide a measure of the progress against the outcomes of the strategy.
These will be further refined during the review of the RLTS in 2009-10.
As monitoring of the RLTS will focus on measuring how well the Region is progressing
towards its targets and addressing its transport issues, monitoring of the RLTP will be limited
to:
3.3
Approximately $6.65 million of the total cost of the upstream bridge on the Manawatu River
is expected to come from developer contributions.
3.2
Figure 9 shows the total anticipated expenditure for each approved organisation in the
Horizons region in relation to each activity class for the next three years, as well as the
Horizons region as a whole.
3.1
49
FUNDING THE RLTP
111
50
FUNDING THE RLTP
112
Activity means a land transport output or capital projects, or both.
Activity class refers to a grouping of similar activities.
Approved organisations refers to organisations that are eligible to receive funding from the NZ
Transport Agency for land transport activities. Approved organisations are defined in the Land
Transport Management Act 2003 as including regional councils, territorial authorities, or a
public organisation approved by the Governor General (by Order in Council).
Benefit /Cost Ratio or BCR refers to the ratio that compares the benefits accruing to land
transport users and the wider community from implementing a project or providing a service,
with that project’s or service’s costs.
Community programme refers to the development and delivery, at the community level, of
activities addressing safe and sustainable use of the land transport system.
Demand management refers to a generic classification of strategies that encourage more
efficient and sustainable travel and transport behaviour. Demand management has the
objective of encouraging motor vehicle users to use alternative means of transport when
appropriate while also reducing total vehicle kilometres travelled. This includes freight as well
as personal travel.
Funding assistance rate (FAR) is the percentage of the total cost of an approved activity that
the NZ Transport Agency pays.
Generic project is a specifically identified common type of improvement project with a
construction / implementation cost of $4.5 million or less.
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS) refers to a Government
Policy Statement issued under Section 86 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
Improvements projects refer to improvements to road infrastructure outside work categories
defined as local maintenance and renewals.
Land transport means transport on land by any means and the infrastructure, goods and
services facilitating that transport, including:
·
coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries, or ferries or barges on
rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure
·
the infrastructure, goods and services (including education and enforcement), the
primary purpose of which is to improve public safety in relation to that transport
Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) refers to the main statutory framework for
land transport planning and funding in New Zealand.
The following is a glossary of terms and acronyms used in the RLTP.
Appendix 1 Glossary of terms and acronyms
51
APPENDICIES
Local authority refers to any territorial authority or regional council within the meaning of the
Local Government Act 2002.
Local road means any road, other than a State Highway, in the district and under the control
of a territorial authority.
Local share refers to the portion of the total cost of an activity provided by an approved
organisation.
Long Term Council Community Plan or LTCCP refers to the 10 year community plan
produced by regional and territorial authorities under the Local Government Act 2002.
National (N) funds refer to nationally distributed funds.
National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) refers to the fund established under Section 10 of the
Land Transport Management Act.
New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) refers to the single Crown entity established under
Section 93 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2003 that replaced Land
Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand from 1 August 2008.
Police activities means activities approved by the Minister of Transport in conjunction with the
Minister of Police, paid from the National Land Transport Fund, to be delivered by the Police
Region means the Region of a regional council, and includes the district of a territorial
authority, if the territorial authority is a unitary authority.
Regional Land Transport Programme means a Regional Land Transport Programme, prepared
under Part 2 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, as from time to time amended or
varied. These programmes prioritise state highway, regional council and territorial authority
proposals (excluding minor local roading projects, local road maintenance and existing public
transport services) for transport activities in a Region.
Regional land transport strategy means a Regional Land Transport Strategy prepared under
Part 3 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
Regional (R) funds refers to funds from a 5 cent per litre increase in fuel excise duty and an
equivalent increase in road user charges for light vehicles, to be distributed regionally on the
basis of population for 10 years from April 2005.
Regional Transport Committee (RTC) refers to a Regional Transport Committee established
under Section 105 or clause 11 of schedule 7 of the LTMA. Regional Transport Committees
have representation from regional councils, territorial authorities, the New Zealand Transport
Agency and the community
Territorial authority a territorial authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act
2002. This is usually taken to refer to a city council or a district council
113
·
·
·
·
·
assisting economic development
assisting safety and personal security
improving access and mobility
protecting and promoting public health
ensuring environmental sustainability
The regional transport committee must ensure that the programme is consistent with the
GPS and any relevant regional land transport strategy, and that it contributes to the following
five transport objectives:
When a regional transport committee prepares a regional land transport programme, it must
be satisfied that it contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable, integrated, safe,
responsive, and sustainable land transport system.
