Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Monday 21 March 2016

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                  Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Andrea Cummings

Tim Baker

David East

Tim Sintes

Linda Stewart

Stan Tawa

Glenn Livingstone

 

 

14 March 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Croucher

Community Board Advisor

941 5305

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

Part A         Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies....................................................................................................... 4

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................ 4

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes.............................................................. 4

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment...................................................................... 4

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions.............................................................................. 4  

B       6.       Staff Briefings..................................................................................... 11

C       7.       Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Youth Development Fund 2015/16 - Papanui High School Girls - New Zealand Secondary Schools National Futsal Tournament............................................... 13

C       8.       Burwood Pegasus Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 New Brighton Project Inc.................................................... 17

A       9.       Names for Reserves Vested Through Subdivisions......................... 21

C       10.     Parkwood Place No Stopping Restrictions....................................... 31

C       11.     Golf Links Road Motorcycle Parking................................................ 37

C       12.     Bassett Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.......................... 43

B       13.     Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report......................... 49

B       14.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................... 58

B       15.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................... 58 

 

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

1.    Apologies

An apology has been received from David East. 

2.    Declarations of Interest

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

3.    Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting held on Monday, 7 March 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.    Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Anouk Minnaar and Paul McArdle will speak about the Bikes in Schools programme which is backed by the Bike On New Zealand Charitable Trust to enable children to ride a bike on a regular and equal basis within schools. 

 

4.2

Andy Kai Fong has recently commenced at Haeata/Aranui Community Campus as Founding Principal and will introduce himself to the Board and provide a brief update on the campus project.

 

5.    Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

 

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 7 March 2016

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                  Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Andrea Cummings

Tim Baker

David East

Tim Sintes

Stan Tawa

Glenn Livingstone

 

 

4 March 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Croucher

Community Board Advisor

941 5305

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 

Part A         Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

 

1.    Apologies

 

Part C

An apology was received from Linda Stewart. 

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00018

That the apology from Linda Stewart be accepted.

Member Livingstone/Member Tawa                                                                                         Carried

 

David East left the meeting at 4.31pm.

2.    Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.    Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00019

That the minutes of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting held on Monday, 15 February 2016 be confirmed.

Member Baker/Member Sintes                                                                                                 Carried

 

David East returned to the meeting at 4.32pm.

4.    Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1      Anglican Parish of East Christchurch

            Rev Katrina Hill, Transitional Priest in Charge and Elizabeth Hanley, Vestry Secretary of the Parish spoke to the Board on behalf of the Anglican Parish of East Christchurch which is interested in obtaining second-hand playground equipment from the red zone.  In particular they expressed an interest in the equipment from the Anzac Drive reserve. 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00020

Part B

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.            Requests that an expressions of interest process be established to gauge community interest in the surplus red zone play equipment. 

2.            Also requests (following on from the resolutions on 15 February 2016) that a process be established to assess which equipment is available for the community and the process by which equipment can be distributed to those community groups.

3.            Requests a report be provided at the soonest opportunity addressing the above.

4.            Thanks the Rev Katrina Hill and Elizabeth Hanley for their deputation.

Chairperson Cummings/Member Baker                                                                                  Carried

 

4.2      Christchurch School of Gymnastics

            Dr Michele Hawke and Dave Evans provided the Board with a general update on the Christchurch School of Gymnastics.  The possibility of the School relocating its current facility alongside the Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre was also discussed.  This was the School's preference and has already been raised with the Council.  The School undertook to inform the Board of progress with its business case and costing. 

Glenn Livingstone left the meeting at 5.17pm.

Meeting went into recess at 5.18pm.

Meeting resumed at 5.23pm.

Glenn Livingstone returned to the meeting at 5.23pm.

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00021

Part C

         That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.            Requests that Council advises the Board on:

·      Establishing deadlines for planning for the Christchurch School of Gymnastics to relocate its building adjoining the Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre.

·      Establishing the land parameters and responsibilities for remediation.

·      Establishing the necessary traffic planning that the Christchurch School of Gymnastics would need to provide.

