Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 3 March 2016

Time:                                    1.00pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Andrew Turner

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

26 February 2016

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

Communities, Housing and Economic Development - Terms of Reference

Chair

Cr Turner

Membership

Cr Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Cr Chen, Cr Gough, Cr Jones, Cr Lonsdale, Cr Johanson, Deputy Mayor Buck, Cr Scandrett

Quorum

Half of the members if the member numbers (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

The first Thursday of each calendar month except for January

Reports to:

Council

 

Delegations

Heritage Incentive Grant:

The power to approve individual heritage grants to owners of heritage buildings, places or objects listed in the City Plan or the Banks Peninsula District Plan from $15,000 to $100,000 and in accordance with the Council’s heritage grant policies, provided that:

·         Applications for such grants in excess of $100,000, shall be considered by the Committee, but referred with a recommendation by the Committee to the Council for final Approval.

·         The Communities Committee is to report to the Council twice a year, listing heritage grants which have been approved by the Committee pursuant to its delegated powers within the preceding six months.

Creative Industries Support Fund

That any applications that are unsuccessful under the delegation to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager (page 81 refers), and on the request of the applicant, have the ability to be put in front of the Committee with the Chairperson’s approval.

The power to approve grants from these funds exceeding $15,000 (ex GST)

The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee is to report to the Council through the regular Central City Plan Quarterly Report any projects funded under this delegation.

Transitional City Projects Fund

That any applications that are unsuccessful under the delegation to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager (page 81 refers), and on the request of the applicant, have the ability to be put in front of the Committee with the Chairperson’s approval.

The power to approve grants from these funds exceeding $15,000 (ex GST)

The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee is to report to the Council through the regular Central City Plan Quarterly Report any projects funded under this delegation

            

Responsibilities

·         Developing policy and strategy in relations to long term plan and other activities as listed above.

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities.

·         Considering recommendations from Council's Subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and providers in relations to communities, housing and economic development planning, delivery and operation.

·         Liaise and engage with other organisations/stakeholders.

·         Making decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76-81 of the Local Government Act 2002 where it has the delegated authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required.

 

Long Term Plan Activities

·         Arts and culture, including:

-       art gallery

-       museums

-       libraries

·         sport and recreations, including leisure facilities

·         economic development, including:

-       city promotions

-       large-scale festivals and events

-       international relations (including sister cities and the Antarctic office)

-       tourism

-       employment (including Mayor Taskforce for Jobs)

-       Christchurch economic development, coordination and leadership

-       Education and skills

-       Venue management

·         Social cohesion

-       Public participation in democratic process (including liaison with Community Boards)

-       Community development and community grants, including:

-       Community facilities

-       Community events and festivals

·         Civil defence and rural fire management

·         Customer services

·         Housing, including:

-       social housing (including rental)

-       housing policy

-       temporary housing

-       tenancy service

-       homelessness

-       inner city housing

·         Heritage protection and policy.

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 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.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

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

A       6.       Landmark Grant for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington................................... 21

A       7.       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Approval for 176 Oxford Terrace................ 35

A       8.       Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016................ 47

A       9.       Glyphosate herbicide use.............................................................................................. 81

C       10.     Strengthening Communities Funding Schemes........................................................ 103

B       11.     Housing Operations Monthly Report for December 2015, January 2016............... 127

B       12.     Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme Monthly Report for January 2016 135

B       13.     Community Facilities Rebuild Update February 2016.............................................. 165

B       14.     Anchor Projects and Major Facilities CHED Report.................................................. 207   

 

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

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 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 4 February 2016 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Danny and Mim Syme will speak regarding Circotica Circus School.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

 

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 4 February 2016

Time:                                    1.00pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Andrew Turner

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

3 February 2016

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Councillor Jones declared an interest in Item 11.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00001

That the minutes of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 3 December 2015 be confirmed.

Councillor Jones/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                            Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1

1.         Anne Cunningham and Jessica Halliday will speak on behalf of Te Pūtahi, Christchurch Centre for Architecture and City-making regarding the Art + Architecture Project.

 

             That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee thanked Anne Cunningham and Jessica Halliday for their presentation.

 

2.         Camia Young will speak on behalf of Exchange Christchurch Trust on the Creative Industries Support Fund application.

 

             That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee thanked Camia Young for her presentation.

 

3.         Charles Drace will speak on behalf of Its Our Future Christchurch [TPPA].  The deputation tabled a Petition, Clause 5 refers.

 

 

 

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00002

Part A

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommends to Council that:

1.         The Council hold a public information workshop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership at which key experts will present the facts.

2.         After the workshop the Council decide what statement it would want to make regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership including whether the Council wants to oppose it, in what way and consider whether it wants to declare Christchurch City Council territorial area a Trans-Pacific Partnership free zone.

3.         After the workshop the Council consider encouraging further debate and public awareness of this matter.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                               Carried unanimously

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

 

Its Our Future Christchurch presented a petition with 1833 signatures, the prayer of which read:

 

"We, the undersigned, request that: 1. Christchurch City Council declare Christchurch a 'TPP Free Zone'.  2 We wish to preserve New Zealand sovereignty; government transparency; local business; clean rivers; buy NZ made; affordable healthcare and a fair future for all.  3. We withhold our support of this treaty until the full text and supporting documents are released for public consideration and analysis."

 

The Committee received the Petition.

 

6.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Extraordinary Meeting 22 September 2015

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Confirm the Extraordinary Meeting minutes of its meeting held on 22 September 2015.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00003

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Confirm the Extraordinary Meeting minutes of its meeting held on 22 September 2015.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

7.   Future Alignment of Tourism, Events and Economic Development (TEED) Activities

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council :

1.         Receive the information.

2.         Agree in principle to the formation of a TEED entity incorporating the economic development, major and regional events, and tourism activities of Christchurch City Council subject to consultation with staff.