Core requirements of regional land transport programmes
A regional council or regional transport committee may simultaneously prepare and approve
a regional land transport programme and a regional land transport strategy, and they may use
a single consultation process to do so. They may also publish it as a single document.
Horizons has chosen to prepare these documents separately. The next Regional Land
Transport Strategy will be prepared in 2009-10.
Every three years regional councils must ensure that the relevant regional transport
committee prepares a regional land transport programme, and they have to approve it by a
date set by the NZ Transport Agency.
Preparing and approving Regional Land Transport Programmes
Approved organisations and the NZ Transport Agency use regional land transport
programmes to recommend funding from the national land transport fund for land transport
activities or combination of activities. Eligible activities should contribute to a region’s
outcomes as reflected in the relevant regional land transport strategy, and in outcomes set
out in a National Land Transport Strategy or Government Policy Statement.
An overview of regional land transport programmes
Appendix 2 Legislative Requirements
52
those proposed by approved organisations in the region
those relating to State Highways in the region, as proposed by the NZ Transport
Agency
those that the NZ Transport Agency may propose for the region
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
the objective(s) to be achieved
an estimate of the total cost (and the cost for each year)
the expected duration
proposed sources of funding other than the National Land Transport Fund
any other relevant information
An assessment of each activity or combination of activities, which includes:
The order of priority, as determined by the regional transport committee, of the
proposed activities or combinations of activities
c.
a.
b.
Activities or combinations of activities that the regional transport committee decides to
include, such as:
Activities or combinations of activities, identified by approved organisations in the region,
that relate to maintenance, renewals and minor capital works for local roads.
A regional land transport programme must contain assessments by the regional transport
committee of how the programme complies with the ‘core requirements’ above, and the
relationship of Police activities or combination of activities to the regional land transport
programme.
·
·
·
·
In order to seek payment from the National Land Transport Fund, a regional land transport
programme must contain the following information for the three financial years to which the
programme relates:
Form and content of regional land transport programmes
The programme must also take into account the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Strategy and any National Land Transport Strategy.
APPENDICIES
114
a statement of transport priorities for the region for the first six financial years of the
programme, for which funding will be sought
all significant expenditure on land transport activities to be funded from other sources
a list of each incomplete activity or combination of activities approved under Section 20
of the Act
identification of activities or combinations of activities with inter-regional significance
an explanation of the proposed action where an activity or combination of activities is to
be varied, suspended or abandoned
an indication of the nationally or regionally significant activities likely to be included in the
National Land Transport Programme over the next three years
a financial forecast of revenue and expenditure on activities for the 10 financial years
from the start of the regional land transport programme
a description of how the implementation of the regional land transport programme will
be monitored
a summary of consultation undertaken in the preparation of the regional land transport
programme
a summary of the policy relating to significance adopted by the regional transport
committee
any other relevant matters
When preparing a regional land transport programme, a regional transport committee must
consult:
–
every affected regional council and territorial authority
–
every affected approved public organisation
–
the NZ Transport Agency
–
the Commissioner of Police
–
affected health boards and the ACC
–
NZ Historic Places Trust
Consultation requirements
A regional land transport programme must be in the form and contain the detail prescribed
by the NZ Transport Agency.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
A regional land transport programme should also include:
53
NZ Railways Corporation
representative groups of land transport users and providers
affected communities and the public in the Region
Māori of the region
APPENDICIES
In response to an amended regional land transport programme sent to them by a regional
transport committee, the regional council should either approve the programme and send it
to the NZ Transport Agency, or send it to the NZ Transport Agency stating that it had not
been approved, with the reasons. The NZ Transport Agency must then treat it as either
approved, or consider the regional council’s reasons for not approving it.
If a regional council refers a regional land transport programme back to the regional transport
committee, the committee may supply additional information, amend the regional land
transport programme after consultation if the amendment is significant, or decide to make no
changes, and then lodge the regional land transport programme with the regional council
again.
The regional council may, after considering a regional land transport programme lodged with
it, decide to approve it without modification, or refer it back to the regional transport
committee with a request that one or more specific aspects be reconsidered.