·      Entering into discussion with respect to the future of the existing Christchurch School of Gymnastics buildings.

2.        Thanks Dr Michele Hawke and Dave Evans for their deputation.

Chairperson Cummings/Member Tawa                                                                                  Carried

 

5.    Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.    Correspondence

 

6.1    Speeding Traffic on Saltaire Street

   An item of correspondence was received from Margaret Templeton regarding speeding traffic on Saltaire Street.

   The Board had previously been advised by staff that a speed check of vehicles in the street and the current traffic calming measures did not, in their opinion, warrant any more traffic calming. 

 

 

Community Board Decided BPCB/2016/00022

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.            Receives the information in the correspondence report dated 07 March 2016.

2.            Requests that staff investigate and advise the cost of a speed hump or alternative traffic calming device at the Bower Avenue entrance to Saltaire Street.

Member East/Member Tawa                                                                                                      Carried

Member Baker wished to have his vote against this motion recorded.

 

7.    Burwood Pegasus Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 - Ihutai Trust South Brighton Domain Project

 

The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board considered an application for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund from the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust for the South New Brighton Park Restoration project.

 

 

 

Community Board Decided BPCB/2016/00023

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Approves the application for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund from the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust for $4,000.00 towards the South New Brighton Park Restoration project.

Member Baker/Chairperson Cummings                                                                                   Carried

 

8.    Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report

 

The Board received a report from the Community Governance team including information on Board activities, consultations, funding update and other matters of interest to the Board.

 

8.1   Suburban Parking Project Policy

            The Board was requested to provide feedback on the Suburban Parking Project Policy as follows:

·         Help in identifying issues on a local level

·         Support for the process and consideration of new ideas

·         Input and feedback on ideas and solutions

·         Identify who within its communities, staff should speak to.

            A presentation was tabled at the meeting.

            The Board identified parking at The Palms and around QEII Park as being issues, particularly once the Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre and the two relocated high schools are established.  Burwood-Pegasus staff undertook to provide this feedback to the Transport Team.

 

8.2 New Brighton Library Earthquake Repair Update

 

A memorandum providing an update on the New Brighton Library earthquake repairs was considered by the Board.  The Board expressed concern at the potentially lengthy closure of both the New Brighton Pier and the New Brighton Library should both projects be carried out at the same time.

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00024

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Requests an urgent briefing from the project managers for the New Brighton Pier and New Brighton Library repairs.

Chairperson Cummings/Member Baker                                                                                   Carried

 

8.3 Bridge Street Speed Limit

 

On 15 February 2016 the Board decided that in light of expressed local concern, it would like the current speed limit of 70kph across the Bridge Street Bridge reviewed, with a view to reducing this to 50kph. 

The Board considered a memorandum advising that:

            "Moving the 50/70kph speed limit of Bridge Street westward would not be an effective means of reducing speed as desired because the estuary section of Bridge Street clearly has a speed environment of 70kph not 50kph.

            In addition it would be inconsistent with the legislative requirements of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule.  Council must set speed limits in accordance with the Rule.  To do so would mean enforcement could not be relied upon due to advice from NZ Police that speeds set outside the Rule are contestable.

            Measures such as the creation of a feature speed limit threshold, and improving the conspicuousness of the activity associated with the walkway would more directly address the underlying issue and can be investigated further."

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00025

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

               1.      Requests staff to consider the creation of a feature speed limit threshold, other traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures at the Bridge Street 70kph change.

Chairperson Cummings/Member Baker                                                                                   Carried

           

8.4 Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee

            The Board was asked if they required a member of the community on this Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee.  The Board considered this was not necessary for 2016.

 

9.    Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

9.1      It was noted that the New Brighton Road red zone closure from Pratt Street to the New Brighton roundabout was marked as temporary.  The Board requested staff to provide clarification on plans for this section of New Brighton Road.

9.2      It was noted that visitor numbers to the New Brighton Pier have been consistently high over the last four Sundays, illustrating that the Sunday fishing ban was successful.