3.         Agree to consultation with staff being commenced and led by the CEO or her delegate.

4.         Agree in principle to the transfer of functions and associated funding.

5.         Note the proposed transition process and timelines for the formation of the new TEED entity as outlined in Appendix A.

6.         Note that the transfer of the Canterbury & Christchurch Tourism shares held by Destination Christchurch Canterbury New Zealand Trust (DCCNZT) to Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Limited is to continue as planned.

7.         Authorise the Chief Executive to negotiate the terms of the documentation and any other matters required to implement the formation of the TEED entity as outlined in this document and to allocate resource to lead the transition process on behalf of Council.

8.         Note that the Council will continue to manage Major and Regional Events, City Promotions and the establishment of the Antarctic Office until the Chief Executive of the new TEED entity is in post.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00004

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the report on Future Alignment of Tourism, Events and Economic Development (TEED) Activities be adjourned to enable further information to come to and be considered by the Committee, and that a workshop of all Councillors be held prior to consideration of this matter by the Committee.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                              Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

8.   Council Support to Smokefree Canterbury in the Development of Voluntary Smokefree Outdoor Dining Trial 2016

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Recommends the Council resolve to support Smokefree Canterbury's  'Voluntary Smokefree Outdoor Dining Trial 2016' by providing:

·    Economic data on the hospitality sector within Christchurch, by eleven suburban areas from 2011 to 2015

·    Survey methodology advice and analysis of findings

·    The contact details of café /restaurant owners with outdoor dining lease agreements with the Council.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00005

Part A

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Recommends the Council resolve to support Smokefree Canterbury's  'Voluntary Smokefree Outdoor Dining Trial 2016' by providing:

·    Economic data on the hospitality sector within Christchurch, by eleven suburban areas from 2011 to 2015

·    Survey methodology advice and analysis of findings

                       ·    The contact details of café /restaurant owners with outdoor dining lease

                                      agreements with the Council.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                               Carried

 

9.   Creative Industries Support Fund Final Recommendations Panel 2 2016

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee approve the following grants from the Creative Industries Support Fund :

1.         $48,975 to Te Pūtahi, Christchurch Centre for Architecture and City Making to contribute to operational costs. 

2.         $91,500 to Exchange Christchurch Trust to contribute to operational costs and capital items.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00006

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee approve the following grant from the Creative Industries Support Fund :

1.              $48,975 to Te Pūtahi, Christchurch Centre for Architecture and City Making to contribute to operational costs. 

 

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                         Carried

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00007

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee approve the following grant from the Creative Industries Support Fund :

2.         $91,500 to Exchange Christchurch Trust to contribute to operational costs and capital items.

 

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                         Carried

 

10. Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report February 2016

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

3.1          Receive the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant summary report for the                      period 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00008

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

3.1          Receive the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant summary report for the                      period 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

11. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval, 88A Clyde Road, Ilam

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive of up to $76,216 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 88A Clyde Road, Ilam.

2.         That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a full conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00009

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive of up to $76,216 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 88A Clyde Road, Ilam.

2.         That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a full conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                               Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

12. Approval of an extension of time for a heritage Incentive Grant for 25 Armagh Street

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve an extension of time of one year for the uptake of the heritage incentive grant previously approved for 25 Armagh Street, Christchurch. The new completion date for the project would be 2 March 2017.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00010

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve an extension of time of one year for the uptake of the heritage incentive grant previously approved for 25 Armagh Street, Christchurch. The new completion date for the project would be 2 March 2017.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                               Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

13. Approval of Additional Heritage Incentive Grant Funding for work at 6 Godley Quay, Lyttelton

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $27,013 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 6 Godley Quay, Lyttelton.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00011

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $27,013 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 6 Godley Quay, Lyttelton.

 

Councillor Jones/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

14. Chairman's Report of the Multicultural Working Party

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Adopt the Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Working Party.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00012

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Adopt the Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Working Party guided by the specific Terms of Reference listed as follows:

·           Develop a Multicultural Strategy (or Policy) for Christchurch City

·           Engage multicultural communities in consultation and decision-making

·           Christchurch Multicultural Council encouraged to increase its profile, diversity representation and presence

·           Partnering with Mana Whenua representatives in recognition of Treaty responsibilities

·           Increased access to and use of translated resources

·           Present a stronger presence at key cultural events

·           Highlighting the cultural diversity of the city

·           Establish a Mayoral working party and re-establish the Intercultural Assembly

·           Utilise key employer networks to disseminate service advice to our growing cultural populations.

 

Councillor Chen/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

Councillors Gough and Chen left the meeting at 3.18pm.

21  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00013

Part C

That at 3.18pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 310 to 311 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.50pm.

15. Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme Monthly Report for November - December 2015

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

a.         Receive the information supplied.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00014

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

a.         Receive the information supplied.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

16. Housing Operations Monthly Report for November 2015

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information reported.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00015

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information reported.

 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                        Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

17. Annual Retail Report

 

Committee Comment

The Committee agreed this report should be provided by staff each year.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Annual Retail report.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00016

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Annual Retail report.

 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Turner                                                                                                              Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

18. Community Facilities Rebuild Update January 2015

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00017

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

19. Major Facilities Rebuild Unit CHED Report

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00018

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C     

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                          Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

Cr Jones left the meeting at 5.00pm

 

20. Anchor Projects CHED Report 3 December 2015

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Request a briefing to Council regarding Lancaster Park as soon as possible after 24 February 2016.

3.         The Committee request a briefing in March 2016 to Councillors from CERA/CCDU on the proposed Stadium planning and current status and use of land.

 

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00019

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Request a briefing to Council regarding Lancaster Park as soon as possible after 24 February 2016.

3.         Request a briefing in March 2016 to Councillors from CERA/CCDU on the proposed Stadium planning and current status and use of land.

 

 

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

There were no Part A recommendations to Council from this report.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 5.20pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016.