The regional land transport programme automatically includes local roads maintenance and
minor capital activities, and existing public transport services. If a regional transport
committee decides not to include another activity or combination of activities identified by
approved organisations or an activity proposed by the NZ Transport Agency, the regional
transport committee must advise them in writing of the decisions and reasons for it.
After a regional transport committee has prepared and consulted on its regional land
transport programme, it has to be lodged with the regional council.
Approving of regional land transport programmes by regional transport committees
When carrying out the consultation, RTCs must act in accordance with the consultation
principles set out in Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.
–
–
–
–
115
activities that are in the urgent interests of public safety
new preventive maintenance and emergency reinstatement activities in accordance with
sections 9.7 and 9.8 of the Programme and Funding Manual
addition of an activity or activities that have previously been consulted on in accordance
with Section 17 and 18 of the Land Transport Management Act and which the RTC
considers complies with the provisions for funding approval in accordance with Section
20 of the Land Transport Management Act
a scope change that does not significantly alter the original objectives of the project - to
be determined by the RTC
replacement of a project within a group of generic projects by another project of the
same type
·
·
·
·
·
All amendments or variations to the Regional Land Transport Programme other than the
following are considered to be significant for purposes of consultation:
The RTC has adopted the following definition to determine when a variation to the Regional
Land Transport Programme is significant and must therefore undergo a full consultative
process.
Appendix 3 Summary of Significance Policy for variation to the
RLTP
54
APPENDICIES
116
2011 ($)
15,874,394
15,874,394
2011 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,072,230
4,501,075
3,841,550
3,874,900
4,860,000
5,302,500
28,705,247
2012 ($)
15,000,000
15,000,000
2012 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,174,035
4,227,177
3,621,156
3,955,500
4,860,000
5,647,000
28,737,860
2013 ($)
15,000,000
15,000,000
2013 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,278,386
4,248,750
3,621,156
4,074,170
4,860,000
5,780,000
29,115,454
2014 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,385,346
4,318,678
3,621,156
4,196,400
4,860,000
5,904,000
29,538,572
55
2014 ($)
15,000,000
15,000,000
Maintenance and operation of State Highways
2009 ($)
2010 ($)
DOC
Horizons
HDC
MDC
NZTA
19,760,416
14,758,570
PNCC
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
19,760,416
14,758,570
Maintenance and operation of local roads
2009 ($)
2010 ($)
DOC
160,000
160,000
Horizons
HDC
2,272,902
2,024,119
MDC
3,876,980
3,973,087
NZTA
PNCC
4,272,650
4,386,221
Rang DC
3,621,156
3,729,632
Rua DC
3,652,600
3,762,300
TDC
4,580,000
4,720,000
WDC
5,008,400
5,154,800
Total cost
27,444,688
27,910,159
APPENDICES
2015 ($)
17,500,000
17,500,000
2015 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,494,979
4,345,506
3,621,156
4,322,200
4,860,000
6,040,000
29,936,833
The following information outlines anticipated expenditure by activity class for the 10-year period commencing 1 July 2009.
Appendix 4. 10-year forecast expenditure profiles
2016 ($)
17,500,000
17,500,000
2016 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,607,354
4,370,157
3,621,156
4,452,000
4,860,000
6,188,000
30,351,659
2017 ($)
17,500,000
17,500,000
2017 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,722,538
4,392,732
3,621,156
4,585,500