9.3      It was noted that the Central New Brighton School Pool was to be closed and demolished.  Staff undertook to request the Ministry of Education to communicate this to the local community. 

10. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under standing orders at this meeting.

 

 

Meeting concluded at 6.16pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 21st DAY OF MARCH 2016.

 

Andrea Cummings

Chairperson

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

6.       Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/271133

Contact:

Peter Croucher

Peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Update on role

Jenny Hughey

Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships Unit

 

Update on role

Andrew Rutledge

Head of Parks Unit

 

Aranui Wainoni Community Centre Update

Kent Summerfield

Senior Project Manager, Community Facilities

 

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

7.       Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Youth Development Fund 2015/16 - Papanui High School Girls Team - New Zealand Secondary Schools National Futsal Tournament

Reference:

16/240880

Contact:

Jacqui Miller

Jacqui.miller@ccc.govt.nz

941 5333

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to consider six applications for the Board's 2015/16 Youth Development Fund received from Papanui High School girls so they can attend the New Zealand Secondary Schools National Futsal Tournament.

1.2      There is currently $3,150.00 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3      This report is to assist the Community Board consider the applications for funding from six young people to attend the New Zealand Secondary Schools National Futsal Tournament in Wellington on the 5 and 6 April 2016.

2.   Significance

2.1      The decision(s) in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

2.1.2   Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Approves the transfer of $1,500 from the Board's Discretionary Funding to the 2015/16 Youth Development Fund.

2.        Approves a grant of $1,500 to the Papanui High School Girls Futsal Team towards the attendance of Nicola Jackson, Ella Jackson, Cody Taylor, Loren Baker, Katy de Their-Pinker and Lorraine Hayes at the New Zealand Secondary Schools Futsal Tournament to be held in Wellington on 5 and 6 April 2016.

 

 

4.   Key Points

This is the first year Papanui High School has sent a Girls team to the National Futsal Tournament.  Futsal is relatively new sport at Papanui High School and already the Boys team has experienced a large amount of success.  The school is sending 11 players, six from the Burwood/Pegasus area and five from the Shirley/Papanui area.  The team consists mostly of junior pupils, but they are playing extremely well and the school is hopeful of success in the tournament.  As well as being committed athletes these students are also role models for the school with many being involved in other sports to elite level, peer support, and leadership committees.  All of the girls involved are also in the School Football team and will be attending the South Island Secondary Schools tournament in August.  They all play club football, representative and other sports are itemised below.

 

4.1      Nicola Jackson is 16 years old and lives in Parklands.  She is also in a Mainland Football representative age group team.

4.2      Ella Jackson (sibling to Nicole) is 13 years old and lives in Parklands.  She is also in a Mainland Football representative age group team.

4.3      Cody Taylor is 15 years old and lives in Queenspark.  She is also in a Mainland Football - Federation Talent Centre (Talent ID) and representative age group team

4.4      Loren Baker is 17 years old and lives in Shirley.  She is also in the Canterbury Futsal Team, Club National Tournament and School Volleyball and Touch teams.

4.5      Katy de Their-Pinker is 13 years old and lives in North Brighton.  She is also in a Mainland Football - Federation Talent Centre (Talent ID) and representative age group team

4.6      Lorraine Hayes is 12 years old and lives in Shirley.  She is also in a Mainland Football representative age group team.

 

4.7      The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for the team to attend the Secondary Schools National Futsal Tournament:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

2,938.00

Accommodation

2,795.00

Food

650.00

Entry Fee

529.00

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$6,912.00

 

1.1.  This is the first time any of the applicants have applied for funding.

1.2.  Papanui High School provides many lucrative opportunities for students to fundraise and each year they raise approximately $80,000 for the whole school.  All students involved in Futsal have access to these fundraisers however the Year 9 students have not yet had the opportunity to be involved in these fundraisers (which are mostly in summer) so therefore they do not have adequate fundraising money in their school accounts.  Several of the other senior students are involved in so many activities that their fundraising may not be enough to assist them with the tournament costs.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a)  This report contains:

(i)   sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)  adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b)  The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Jacqui Miller

Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson

Mary Richardson

Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

8.       Burwood Pegasus Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 - New Brighton Project Inc

Reference:

16/187969

Contact:

Heather Davies

heather.davies@ccc.govt.nz

941 5314

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to consider an application for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

54413

New Brighton Project

Blanket Bank

$3,435

 

Origin of Report

1.2      This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from New Brighton Project.

2.   Significance

2.1      The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

2.1.2   Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Approves a grant of $2,392 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to New Brighton Project Inc towards the Blanket Bank Project.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1      At the time of writing, the balance of the Discretionary Response Fund is as detailed below.

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$131,222

$92,535

$38,687

$36,295

 

4.2      Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

4.3      The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

New Brighton Project, Blanket Bank Decision Matrix

19

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a)  This report contains:

(i)   sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)  adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b)  The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Heather Davies

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson

Mary Richardson

Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

9.       Names for Reserves Vested Through Subdivisions

Reference:

16/55972

Contact:

Russel Wedge

Russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

941-8270

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to:

a)        Recommend to Council to approve the proposed reserve names as listed in Attachment One, and

b)        Recommend to Council to approve the proposed classification of the reserves as per the Reserves Act 1977, s16(2A) specified in Attachment One.

1.2      The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities outlines the procedure for the naming of reserves, which is for the proposed reserve names to be referred to the Community Board in the first instance and then to the Council for adoption.

1.3      Under section 16(2A), Reserves Act 1977 any land vested with the Council can declare that land to be a reserve providing it has been given a classification through Council resolution

Origin of Report

1.4      This report has been generated by Council staff to ensure the naming and classification of reserves follows the Council Policy Register.

2.   Significance

2.1      The decision(s) in this report is low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by Russel Wedge, the author based on the suggested thresholds for assessing criteria.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Recommends to Council to approve the proposed reserve names as specified in Attachment one.

2.        Recommends to Council to approve the proposed classification of the reserves as per Reserves Act 1977 s16(2A) specified in Attachment One.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1      This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·      Level of Service: 6.0.1 Neighbourhood Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean,  tidy, safe and functional

4.2      The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 - Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications are Recommended to Council (preferred)

·      Option 2 - The Reserves Are Not Named or Classified

4.3      Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·      The reserve has an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the reserve

·      The reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park id and added to a maintenance contract

·      The classification of the reserve confirms the vested purpose and use of the reserve as per the Reserves Act 1977.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·      There are no disadvantages.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1      A number of new reserves have been vested in the Christchurch City Council as part of subdivision developments in the Burwood/Pegasus Ward. The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities states that all reserves vested in or under the control of the Council shall be given an appropriate name. New reserves are required to be allocated a name before they can be entered into the Council's maintenance contracts.

5.2      Under the Reserves Act 1977, Section 16 (2A) any land that has been vested with the Council can declare that land to be a reserve providing it has been given a classification through Council resolution. The classification of the reserve will provide the basis as to how the reserve should be managed and administered e.g. a recreation reserve compared to a drainage reserve (refer Attachment One).


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications are Recommended to Council (preferred)

Option Description

6.1      The proposed names are for reserves that have been vested with the Council at the time of the development of the subdivision. The classification of the reserve through Council resolution complies with the Reserves Act for providing the basis of how the reserve is managed and administered.

Significance

6.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate.

Impact on Māori

6.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions. Manawhenua were consulted on the proposed reserves names and the recommended names have been incorporated in Attachment One.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4      The reserve land has been vested in the Council at the time of the development of the subdivision. The naming of the reserves usually commences before the land titles have been issued both for the proposed reserve and any adjoining prospective residential land owners, which has meant it has not been possible to consult with adjoining residents, neighbourhood or residential groups.

6.5      The location, landscaped plans and often the subdivision's reserve name (proposed by the developer) are available to any prospective property buyers in the subdivision.

6.6      The naming of reserves in subdivisions follows a similar process to the Community Board consideration of appropriating names for public roads within the subdivision.