 

Councillor Andrew Turner

Chairperson

   


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

6         Landmark Grant for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington

Reference:

15/1447585

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage buildings at 14 Wise Street, collectively known as Woods Mill.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request for additional Council financial support through the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme.

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.

The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the Long Term Plan.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommend:

1.         That the Council approve a Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $1,100,000 for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, subject to the completion of the agreed scope of works and the owners entering into a full conservation covenant with the Council to cover the heritage buildings and the heritage setting.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.10 All Central City Landmark Heritage Fund grants meet the policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $1,100,000 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $600,000

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a Highly Significant heritage building;

·   It promotes residential development in close proximity to the Central City in accordance with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS). A relatively high density residential scheme would be suitable in this location close to the large open space of Hagley Park.

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed residential, commercial and possibly retail use.

·   It supports the additional cost of alternative engineering solutions to upgrade the building in a manner which retains the maximum possible heritage fabric and values.

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the open space in front of the building from future development to protect the open space setting and landmark value of the buildings.

4.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a large grant to a single project when considered alongside the existing approved Council funding via the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme;

·   The Woods Mill buildings are to the west of Hagley Park and thus the scheme will lead to a small amount of commercial development outside of the traditional area regarded as the commercial centre of Christchurch.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The heritage buildings at 14 Wise Street consist of the four storey mill building and the two storey grain store. They are listed in the Christchurch City Plan, Group 2 and as Highly Significant in the proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan. The buildings are registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) as Category II (register number 7339).

5.2       The original four storey, six bay mill building was designed by the Architect J.C. Maddison for Wood Brothers and opened circa 1886. An accompanying grain store was built at the same time. The mill building was enlarged approximately ten years later with the addition of a further two bays at the southern end and then again with an extension to the east side built in 1923. The two additional bays were constructed in a very similar design to the other bays, with only minor differences in architectural detail, while the later eastern extension was built in a more simplified style. The whole mill building has a relatively simple form and plan with decorated facades composed of brick and stone. Internally the structure is substantial timber posts and beams with timber floors. Originally there was a single ridge roof connecting two brick gables with parapets but a rooftop extension now disrupts this roof form. A further low quality extension was added to the north end of the mill building in the 1960s which linked it more substantially to the grain store.

5.3       The two storey grain store building was built adjacent to the mill and alongside a spur of the railway line. The grain store is a relatively solid brick building with an internal structure of timber posts and beams. The western end had been converted into a theatre for the ‘Riccarton Players’ prior to the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes and this part sits on a separate certificate of title.

5.4       The remaining mill and grain store buildings are two extremely rare surviving examples of very large scale early industrial buildings in Canterbury. The buildings are of exceptionally high architectural quality with fine brick and stone facades, a beautifully simple but massive timber post and beam structure, and native timber windows, floors and roof trusses. The buildings have a refined design with distinct architectural proportions and a strong geometric order.

5.5       Both the grain store and the mill building are very resilient structures with massive brick walls and very sizeable timber structural members designed to take huge loads. The mill building was also designed to withstand substantial vibration from the milling process and these two factors seem to have enabled them to survive the series of earthquakes without irreparable damage, unlike many other heritage buildings. A number of other structures from the flour milling complex have now been demolished as a result of earthquake damage including the 1923 eastern extension to the mill. 

5.6       The buildings were damaged by the recent series of earthquakes with some parts, such as the tall brick chimney and the upper part of the southern gable end, being removed following partial collapse. The buildings have been made safe and are not the subject of a Section 38 CER Act notice.

A Summary of Council Involvement with Woods Mill since 2011.

 

5.7       Fairly soon after the 2011 earthquakes Council Heritage staff were approached by a developer with proposals to repair and refurbish the Woods Mill buildings and with a request for Council grant funding.

5.8       This culminated with the first application for a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) which went to Committee on the 15 June 2012. A grant for $884,750 was approved to the applicant 'Woods Mill Limited'. A list of the directors of Woods Mill Limited were provided as John Richmond Paynter, Shaun Andrew Johnston and Shirley Anne Johnston.

5.9       A grant of $750,000 was also approved by the Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund Trust (CEHBFT).

5.10    The owner of the mill site is actually 'Plains Developments Limited'. The director of this company is John Grant Cameron. Council staff were advised by John Richmond Paynter that Woods Mill Limited had an unconditional agreement to purchase the site by the end of June 2012 and the transfer of title would take place on the 16th September 2012.

5.11    A resource consent was submitted for the proposed works to the mill buildings (RMA 92019185). However, work did not proceed on this project and the ownership of the site remained under Plains Developments Limited. The $884,750 HIG and $750,000 CEHBFT grant funds were never paid out and were returned to the fund for re-allocation.

Current grant application

5.12    Following the failure of the first scheme to undertake repairs and maintenance to the Woods Mill buildings a new group was formed under the umbrella of Plains Developments Limited. This group included John Grant Cameron, Bruce Lindsay, and Stephen Gubb of Hughes Developments.  

5.13    In April 2014 a second HIG grant request was submitted to and approved by Council. This grant was for $900,000 based on amended plans to the first scheme but which still retained the mill buildings. The second grant offer from the CEHBFT was reduced to $500,000 due to less funding available from that particular grant fund.

5.14    In August 2015 a formal request was made to Council for an extension of time to claim the HIG grant and advise a change in the applicant to a new company called 'Woods Mill Investments Limited'.

5.15    This request was approved and extended the time for claiming the $900,000 grant to October 2016. Similar approvals were gained for the CEHBFT grant of $500,000.

5.16    In late 2015 Stephen Gubb and Bruce Lindsay advised that PACE had been brought in to provide an overview of the financial viability of the scheme. The resulting assessment resulted in a much higher estimated cost than previously thought and the project backers decided to seek additional assistance from Council and other heritage funders. This lead to the preparation of this Central City Landmark Heritage Grant report.

5.17    The project costs were estimated by PACE to be approximately $15 million dollars. The combined HIG and Central City Landmark Heritage grants from Council would be for a total of $2 million which is 13.3% of the overall project cost. HIG funding can be up to 50% of the cost of eligible items such as seismic upgrades.