4,860,000
6,334,000
30,768,918
2018 ($)
17,500,000
17,500,000
2018 ($)
160,000
2,092,992
4,840,601
4,419,484
3,621,156
4,723,100
4,860,000
6,471,000
31,188,333
3-year total
50,393,380
50,393,380
3-year total
480,000
6,390,013
11,922,297
13,159,946
11,192,338
11,289,800
14,160,000
15,465,700
84,060,094
10-year total
165,393,380
165,393,380
10-year total
1,600,000
21,040,957
43,425,536
43,482,430
36,540,430
41,598,670
48,180,000
57,829,700
293,697,723
117
2009 ($)
DOC
Horizons
HDC
MDC
NZTA
16,530,892
PNCC
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
16,530,892
2009 ($)
DOC
270,000
Horizons
HDC
2,118,600
MDC
7,762,553
NZTA
PNCC
3,807,423
Rang DC
7,194,465
Rua DC
4,215,000
TDC
6,045,000
WDC
6,123,000
Total cost
37,536,041
2010 ($)
12,116,562
12,116,562
2010 ($)
270,000
2,153,700
7,954,556
3,848,384
7,394,750
5,449,400
6,235,000
5,887,000
39,192,790
2011 ($)
11,413,606
11,413,606
2011 ($)
100,000
2,205,300
8,150,717
4,289,740
7,602,378
5,539,600
6,425,000
6,304,000
40,616,735
2012 ($)
20,000,000
20,000,000
2012 ($)
100,000
2,205,300
8,654,484
3,919,406
8,559,465
6,563,612
6,425,000
4,962,000
41,389,267
2013 ($)
20,000,000
20,000,000
2013 ($)
100,000
2,205,300
8,563,347
3,957,472
7,194,465
6,760,520
6,425,000
5,242,000
40,448,104
2014 ($)
270,000
2,205,300
8,777,430
4,010,199
7,194,465
6,963,336
6,425,000
5,740,000
41,585,730
56
2014 ($)
20,000,000
20,000,000
2015 ($)
21,250,000
21,250,000
2015 ($)
270,000
2,205,300
8,996,866
3,797,370
7,194,465
7,172,236
6,425,000
5,446,000
41,507,237
APPENDICES
2016 ($)
21,250,000
21,250,000
2016 ($)
270,000
2,205,300
9,221,788
3,834,914
7,194,465
7,387,403
6,425,000
5,577,000
42,115,870
2017 ($)
21,250,000
21,250,000
2017 ($)
270,000
2,205,300
9,452,332
4,272,833
7,194,465
7,609,025
6,425,000
5,711,000
43,139,955
2018 ($)
21,250,000
21,250,000
2018 ($)
270,000
2,205,300
9,688,641
3,911,131
7,194,465
7,837,296
6,425,000
5,836,000
43,367,833
3-year total
40,061,060
40,061,060
3-year total
640,000
6,477,600
23,867,826
11,945,547
22,191,593
15,204,000
18,705,000
18,314,000
117,345,566
10-year total
185,061,060
185,061,060
10-year total
2,190,000
21,914,700
87,222,714
39,648,872
73,917,848
65,497,428
63,680,000
56,828,000
410,899,562
118
2011 ($)
30,895,501
30,895,501
2011 ($)
20,800
150,000
4,466,908
2,732,670
1,020,250
1,448,049
3,017,400
1,600,817
14,456,894
2012 ($)
35,879,049
35,879,049
2012 ($)
800,000
22,247,000
2,165,000
1,590,000
2,894,000
29,696,000
2013 ($)
66,993,000
66,993,000
2013 ($)
200,000
22,649,000
800,000
1,930,000
0
25,579,000
57
2015 ($)
56,155,000
56,155,000
2015 ($)
2,176,000
1,430,000
160,000
3,766,000
APPENDICES
2014 ($)
13,977,000
400,000
1,930,000
55,000
16,362,000
2014 ($)
60,498,000
60,498,000
New & improved infrastructure for State Highways
2009 ($)
2010 ($)
DOC
Horizons
HDC
MDC
NZTA
19,874,198
28,966,903
PNCC
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
19,874,198
28,966,903
New & improved infrastructure for local roads
2009 ($)
2010 ($)
DOC
34,400
34,400
Horizons
HDC
150,000
150,000
MDC
2,320,318
3,693,325
NZTA
PNCC
5,598,778
5,758,683
Rang DC
6,020,172
865,250
Rua DC
4,096,754
2,352,043
TDC
4,445,600
5,280,600
WDC
2,286,000
1,600,000
Total cost
24,952,022
19,734,301
2016 ($)
37,253,000
37,253,000
2016 ($)
861,000
3,466,100
4,327,100
2017 ($)
16,250,000
16,250,000
2017 ($)
1,789,000
50,000
1,839,000
2018 ($)
16,250,000
16,250,000
2018 ($)
1,643,000
3,986,700
5,629,700
3-year total
79,736,602
79,736,602
3-year total
89,600
450,000
10,480,551
14,090,131
7,905,672
7,896,846
12,743,600
5,486,817
59,143,217
10-year total
369,014,651
369,014,651
10-year total
89,600
450,000
11,480,551
79,432,131
11,270,672
14,776,846
12,743,600
16,098,617
146,342,017
119
2010 ($)
4,911,415
4,911,415
2010 ($)
58,000
1,646,700
1,382,000
382,000
3,468,700