6.7      This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8      This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.8.1   Cost of Implementation - There are no direct financial implications associated with the allocation of reserve names or the classification of a reserve, which are administrative processes undertaken as an operational expense.

6.8.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There is a requirement for reserves to be named before they can be entered into SAP and allocated to a maintenance contract.

6.8.3   Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

6.9      There are no negative legal implications to the naming and classification of the Council land as a reserve. The land has already been vested under the Reserves Act 1977 as a reserve. The classification of the land endorses the purpose the land was acquired as per s16(2A) Reserves Act 1977. The naming of the reserve complies with The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    There are minimal, if any risks.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - no known dependencies.

6.12    Implementation timeframe - approximately a month after the names have been approved by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The reserve has an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the reserve

·   The reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park id and added to a maintenance contract

·   The classification of the reserve confirms the vested purpose and use of the reserve as per the Reserves Act 1977.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no disadvantages.

7.   Option 2 - The Reserves Are Not Named or Classified

Option Description

7.1      The Community Board may determine they will not name the parks or approve the classification of the reserves.

Significance

7.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate.

Impact on Māori

7.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4      The community are specifically affected by this option as there would be no maintenance of the parks carried out under the negotiated contract rates. Maintenance of the parks would be at a high financial cost to the community and ratepayers. The parks would not be able to be entered in the Council SAP system and could therefore not be given a park id or entered into the parks maintenance contract.

7.5      Their views are for the parks to be maintained and at a reasonable financial rate.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6      This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

7.6.1   Inconsistency - the Council's Level of Service is to maintain the Council parks to the specified standard.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - the parks would not be able to be entered into SAP and could not therefore be added to the parks maintenance contract.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary - to name the parks to enable them to be entered into SAP, given a park id and added to the parks maintenance contract.

Financial Implications

7.7      Cost of Implementation - If the reserves cannot be maintained under the parks maintenance contact the Council is charged a much higher rate for them to be maintained as a one-off activity.

7.8      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - the Council is charged a much higher rate to maintain reserves if they are not included in the Council's negotiated parks maintenance contracts.

7.9      Funding source - parks operational budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    The Council is obliged to maintain the Council reserves as per the Levels of Service, notified to the public through the Long Term Plan (LTP) process as required by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    To not name the reserves is high risk as the reserves cannot be maintained under the parks maintenance contracts and if they are not maintained to the specified Levels of Service, there could be a conflict with the Councils LTP and the LGA.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - no known dependences.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable if reserves names not approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages for not naming the reserves.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The reserves cannot be entered into SAP, provided with a park id

·   The reserves cannot be added to the parks maintenance contract

·   The maintenance of the reserves would be charged at a higher rate

·   If the reserves are not maintained they would not comply with the Levels of Service, LTP or LGA

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment One Proposed Reserve Classifications and Names

27

b  

Attachment Two Reserve Locations for Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications

28

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a)  This report contains:

(i)   sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)  adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b)  The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Russel Wedge

Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge

Mary Richardson

Head of Parks

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

10.    Parkwood Place No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/61512

Contact:

Luke Morley

N/A

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the changes to the 'No Stopping' restrictions in Parkwood Place. (Refer Attachment A)

Origin of Report

1.2      This report is staff generated after a request from a resident of Parkwood Place.

2.   Significance

2.1      The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Revokes all existing parking restrictions on the south east side of Parkwood Place commencing at its intersection with Queenspark Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 54 metres.

2.        Revokes all existing parking restrictions on the north west side of Parkwood Place commencing at its intersection with Queenspark Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

3.        Resolves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Parkwood Place commencing at its intersection with Queenspark Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

4.        Resolves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north west side of Parkwood Place commencing at its intersection with Queenspark Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1      This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·      Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2      The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 - Install 'No Stopping' restrictions as proposed in this report (preferred option)

·      Option 2 - Reinstall the previous 'No Stopping' restrictions resolved in 2007

4.3      Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·      Allows for more parking spaces for visitors to Parkwood Place residents

·      Still allows for vehicles to manoeuvre at the intersection area without parked cars obstructing them.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·      No known disadvantages

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1      Parkwood Place is a cul-de-sac located along Queenspark Drive close to the Parklands Shopping Centre.