The significance of Council Heritage staff involvement with these buildings.

5.18    As noted above these buildings are possibly the last large scale industrial heritage buildings remaining in Christchurch. Council heritage staff have advocated for the repair and retention of these highly significant buildings and hence have engaged with a number of different parties and advocated for financial support from Council for the past five years.

5.19    It is clear that Council funding has been an essential factor in attracting developers and investors to the challenge of facilitating the retention of these buildings.

5.20    Significant progress has been made with the architects, engineers and the current developers (Woods Mill Investments Limited) associated with the project to reduce the impact of the necessary seismic strengthening on the buildings and to retain the maximum heritage fabric possible.

Repair and reuse proposals

5.21    Woods Mill Investments Limited planned to undertake the repairs and seismic upgrade work to the buildings in order to turn them into a residential and commercial complex. The upper stories of both buildings will become residential apartments while the ground floor will be used for commercial bars, restaurants and cafes. Retail use is also possible for the ground floor spaces but it is envisaged that this a less likely use for the building given the location away from the main road.

5.22    A number of consultants have been employed to investigate the structural capacity of the original structure and to design appropriate modifications and new elements, repairs, seismic upgrades and replacements for portions of the damaged buildings. The engineers have been seeking alternative means by which to strengthen the building in a less invasive manner than normal and this has been part of the cause of the delay in the work being undertaken. The aim was to design a method to strengthen the building with less new structural steel, and to minimise the loss of heritage fabric and reduce the impact on heritage values.

5.23    The proposals now include strengthening via core drilling and post tensioning the brickwork in order to utilise the inherent strength in the massive masonry walls and timber structure. Investigative works have been undertaken on site including obtaining sample cores of the existing brickwork and more thorough investigation of the existing foundations of both buildings. These proposed works and new use of the buildings have been approved under RMA 92029384.

5.24    The two southern bays, added to the mill building in 1896, have structurally separated from the main body of the building, as a result of the earthquakes, and will need to be dismantled. It is proposed to replace the two southern bays with a contemporary extension formed in contrasting materials but with similar proportions and overall form. This new portion has been approved as part of the resource consent.

5.25    Woods Mill Investments Limited have recently engaged PACE Project Management to review the entire project and the conclusion is that without additional funding it is unlikely the project will proceed and the future retention of the mill would be uncertain.

Description: Woods Mill & Grain Store (7)

Photograph, ‘Woods Mill’ with the Grain Store on the left, February 2014

Funding

5.26    The buildings have received a Council Heritage Incentive Grant of $900,000 and have also been awarded a grant of $500,000 from the Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Building Fund Trust (CEHBF). These grants were based on a projected overall cost in the region of $9,000,000.  New costings prepared by PACE Project Management have put the total cost at $15,000,000. 

5.27    The $900,000 Council grant award has a completion date of 22 October 2016. Given the further delays and the scale of the project, it is envisaged that an extension will be required for the project to be completed. This request will be the subject of a separate report if required.

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant

5.28    The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

5.29    For many years, Christchurch has been losing large scale industrial buildings which were strongly related to the development and growth of the City, Canterbury and the entire South Island. Notable losses include the Kaiapoi Woollen Mills on Manchester Street, The Edmonds Factory on Ferry Road and the PDL factory on Lincoln Road. The earthquakes and their aftermath have resulted in the loss of many more significant industrial buildings. These recent losses include the Millers textile factory and department store on Tuam Street, the New Zealand Loan & Mercantile Woollen Store on Durham Street, the Wards Brewery on Fitzgerald Avenue, and the Nuggets Shoe Polish factory on Ferry Road, Woolston.

5.30    The Woods Mill buildings are located in Addington, at the end of Wise Street off Lincoln Road. The unusual scale, materials, form and prominence of these two buildings makes them a strong feature of the landscape and a significant identity marker of the local environment. The proposed adaptive re-use will allow for public as well as private access, and the residential component especially supports the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy.

5.31    Woods Mill is located two hundred and fifty metres from the junction of Moorhouse Avenue and Deans Avenue. The Four Avenues are the previously agreed limits for Central City Landmark Heritage Grant funding. However, given the close proximity of the Woods Mill buildings to the Central City and the high landmark status, particularly of the mill building, it is considered that they are worthy candidates for a Central City Landmark Heritage grant from Council.

 

6.   Option 1 - Landmark Heritage funding of $1,100,000

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $1,100,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund to make Council's total contribution to this project $2,000,000, when combined with the existing Heritage Incentive Grant. This combined amount of grant funding would represent a contribution of less than fifteen per cent of the total cost of the development. However, the injection of additional external funds to the project is crucial to make the project financially viable. The redevelopment of the buildings is unlikely to proceed if additional funds are not found. Further additional grant funds are also being sought from other sources.

6.2       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects is summarised in the table below. Given the scale of investment required by the developer, the level of grant support proposed is consistent with other Landmark Grants previously awarded.

Annual Budget for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,969,500

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Victoria Mansions, 91 Victoria Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Proposed grant to Woods Mill

2015/2016

$1,100,000

Total Available Funds remaining  2015/2016

 

$869,500

 

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       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

6.5       The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Central City Landmark Heritage Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies and policies as listed below:

§    Christchurch Recovery Strategy

§    Christchurch City Plan and the Proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan

§    Heritage Conservation Policy

§    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

§    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

§    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

6.7       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in one area.

6.7.1   Inconsistency - the building is technically outside of the Central City boundary established for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Scheme. However, the building is a mere two hundred and fifty metres outside the Four Avenues. The Woods Mill complex is very close to the junction of Moorhouse Avenue and Deans Avenue, although it is currently accessed from Lincoln Road and a small side road, Wise Street. The complex could be linked in the future to other attractions and activities in this immediate area including the southern side of Hagley Park, and the Christchurch Railway Station.