2009 ($)
DOC
Horizons
4,731,072
HDC
MDC
NZTA
PNCC
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
4,731,072
Walking & cycling facilities
2009 ($)
DOC
Horizons
HDC
MDC
57,000
NZTA
1,895,000
PNCC
88,000
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
377,000
Total cost
2,417,000
2011 ($)
60,000
3,089,341
1,556,000
393,000
5,098,341
2011 ($)
5,228,924
5,228,924
2012 ($)
61,000
2,742,745
1,220,000
403,000
4,426,745
2012 ($)
5,375,333
5,375,333
2013 ($)
63,000
720,326
3,792,000
412,000
4,987,326
2013 ($)
5,504,342
5,504,342
58
2014 ($)
64,000
561,000
3,986,000
421,000
5,032,000
2014 ($)
5,647,455
5,647,455
2015 ($)
66,000
577,000
748,000
431,000
1,822,000
2015 ($)
5,805,583
5,805,583
APPENDICES
2016 ($)
67,000
595,000
672,000
441,000
1,775,000
2016 ($)
5,973,945
5,973,945
2017 ($)
69,000
613,000
267,000
451,000
1,400,000
2017 ($)
6,159,137
6,159,137
2018 ($)
70,000
631,000
430,000
461,000
1,592,000
2018 ($)
6,362,388
6,362,388
3-year total
175,000
6,631,041
3,026,000
1,152,000
10,984,041
3-year total
14,871,411
14,871,411
10-year total
635,000
13,071,112
14,141,000
4,172,000
32,019,112
10-year total
55,699,594
55,699,594
120
DOC
Horizons
HDC
MDC
NZTA
PNCC
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
Transport planning
2009 ($)
296,382
62,500
96,500
62,500
100,000
617,882
2011 ($)
207,891
33,000
240,891
2011 ($)
1,151,784
70,000
63,000
1,284,784
2012 ($)
213,711
73,000
169,000
455,711
2012 ($)
1,184,034
80,000
1,264,034
2013 ($)
218,841
75,000
293,841
2013 ($)
1,212,450
90,000
1,302,450
2014 ($)
224,530
77,000
301,530
59
2014 ($)
1,243,974
100,000
1,343,974
2010 ($)
177,797
33,000
144,000
55,000
409,797
Demand management & community programmes
2009 ($)
2010 ($)
DOC
Horizons
1,084,627
1,121,504
HDC
MDC
NZTA
53,000
60,000
PNCC
114,000
63,000
Rang DC
Rua DC
TDC
WDC
Total cost
1,251,627
1,244,504
APPENDICES
2015 ($)
230,817
80,000
180,000
490,817
2015 ($)
1,278,805
110,000
1,388,805
2016 ($)
237,511
84,000
321,511
2016 ($)
1,315,891
120,000
1,435,891
2017 ($)
244,874
90,000
334,874
2017 ($)
1,356,683
130,000
1,486,683
2018 ($)
252,955
95,000
193,000
540,955
2018 ($)
1,401,454
140,000
1,541,454
3-year total
682,070
62,500
162,500
206,500
155,000
1,268,570
3-year total
3,357,915
183,000
240,000
3,780,915
10-year total
2,305,309
62,500
736,500
206,500
0
0
0
697,000
4,007,809
10-year total
12,351,206
953,000
240,000
13,544,206
121
Maintenance and Ops Local Roads
Maintenance and Ops of State Highways
Renewal of Local Roads
New & Improved Infrastructure for Local Roads
New & Improved Infrastructure for State Highways
Public Transport Infrastructure
Public Transport Services
Walking & Cycling Facilities
Rail & Sea Freight
Demand Management & Community Programmes
Transport Planning
Total Allocation
Total Allocation- All activity Classes
2009($)
27,444,688
19,760,416
37,536,041
16,530,892
24,952,022
19,874,198
118,000
4,731,072
2,417,000
0
1,251,627
617,882
155,233,838
2010 ($)
27,910,159
14,758,570
39,192,790
12,116,562
19,734,301
28,966,903
1,548,000
4,911,415
3,468,700
0
1,244,504
409,797
154,261,701
2011 ($)
28,705,247
15,874,394
40,616,735
11,413,606
14,456,894
30,895,501
4,552,000
5,228,924
5,098,341
0
1,284,784
240,891
158,367,317
2012 ($)
28,737,860
15,000,000
41,389,267
20,000,000
29,696,000
35,879,049
4,070,000
5,375,333
4,426,745
0
1,264,034
455,711
186,293,999
2013 ($)
29,115,454
15,000,000
40,448,104
20,000,000
25,579,000
66,993,000
72,000
5,504,342
4,987,326
0
1,302,450
293,841
209,295,517
60
2014 ($)
29,538,572
15,000,000
41,585,730
20,000,000
16,362,000
60,498,000
74,000
5,647,455
5,032,000
0
1,343,974
301,530
195,383,261
APPENDICES
2015 ($)
29,936,833
17,500,000
41,507,237
21,250,000
3,766,000
56,155,000
75,000
5,805,583
1,822,000
0
1,388,805
490,817
179,697,275
2016 ($)
30,351,659
17,500,000
