11 May 2021

Adam Parkinson

fyi-request-15279-a025f641@requests.fyi.org.nz

Kia ora Adam,

The information you requested - CAS-352374-R7K7D3

Thank you for your request for information dated 25th April 2021 regarding Fort Street, City Centre Paver replacement policy.

Our relevant business unit has provided the following responses to your questions in the order that they were asked.

What the policy is on replacing the original pavers with asphalt?

Replacing broken paving stones with asphalt infill is an effective maintenance strategy used when the broken pavers pose a hazard to pedestrians. This strategy efficiently removes the hazards and returns the area back to pedestrian use with little disruption. The vehicle crossing paving areas of the private carpark have been repaired at least twice since the Fort St Shared Space project was completed. The vehicle crossing paving design is not sufficient for high frequency & loading of traffic.

Is the asphalt solution permanent or a temporary measure until a more wide-scale fix occurs?

Where asphalt infill has been used in lieu of new pavers, this is temporary. AT is investigating an alternative vehicle crossing design at the high frequency vehicle crossing areas. AT will inspect the areas and make further temporary repairs as necessary.

Who made this policy decision?

No policy decision has been made. The asphalt infill treatment is a maintenance strategy carried out by AT to remove hazards from the pedestrian area until which time permanent repairs can be made. Permanent repairs will require the vehicle crossing to be closed to traffic during construction, and for some time afterwards to allow the new repairs (proposed treatment to be confirmed) to cure sufficiently to withstand traffic loading.

Given that this is a Council targeted rate project, was any group in Council such as the Development Program Office (who administer the CCTR programme) involved , advised or consulted on this policy?

AT is responsible for hard asset maintenance of the CCTR funded projects. As above, the repairs are a maintenance strategy (not policy), until which time a new vehicle crossing design can be developed. Any proposed change to the current deficient vehicle crossing design will be discussed with stakeholders prior to implementation.

Should you believe that we have not responded appropriately to your request, you are able to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman in accordance with section 27(3) of the LGOIMA Act, and seek an investigation and review in regard to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Alan Wallace

Portfolio Delivery Director (AM＆R)