6.7.2   Reason for inconsistency - The boundaries of the Four Avenues were set as a relatively simple definition of the area that has been most adversely affected by the recent earthquakes. The aim was to secure as many of the remaining heritage buildings within this area to assist the retention of a unique urban identity and a distinct sense of place.

6.7.3   Amendment necessary - This report seeks to gain approval for a grant to a complex of buildings just outside the defined Central City area. These buildings are a very suitable candidate for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant and meet all other the criteria and Operational Guidelines.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be $1,100,000 taken from the Central City Landmark Heritage fund of $1,969,500 for the financial year 2015/2016.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the current Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    Central City Landmark Heritage Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the repair, refurbishment, maintenance and enhancement of Central City heritage buildings.

6.12    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.13    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. As noted resource consent has already been gained for the project.

6.16    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council or relevant Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building;

·   It promotes residential development in close proximity to the Central City in accordance with the Urban Development Strategy. A relatively high density residential scheme would be suitable in this location close to the large open space of Hagley Park.

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed residential, commercial and retail use.

·   It supports the additional cost of alternative engineering solutions to upgrade the building in a manner which retains the maximum possible heritage fabric and values.

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the open space in front of the building from future development to protect the open space setting and landmark value of the buildings.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a large grant to a single project when considered alongside the existing approved Council funding via the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme;

·   The Woods Mill buildings are to the west of Hagley Park and thus the scheme would lead to a small amount of commercial development outside of the traditional area regarded as the commercial centre of Christchurch.

7.   Option 2 - Landmark Heritage funding of $600,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $600,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund to make Council's total contribution to this project $1,500,000 when combined with the existing Heritage Incentive Grant. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. This combined amount of grant funding would represent a contribution of less than fifteen per cent of the total cost of the development. However, the injection of additional external funds to the project is crucial to make the project financially viable. The redevelopment of the buildings is unlikely to proceed if additional substantial funds are not found. As a result the future retention of the mil buildings would be at risk. Further additional grant funds are also being sought from other sources.

7.2       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects is summarised in the table below. Given the scale of investment required by the developer, the level of grant support proposed in both Options within this report is consistent with other landmark grants previously awarded.

 

Annual Budget for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Year

$1,969,500

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Victoria Mansions, 91 Victoria Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Proposed grant to Woods Mill

2015/2016

$600,000

Total Available Funds remaining  2015/2016

 

$1,369,500

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.3       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building;

·   It promotes residential development in close proximity to the Central City in accordance with the Urban Development Strategy. A relatively high density residential scheme would be suitable in this location close to the large open space of Hagley Park.

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed residential, commercial and retail use.

·   It supports the additional cost of alternative engineering solutions to upgrade the building in a manner which retains the maximum possible heritage fabric and values.

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the open space in front of the building from future development to protect the open space setting and landmark value of the buildings.

7.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This may not be sufficient funding to secure the future of the Woods Mill complex;

·   The Woods Mill buildings are to the west of Hagley Park and thus the scheme would lead to a small amount of commercial development outside of the traditional area regarded as the commercial centre of Christchurch.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

14 Wise Street - Woods Mill - Statement of Significance

31

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth

Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Katherine Harbrow

Carolyn Ingles

Brendan Anstiss

Finance & Commercial Manager

Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

Heritage Assessment – Statement of Significance

Heritage Statement – Former Wood Brothers Flour  Mill including chimney and brick silo - 14 Wise Street

 

 

 

 

Description: Heritage Wise Street 14 WoodsMillAndSetting

 

Description: Heritage Wise Street 14 Silo

 

 

Photographs: 14 Wise Street

 

The Wood Brothers Flour Mill is listed as a Group 2 protected heritage place in the Christchurch City Plan, and is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a Category II historic place.

 

 

Historical And Social Significance 

Historical and social values that demonstrate or are associated with: a particular person, group, organisation, institution, event, phase or activity; the continuity and/or  change of a phase or activity; social, historical, traditional, economic, political or other patterns.

 

Wood's Mill has historical and social significance as one of the largest mills in the South Island. The Mill was established by William Derisley Wood who founded his milling firm in 1856. The firm was to span 114 years of milling history in the region. The Wood Brothers established two mills in the city before expanding further, in 1890, to build a roller mill powered by steam and serviced by rail, in Addington. Demand for the finer roller milled flour had quickly replaced that for the coarser millstone flour. The six bay mill was designed by leading industrial architect J C Maddison. By 1936 the Addington Mill had the largest output in the South Island, 33 sacks of flour per hour. The mill continued to be owned and operated by the Wood family until 1970, at which date the complex was closed and sold. Since that date the mill complex has been used for a variety of functions including residential. As well as the mill building there were several associated buildings and structures including the brick silo and chimney, both of which are included in the listing. The chimney was associated with the original steam power of the mill and dates from 1890. Woods Mill, lit by electricity and powered by steam, was considered to be the most modern mill in New Zealand upon its completion. By the early 20th century Wood’s Brothers flour and related products had received national and international acclaim.

 

Cultural and Spiritual Significance

Cultural and spiritual values that demonstrate or are associated with the distinctive characteristics of a way of life, philosophy, tradition, religion, or other belief, including: the symbolic or commemorative value of the place; significance to Tangata Whenua; and/or associations with an identifiable group and esteemed by this group for its cultural values

         

Wood's Mill has cultural significance due to its association with one of the city's early important industries associated with the success of Canterbury as the chief  wheat growing province in the colony. The production of flour remained an important industry within the city throughout the 20th century. The scale of these buildings reflects the importance of wheat to the economy of Canterbury and remain as a symbol of the scale of industrial production in Canterbury during the 19th century.

 

Architectural and Aesthetic Significance

 Architectural and aesthetic values that demonstrate or are associated with design values, form, scale, colour, texture and material of the place.