42,115,870
21,250,000
4,327,100
37,253,000
77,000
5,973,945
1,775,000
0
1,435,891
321,511
162,380,976
2017 ($)
30,768,918
17,500,000
43,139,955
21,250,000
1,839,000
16,250,000
79,000
6,159,137
1,400,000
0
1,486,683
334,874
140,207,567
2018 ($)
31,188,333
17,500,000
43,367,833
21,250,000
5,629,700
16,250,000
81,000
6,362,388
1,592,000
0
1,541,454
540,955
145,303,663
3 year total
84,060,094
50,393,380
117,345,566
40,061,060
59,143,217
79,736,602
6,218,000
14,871,411
10,984,041
0
3,780,915
1,268,570
467,862,856
10 year total
293,697,723
165,393,380
410,899,562
185,061,060
146,342,017
369,014,651
10,746,000
55,699,594
32,019,112
0
13,544,206
4,007,809
1,686,425,114
122
123
If Yes
within the LTCCP)
N
Item No: 13
Date: 30/06/2009
Report No: 09-94
File No: OMS 10 13
ONE PLAN HEARING COMMITTEE
PURPOSE
1.
This report is to seek Councillors support for amendment of the Hearing Committee
structure for the forthcoming One Plan Hearings (Water).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
2.
None.
BACKGROUND
3.
Issues related to the One Plan process were under consideration at the 28 April 2009
Council Meeting and subsequently taken up with the permanent Hearing Panel through
the scheduled Procedures Meeting on Tuesday 26 May 2009. These issues included
cost, timeframes, and setting Council expectations around One Plan delivery.
4.
In response, it is my view that significant steps have been taken both at the Council level
and with the Hearing Panel for the One Plan to improve processes which will benefit the
One Plan outcomes. These include, but are not limited to, delivery of provisional
determinations prior to the end of the financial year (on chapters already heard),
increased dialogue with staff as appropriate, and feedback in relation to efficiencies that
could be gained in the way the Hearing Panel operates.
5.
There is a substantial commitment required by Hearing Panel members in the
forthcoming Water Hearings. At the present time the Council has determined a Panel
size of seven members. Discussions with the permanent Hearing Committee Members
have highlighted potential concerns in relation to the efficiency of such a large Hearing
Committee, and the impact hearings of this scale may have on the operation of our
normal Council business with key Councillors availability for other commitments.
COMMENT
6.
Having spoken with the permanent members of the Hearing Committee, and those
Councillors affected by a reduction in the Hearing Committee size, I am proposing that
we reduce the Hearing Committee for the forthcoming Water Hearings to five members.
7.
This will include Ms Joan Allin (Chairperson), Mr Rob van Voorthuysen and Mr Che
Wilson (Independent Commissioners), Councillor Jill White (Deputy Chairperson), and
Councillor David Meads.
8.
It is my view that this Committee has the necessary mix of technical skills, independence,
and representation of community values to assist with comprehensive decisions in
relation to the One Plan Water matters.
9.
This proposal does not affect any other part of the One Plan process, decision writing or
delegations granted by Council.
124
10.
I wish to acknowledge the significant commitment made by Councillors Main and Guy to
this process to date.
RECOMMENDATIONS
11.
a.
reduces the Hearing Committee to five members with the representation as:
Ms Joan Allin (Chairperson), Mr Rob van Voorthuysen and Mr Che Wilson
(Independent Commissioners), Councillor Jill White (Deputy Chairperson), and
Councillor David Meads, and amend delegation 13 (c) of Report No. 09-61,
Item 14, dated 28 April 2009 (at Annex A) accordingly; and
c.
acknowledges that this decision will have efficiency benefits for the process and
that there is no other process amendments required as a consequence.