5.2      A previous report to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board on 2nd May 2007 proposed 'No Stopping' lines be installed on Parkwood Place in response to safety and visibility problems when entering and exiting Parkwood Place caused by the presence of vehicles parked both sides of the cul-de-sac.

5.3      This report was resolved by the Community Board and the 'No Stopping' restrictions were installed.  This placed 'No Stopping' restrictions only around the intersection on the north western side of Parkwood Place whereas the south eastern side had 'No Stopping' restrictions for its full length (54 metres).

Site Information

5.4      In December 2015 a resident of Parkwood Place contacted council to see if the 'No Stopping' restrictions could be altered, as they believed the original parking problem (caused by site workers parking there during the construction of Parklands Shopping Centre) had ceased to be an issue.

5.5      Parkwood Place had also been resealed in December 2015 and the 'No Stopping' restrictions had been reinstated only around the intersection area (in error) by the contractor.  This has effectively acted as a trial for the residents to see how the cul-de-sac works with shortened 'No Stopping' restrictions.

5.6      After receiving a well-supported petition from many of the residents within the cul-de-sac, staff formally consulted on the proposals and confirmed there was majority support for changes to the 'No Stopping' restrictions.


 

6.   Option 1 - Alterations to 'No Stopping' restrictions on Parkwood Place (preferred)

Option Description

6.1      Reduce the length of 'No Stopping' restrictions. (Refer Attachment A)

Significance

6.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level.

Impact on Māori

6.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4      The residents of Parkwood Place are specifically affected by this option.  There are 14 properties within the cul-de-sac and support was received by 10 of them, with no replies from the remaining 4.  This shows over a 70% majority approval for the alterations.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5      This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.5.1   Cost of Implementation - $100

6.5.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal.

6.5.3   Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

6.6      Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.7      Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations dated May 2015.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.8      The installation of any parking restriction signs and/ or markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.9      Not Applicable

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

6.11    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks from the date the Area Contractor receives the order.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    This is the preferred option as it optimises the available parking space for residents and visitors to Parkwood Place whilst also keeping the intersection area free of parked cars, in addition this is supported by residents of the cul-de-sac.  There are no known disadvantages.

7.   Option 2 - Reinstall previous 'No Stopping' restrictions resolved in 2007

Option Description

7.1      Reinstall the previous 'No Stopping' restrictions restricting parking completely on one side of the cul-de-sac.

Significance

7.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent.

Impact on Māori

7.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4      The majority of Parkwood Place residents would oppose the 'No Stopping' restrictions to be reinstated to the original extents.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5      This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it is not responding to the community request.

Financial Implications

7.6      Cost of Implementation - $150

7.7      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal.

7.8      Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

7.9      Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

7.10    Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations dated May 2015.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions and traffic control devices.

7.11    The installation of any parking restriction signs and/ or markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    Not Applicable

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

7.14    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks from the date the Area Contractor receives the order.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    This is not the preferred option because it does not address the request from the community which is easy to implement.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

16/96701 Parkwood Place Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

36

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a)  This report contains:

(i)   sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)  adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b)  The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Luke Morley

Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Steffan Thomas

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

11.    Golf Links Road Motorcycle Parking

Reference:

16/110736

Contact:

Luke Morley

N/A

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the proposed installation of motorcycle parking on the east side of Golf Links Road (Refer Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2      This report is staff generated after a request from the Operations Manager at The Palms Shopping Centre.