         

Woods Mill has architectural and aesthetic significance as an architecturally designed 19th century industrial complex. The mill complex was designed by J C Maddison a noted commercial and industrial architect. Maddison was born and trained in England before emigrating to Canterbury in 1872 to set up practice as an architect and building surveyor. During the 1880s he became a leader in the field of industrial design, specialising in the new field of designing freezing works. At Wood's Mill Maddison designed an Industrial Utilitarian building with Classical detailing, modelled on late eighteenth century English mill buildings.

 

The four storey brick building has a gabled roof with polychromatic arched window openings. The original building consisted of six bays, with the two additional bays being added, by Maddison, in 1896. The flour and grain store and the brick chimney were part of the original design,  the chimney cap having been removed at some stage. Later additions to the mill building were executed by the Luttrell Brothers, leading commercial architects in the city in the early 20th century. The large brick silo building was completed in 1913, in an American style with which the Luttrell Brothers would have been familiar. The large brick addition to the rear of the mill building was completed in 1924. The Luttrell Brothers addition was in keeping with Maddison's design although simpler in its detailing. In 1960 the corrugated iron addition was added to the roof of the main building to house machinery which increased the milling capacity of the mill.

 

Although the complex has not been used for milling purposes since 1970 the buildings have retained their original appearance and remain a unique 19th century industrial architectural landmark within the city.

 

Technological and Craftsmanship Significance

Technological and craftsmanship values that demonstrate or are associated with: the nature and use of materials, finishes and/or technological or constructional methods which were innovative, or of notable quality for the period.

 

Wood's Mill has technological and craftsmanship significance due to its 19th century construction for industrial purposes. The construction of the mill was specially strengthened to withstand the weight and vibrations of the machinery it was built to house. The exterior walls are triple brick and the central columns of the interior are Australian ironwood each hand adzed from a single tree. Other internal features include 12 inch square oregon beams and kauri flooring. The machinery, and steam and electric powering of the mill, were advanced for its day.

 

Contextual Significance

Contextual values that demonstrate or are associated with: a relationship to the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a degree of consistency in terms of scale, form, materials, texture, colour, style and/or detailing in relationship to the environment (constructed and natural), setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a physical or visible landmark; a contribution to the character of the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape.

 

Woods Mill has contextual significance as one of the major industrial plants in the working class/industrial suburb of Addington. The setting consists of a rectangular block fronting Wise Street. The complex of listed buildings includes the former flour mill, with rear addition, the chimney stack, the former flour and grain store and the wheat silo. The area in front of the flour mill once consisted of a bowling green, today that area is a carpark. Along with the Addington Railway workshops, the mill was one of the major employers in the area. The Wood Brothers flour mill complex has considerable landmark significance in the area due to the size, design and scale of the brick structures.

 

Archaeological Significance

 Archaeological values that demonstrate or are associated with: potential to provide archaeological information through physical evidence; an understanding about social historical, cultural, spiritual, technological or other values or past events, activities, people or phases.

 

The former Woods Mill complex is of archaeological significance because it has the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on the site, possibly including that which occurred prior to 1900.

 

Assessment Statement

The former Woods Mill and setting are of regional significance. The former Woods Mill has been assessed as making an important contribution to the identity, sense of place and history of the Canterbury region and is primarily of importance to the Canterbury region for its heritage values.  

                                                                                                                                     

Wood's Mill has historical and social significance as one of the most productive and progressive flour mills in the South Island in the late 19th and 20th century. Wood Brothers Limited was established in 1856 by William Derisley Wood whose family association with the milling business continued for 114 years. The brick buildings have architectural and aesthetic significance as examples of 19th century industrial architecture. The milling complex was designed by renowned industrial architect J C Maddison with additions by well known commercial architects the Luttrell Brothers. The large brick buildings have landmark significance in the area due to their scale, monumental use of brick, and classical detailing. 

 

References: Christchurch City Council Town Planning Division (1982)  The Architectural Heritage of Christchurch. 9.Woods Mill. Christchurch, Christchurch City Council.

 

 

Assessment Completed:  04.10.2010

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

7         Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Approval for 176 Oxford Terrace

Reference:

16/24282

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage buildings at 176 Oxford Terrace, Christchurch, also known as the Midland Club Building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from the building owner for Council financial support through the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the Long Term Plan.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Recommend that the Council approve a Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $869,500 for the former Midland Club Building, 176 Oxford Terrace, subject to the completion of the agreed scope of works and the owners entering into a full conservation covenant with the Council to cover the heritage buildings and the heritage setting.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.10 All Central City Landmark Heritage Fund grants meet the policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $869,500 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $600,000

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a 'Significant' heritage building in a prominent riverside location;

·   It promotes retail and commercial development in the Central City in accordance with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy;

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed commercial and retail use;

·   It will preserves the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Avon River corridor - including the view shafts and a degree of spatial enclosure;

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and its relationship to the area of significant open space, the Avon River corridor.

·   The building will retain the consistency in the scale and type of development along this part of the river when it is considered with other heritage buildings nearby such as Our City Otautahi and the Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings.

4.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a large grant to a single building project.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Description: \\ccofs01\SmythB$\Desktop\External views (1).JPG

Photograph, Midland Club, January 2016

 

5.1       The three storey heritage building at 176 Oxford Terrace is listed in the Christchurch City Plan, Group 3 and as 'Significant' in the proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan. The building is registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) as Category II (register number 3123).

5.2       The Midland Club building was constructed in 1934 and was designed by Collins & West Architects in a simplified Italian palazzo style. The materials used are largely brick and concrete with substantial timber floors and the roof holding the walls together. The exterior was rendered with a plaster and painted surface finish. The original colour scheme was replaced at some point with a uniform pale red colour as shown in the photograph above.