G Murfitt
CHAIRMAN
ANNEX
A
Recommendation 13 (c) - Report No. 09-61, Item No. 14, 28 April, 2009
125
ANNEX A TO ITEM 13
Report No. 09-94
RECOMMENDATION 13 (c) - REPORT NO. 09-61, ITEM NO. 14, 28 APRIL, 2009
RECOMMENDATIONS
13.
c.
supports and approves the representation on the Water Hearing Panel as
outlined below:
• Hearing Committee to be chaired by One Plan Hearing Committee Chair
– Joan Allin
• Deputy Chair – Jill White
• Independent Commissioners – Rob van Voorthuysen and Che Wilson
• Crs Main, Meads, and Guy
126
127
If Yes
within the LTCCP)
N
Item No: 14
Date: 30/06/2009
Report No: 09-95
File No: OIM 5 00
ELECTRONIC MEDIA CLIPPING SERVICE
PURPOSE
1.
This report is to inform members of a new electronic media clipping service replacing the
current ‘red book’ newspaper clipping service.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
2.
Funding has been budgeted for this activity for the next financial year. This external
budget will replace and undercut the current cost (in hours) of processing clippings
manually.
BACKGROUND
3.
The media clippings are used to monitor and respond to external news published about
Horizons. The clippings are also a tool to monitor the use of media releases that are
sent out from the Communications team.
4.
The current clipping services involves a Communications team member reading all
printed media, then cutting the stories out and photocopying them. The copies then get
pasted into the red archive book. This process is time consuming for staff, the clippings
are not electronically archived, and there is no efficient way to search by key word.
5.
The communications team have researched several options for electronic media
monitoring, resulting in Media Monitors being our choice for service. The company
monitors daily and weekly papers using keywords supplied by us.
COMMENT
6.
Through the new system the electronic clippings can be accessed two ways. The first
through a website portal where clippings can be viewed in list form, stating source, date,
and headline. Personalised delivery of the clippings can also be set up using a regular
email alert.
7.
The new system will allow communications team members, and Councillors to access
the relative Horizons Regional clippings on a regular basis. From there users can
choose to store them or print them. The communications team will publish the clippings
on the intranet for staff to view, and the clippings will also be archived through the
intranet.
8.
Each councillor will be emailed a log in and password to the portal and be given
instructions on how to use it.
9.
Examples of the media portal and how the clippings can be viewed are attached at
Annex A.
128
RECOMMENDATIONS
10.
a.
receives the information in Report No. 09-95 and Annex.
Colleen Atkinson
COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
ANNEX
A
Examples of media portal
129
ANNEX A TO ITEM 14
Report No. 09-95
EXAMPLES OF MEDIA PORTAL
Log in through the homepage
130
Clippings are separated by press and radio/tv.
131
Clippings are displayed in list form with date, source, and headline.
Users can choose to read the headline of the clipping click through to read the full clipping.
132
Clippings appear as scanned versions of the newspaper.
133
If Yes
Significance Policy and LGA
requirements?
No
Item No: 15
Date: 30/06/2009
Report No: 09-93
File No: OMS 5 00
AFFIXING OF THE COMMON SEAL
PURPOSE
1.
This paper reports on documents to which Horizons Regional Council’s Common Seal
has been affixed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
2.
There is no additional financial impact.
COMMENT
3.
The Common Seal has been affixed to the following documents:
a.
b.
Under Chief Executive’s Delegated Authority:
•
Deed of Assignment of Lease: Parewanui Farms Limited, Riverside
Agricultural Limited, Horizons Regional Council
•
Warrant Card: Cameron Burton
•
Warrant Card: Brent Fanning
•
Lease Agreement: Horizons Regional Council and Riverside Agricultural
Limited
•
Memorandum of Encumbrance: Geoffrey Sanson, Richard Sanson,
Coralie Sanson, and Valerie Brown
•
Deed of Settlement: Geoffrey Sanson, Richard Sanson, Coralie Sanson,
and Valerie Brown
Under Urgency:
Nil
c.
To be Approved:
Nil
RECOMMENDATION
4.
a.
acknowledges the affixing of the Common Seal to the abovementioned
documents.
C A Grant
GROUP MANAGER CORPORATE & GOVERNANCE SUPPORT
134