2.   Significance

2.1      The decision(s) in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing the factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Revokes all the existing parking restrictions and stopping restrictions on the east side of Golf Links Road commencing at a point 127 metres north of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

2.        Resolves that a 'Motorcycle Park' be installed on the east side of Golf Links Road commencing at a point 127 metres north of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1      This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·      Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2      The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 - Install motorcycle parking as proposed in this report (preferred option)

·      Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3      Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·      Creates a dedicated space for motorcycles to park

·      Makes best use of a space that isn't long enough for two vehicles to park

·      Will reduce visibility issues residents/visitors of Windsor Care Home experience when exiting driveway.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·      No disadvantages

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1      Golf Links Road is a local road that is located at the rear of The Palms Shopping Centre.  It extends north from New Brighton Road to Joy Street.

5.2      Existing parking restrictions are in operation on its western side include P60, P10 and P5 and a Loading Zone.  The eastern side doesn't have any parking restrictions and as a result is well utilised by residents and Mall workers for all day parking.

Site Information

5.3      In January 2016 a request from the operations manager at The Palms Shopping Centre was received to consider the changing of a car park located on the eastern side of Golf Links Place into a dedicated motorcycle park.

5.4      The car parking space is located adjacent to the Windsor Care Home between their main driveway and the driveway entrance to four garages.

5.5      The existing space is marked at 7.9m with "L" markings denoting the limits of the space.  This space is not always long enough to cater for two vehicles if they are parked away from the markings as is demonstrated in the following picture.

Parking over driveway of Windsor Care Home.

5.6      According to the NZTA Traffic Control Devices Manual a parallel parking space should be marked at a minimum 5.4m per vehicle.  Therefore the minimum kerbside space for two vehicles should be 10.8m in length.

5.7      This parking space is not the recommended length to accommodate two vehicles but is often used for this purpose.

5.8      There is no dedicated motorcycle parking along Golf Links Road and as such motorcyclists will park in a standard parking spaces.

5.9      It is proposed to mark a dedicated motorcycle parking space of 6m between the two Windsor Care Home driveways. This shorter length has been requested from the Care Home General Manager as he noted his older residents and visitors often experienced difficulties viewing oncoming traffic from the right when exiting the main driveway.  The combination of it being changed into motorcycle parking and being further away from the driveway should help with visibility.

6.   Option 1 - Install Motorcycle Parking (preferred)

Option Description

6.1      Install dedicated motorcycle parking between the two driveways of Windsor Care Home on the eastern side of Golf Links Road as shown on Attachment A.

Significance

6.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4      The Windsor Care Home are specifically affected by this option.  Consultation has been carried out with the General Manager and he is in support of the proposals.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5      This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.6      Cost of Implementation - $1000 Approx

6.7      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal.

6.8      Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

6.9      Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.10    Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations dated May 2015.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.11    The installation of any parking restriction signs and/ or markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not Applicable

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

6.14    Implementation timeframe - approximately four weeks from the date the Area Contractor receives the order.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    This is the preferred option as it optimises the available parking space (which is currently causing visibility issues and driveway blocking to adjacent owner) for use by around 6 motorcycles.  There are no known disadvantages.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1      Make no changes.  Do Nothing

Significance

7.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4      The request from the Operations Manager at the Mall and the concerns regarding visibility for exiting vehicles of Windsor Care Home haven't been addressed.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5      This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it is not optimising parking performance.

Financial Implications

7.6      Cost of Implementation - Not applicable

7.7      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable

7.8      Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9      Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    This is not the preferred option because it doesn't address the request from the Mall or the concerns from the Windsor Care Home general manager.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Golf Links Road Proposed Motorcyle Parking (TRIM 16/210129)

42

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a)  This report contains:

(i)   sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)  adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b)  The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Luke Morley

Steve Parry

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Steffan Thomas

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Operations Manager

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

12.    Bassett Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/192523

Contact:

Luke Morley

N/A

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on Bassett Street as shown on (Refer Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2      This report is staff generated in response to the SCIRT Project - Burwood West, Bassett Street. Pump Station 139.

2.   Significance

2.1      The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the magnitude of the problem and the number of properties affected by the preferred option.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Approves that any parking or stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Bassett Street commencing at a point 186 metres north of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 60 metres be revoked.