5.3       The site is irregular in shape resulting in an unusual building footprint and a chamfered corner where the site adjoins Club Lane. Externally the facades include an elevated ground floor, an arched, grand entrance porch with enclosed steps, three projecting bay windows spanning across first and second floor levels, and a decorated parapet. A pitched roof and central chimney were hidden from view from the street behind the parapet. Internally the building contained a number of large stone fireplaces, timber wall panelling and decorative plaster ceilings. A timber staircase served all floors and it was wrapped around a caged lift. There are also a number of coloured lead-lights housed within both windows and doors which are patterned in the form of the Club's shield.

5.4       The Midland Club ceased to exist as a club in 1991 and the building was sold and re-configured to house a café, a hair salon, offices and an apartment on the top floor. It is a prominent building facing on to the Avon River corridor between the Worcester and Gloucester Street bridges and close to The Municipal Chambers Building, Our City Otautahi. It also now looks out towards the Antony Gormley sculpture, 'STAY 2015' located within the Avon River. The location next to the Avon River, Club Lane, the unusual shape, scale and design of the building all combine to give it considerable landmark status.

5.5       The building was damaged by the recent series of earthquakes with the parapet in particular being a notable casualty. Parts collapsed in the earthquake and the remaining components were removed to make the building safe. The roof remains in situ but there is a large gap around the building perimeter where the concealed gutter would have been. This gap has allowed rainwater to enter the building and damage internal surfaces and floors. Internally, however the building components and structure have survived the earthquakes and five years of neglect largely intact. The buildings have been made safe and are not the subject of a Section 38 CER Act notice.

Description: \\ccofs01\SmythB$\Desktop\Midland Proposed image.JPG

Proposed refurbishment (image supplied by the architects of the new building owner)

 

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant

 

5.6       The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

5.7       The Midland Club Building has featured on the list of buildings considered to be eligible candidates for Council's Central City Landmark Heritage funding assistance due to its distinct architectural style, prominent location adjacent to the River Avon and its history as a Christchurch Club and more recently as a well-known café, Café Roma.

5.8       The buildings have recently been purchased by a new owner with the aim to repair, seismically strengthen and restore the building. As the buildings were bought in their current condition, there are no insurance funds to assist with the repairs and rebuild. The owner has already set about painting over graffiti on the walls and windows and removing the detritus left by illegal occupants. The building has not been the subject of any other Council heritage grant funding.


 

6.   Option 1 - Landmark Heritage Funding of $869,500

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $869,500 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. This amount of grant funding would represent a contribution of forty-nine per cent of the cost of the development which is estimated to be $1,776,376 excluding GST.

6.2       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects is summarised in the table below. Given the scale of the project and the investment required by the developer, the level of grant support proposed is consistent with many of the other Landmark Grants previously awarded and listed below.

Annual Budget for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,969,500

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Victoria Mansions, 91 Victoria Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Proposed grant to Woods Mill, Wise Street

2015/2016

$1,100,000

Proposed 49% grant to the Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

Total Available Funds remaining  2015/2016

 

$0

 

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       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

6.5       The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Central City Landmark Heritage Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies and policies as listed below:

§ Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch

§ Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

§ Christchurch City Plan and the Proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan

§ Heritage Conservation Policy

§ Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

§ New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

§ International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be $869,500 taken from the Central City Landmark Heritage fund of $1,969,500 for the financial year 2015/2016.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.9       Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the current Long Term Plan

Legal Implications

6.10    Central City Landmark Heritage Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the repair, refurbishment, maintenance and enhancement of Central City heritage buildings.

6.11    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.12    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.15    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council or relevant Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a 'Significant' heritage building in a prominent riverside location;

·   It promotes retail and commercial development in the Central City in accordance with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy;

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed commercial and retail use;

·   It will preserves the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the River Avon corridor - including the view shafts and current degree of spatial enclosure;

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and its relationship to the area of significant open space, the Avon River corridor.

·   The building will retain the consistency in the scale and type of development along this part of the river when it is considered with other heritage buildings nearby such as Our City and the Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings.


 

 

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a large grant to a single building project.

7.   Option 2 - Landmark Heritage funding of $600,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $600,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. This amount of grant funding would represent a contribution of thirty-three per cent of the total cost of the development which is estimated to be $1,776,376 excluding GST. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1.

7.2       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects is summarised in the table below. Given the scale of investment required by the developer, the level of grant support proposed in both Options within this report is consistent with other landmark grants previously awarded.

Annual Budget for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Year

$1,969,500

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Victoria Mansions, 91 Victoria Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Proposed grant to Woods Mill, Wise Street

2015/2016

$600,000

Proposed 33% grant to the Midland club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$600,000

Total Available Funds remaining

2015/2016

$269,500

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.3       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a 'Significant' heritage building in a prominent riverside location;

·   It promotes retail and commercial development in the Central City in accordance with the Urban Development Strategy;

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed commercial and retail use;

·   It will preserves the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the River Avon corridor - including the view shafts and current degree of spatial enclosure;

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and its relationship to the area of significant open space, the Avon River corridor.

·   The building will retain the consistency in the scale and type of development along this part of the river when it is considered with other heritage buildings nearby such as Our City and the Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings.

7.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Although a smaller amount than the preferred option this would still be a large grant to a single building project.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

PDF Statement of Heritage Significance, 176 Oxford Terrace, Christchurch

43

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth

Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Katherine Harbrow

Carolyn Ingles

Brendan Anstiss

Finance & Commercial Manager

Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

8.        Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016

Reference:

16/129846

Contact:

Sarah Amazinnia

sarah.amazinnia@ccc.govt.nz

941 7342

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to seek Council approval for a grant from the Creative Industries Support Fund to the following organisation:

·    $74,945 to Circotica Ltd to contribute towards the operational and capital costs of establishing a circus school and training facility.  This will enable the re-establishment of the city's high-quality pre-quake performance training facilities and enable Christchurch to resume its role as a centre of excellence for national and international performers.

Origin of Report

1.2       Applications to the Creative Industries Support Fund are considered by an interdisciplinary assessment panel ('the Panel'). Decisions over $15,000 require elected member approval.