2.        Approves that any parking or stopping restrictions on the western side of Bassett Street commencing at a point 155 metres north of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 27 metres be revoked.

3.        Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Bassett Street commencing at a point 186 metres north of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 60 metres.

4.        Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Bassett Street commencing at a point 155 metres north of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1      This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan  (2015 - 2015)

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

·      Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2      The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

·      Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3      Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·      Reduces the risk of a crash by allowing sufficient road space for all road users.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Removes car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1      As part of SCIRT's programme to repair the earthquake damaged wastewater system in Burwood, an underground pump station (139) was installed outside house number 19 & 21 Bassett Street.  The installation of the pump station was located on a build out extending from the western kerb line which caused the road to be narrowed around this area. 

5.2      The effect of this build out caused a reduced road width along Bassett Street.  The contractor managed the site and restricted parking by use of cones.

5.3      It is now recommended  'No Stopping' restrictions on Bassett Street are installed to prevent parking on both sides of the street adjacent to the pump station so as the safety of all road users is not compromised.

 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

Install No Stopping restrictions adjacent to the new pump station on Bassett Street.Significance

6.2      The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4      Affected property owners and residents were advised of the necessary No Stopping restrictions by the SCIRT contractors' consultation team.

6.5      The directly affected residents understood the reasoning for the proposals and didn't voice any objections.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6      This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

6.7      Cost of Implementation - $100.

6.8      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the area maintenance contract and effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.9      Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.10    Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.11    The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.12    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.15    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by allowing sufficient road space for all road users..

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1      Kerbside parking allowed at and opposite pump station buildout.

Significance

7.2      The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3      This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4      Not Applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5      This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6      Cost of Implementation - Not Applicable

7.7      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not Applicable

7.8      Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9      Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the reduced road width therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Bassett Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (TRIM 16/210258)

47

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a)  This report contains:

(i)   sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)  adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b)  The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Luke Morley

Mike Thomson

Steve Parry

Traffic Engineer

Transport Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Steffan Thomas

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Operations Manager

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

13.    Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/266178

Contact:

Peter Croucher

Peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1      Sensory Garden

On 7 March 2016 the Board received an informal presentation from Kelly Dugan of SmileDial New Zealand on his proposal to establish a sensory garden in the Rawhiti Domain adjacent to the community garden.  In order for staff to progress this request the Board is asked to consider the following recommendation:

            That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board supports in principle the proposal by SmileDial to establish a sensory garden adjacent to the community garden in the Rawhiti Domain.

2.   Consultation Calendar

2.1      Proposed Land Sale - Section of QEII Park

The Council is consulting the community about a proposal to sell approximately 11.5 hectares of land in the southeast corner of Queen Elizabeth II Park to the Ministry of Education, for use as the site for the rebuild and relocation of Shirley Boys' and Avonside Girls' High Schools. 

Public consultation runs from Wednesday 2 March to midnight on Sunday 3 April 2016.

3.   New Funding Criteria Sheets

3.1      Please find attached new criteria for Strengthening Communities Fund, Small Grants Fund and Discretionary Response Fund.  Also attached are the Council's Funding Outcomes and Priorities.

 

4.   Staff Recommendation

 

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.        Receives the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Criteria - Strengthening Communities Fund

50

b  

Criteria - Small Grants Fund

52

c  

Criteria - Discretionary Response Fund

54

d  

CCC Funding Outcomes and Priorities

56

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Croucher

Community Board Advisor

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

21 March 2016

 

 

14.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

This item provides an opportunity for Board Members to update each other on recent events and/or issues of relevance and interest to the Board.

 

 

 

15.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

Any member of the local authority may at any meeting of the local authority at the appointed time, put a question to the Chairperson, or through the Chairperson of the local authority to the Chairperson of any standing or special committee, or to any officer of the local authority concerning any matter relevant to the role or functions of the local authority concerning any matter that does not appear on the agenda, nor arises from any committee report or recommendation submitted to that meeting.

 

Wherever applicable, such questions shall be in writing and handed to the Chairperson prior to the commencement of the meeting at which they are to be asked.