2.   Significance

2.1       The recommendations in this report are of low significance in relation to assessment of the criteria in the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It is considered that there will be a localised positive impact on the visual art communities in the city affected by this decision; the implementation of the Creative Industries Support Fund is delivered through existing operational budgets; and no adverse environmental or cultural impacts have been identified by staff.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommend to Council to approve:

1.         A grant of $74,945 from the Creative Industries Support Fund to Circotica Ltd to contribute towards the operational and capital costs of the establishment of a circus school and training facility in Christchurch.

2.         An exemption to the current central city geographic requirements of the fund, in support of the application from Circotica Ltd to establish the proposed facility in Woolston.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points
Creative Industries Support Fund

4.1     The Creative Industries Support Fund is specifically designed as a business start-up fund for arts organisations and creative businesses who are working towards financially viable business models for their organisations. A summary of current applications to the Creative Industries Support Fund is outlined in Table 1.

4.2      A budget of $323,220 has been allocated to the Creative Industries Support Fund in the 2015/16 Annual Plan. The balance of the fund available for allocation is $74,945. The total funding allocation recommended in this report is $74,945.

4.3      This application will see the fund fully subscribed in the 2015-2016 financial year.

Table 1: Summary of Applications to Panel 3 of the Creative Industries Support Fund 2015-2016

APPLICANT

 

PROJECT

AMOUNT REQUESTED

TOTAL RECOMMENDED

Circotica

 

 

The establishment of the Circotica Circus School and Circo-Arts training facility in Christchurch.

$133,727

 

$74,945

To contribute to operational and capital costs.

 

Council approval required.

SUMMARY 

 

 

TOTAL REQUESTED

TOTAL RECOMMENDED

 

 

$133,727

$74,945

 

Circotica Limited

4.4      Prior to the 2011 earthquakes, Christchurch was a vibrant and internationally renowned centre of excellence for Circus Arts.  The community was hit hard by the earthquakes; the closure of the Circo-Arts programme at CPIT, and the mass migration of performers out of the city post-disaster left a small struggling circus community.  Establishing a new training space is considered crucial to the re-establishment of the city's reputation in this field of performance art.  Circotica Ltd is a professional company able to provide high quality training and performance opportunities.  It has applied to the Creative Industries Support Fund for assistance with the operational and capital costs of establishing a new, high quality circus school and training facility in Christchurch. See attachments A and B.

4.5      The proposed facility aims to reinvigorate circus arts in Christchurch by providing training space and resources for all ages and levels of local performers.  This will allow them to develop unique and innovative circus works and shows, and will train a new generation of artists. These performers can then utilise new performance spaces such as The Loons Theatre.  The applicants are well-connected within the circus industry and anticipate that the facility will attract a wide range of performers back to the city.  Circotica also intends to invite visiting international artists to utilise the facility and to provide workshops or training to widen the expertise of artists within New Zealand.

Location

4.6      Circotica Ltd is currently negotiating a lease on a warehouse facility in Woolston. The lease is contingent on receipt of this funding. The proposed location is outside the current central city geographic requirements of the fund and an exemption is sought from Council. Circotica has been unable to find any affordable high stud warehouse spaces within the central city. The limited availability of affordable and flexible operational space in the central city continues to be a significant post-earthquake issue for the creative sector. See attachment C.

4.7      Currently, Circotica is in discussion with the Metro Sports Facility project team in relation to the potential place of circus arts within the new Metro Sports Facility in the central city. Circotica remains committed to continuing these discussions to ensure the long term future of circus arts in the city.

Business Plan

4.8        The Circotica Ltd Business Plan focusses on a three year development and implementation period with emphasis on the following key areas:

·      Move into new warehouse space in Christchurch and set it up as a circus training space.

·      Initiate training programmes for students of all ages.

·      Train new teachers and instructors.

·      Provide training space for professionals.

·      Encourage and support creation of new works.

·      Create artistic and economic growth within the local circus community of Christchurch.

4.9      The applicants' aim is for the facility to become financially self-sustaining.  Currently there is a large market in Christchurch for adult aerial, acrobatic and contortion classes. This new facility will allow these areas of interest to flourish and to generate a renewed circus community. There is also a good demand for children's circus classes which will be met by the proposed children programmes. See attachment D.

4.10    Circotica’s relationship with CPIT will continue to develop into the future, based on the long term involvement with Creative Industries Head of Department, Tom Rainey. As a supporter of Circotica's plans, Tom has expressed ongoing interest in the potential interactions between Circotica Ltd and CPIT, in terms of reinvigorating and implementing a Circo-Arts curriculum. 

4.11   There is strong support for the establishment of Circotica Ltd from Circus and Performing Arts New Zealand, CPIT, Loon Theatre Trust and a range of local, national and international circus performers. See attachment E.

4.12   Circotica has a range of outward facing sponsorship and fundraising programmes to support the local community. These include charity shows, a sponsorship programme to support families and individuals in need of financial support for tuition costs, and professional development support. See attachment F.

Funding

4.13   If the Council agrees to allocate the remainder of the Fund to Circotica, the Panel recommend this being applied as follows: 

 $32,000                 Warehouse lease

 $42,945                 Contribution towards equipment.

Attachment B outlines the range of equipment that Circotica would require to establish the facility. The panel notes that there may be other items required for operational costs of the business and that these will need to be identified and funded by the applicant. Beyond year 1 of operation if future support is required, there are options available to Circotica to pursue funding via a number of grants across several organisations. Circotica is currently in discussion with Creative New Zealand regarding an additional contribution towards equipment.

 

4.14   The Panel considers that the application of the remainder of the fund to Circotica, for use as outlined in paragraph 4.13, is appropriate and encourages Circotica to investigate further philanthropic and sponsorship funding.

5.   Context/Background

Creative Industries Support Fund

5.1      The Creative Industries Support Fund operates as a contestable fund to support the re-establishment of the creative industries in the city and to foster urban regeneration. The funding mechanism was created as a result of consultation with the arts and business community through the 2011 Share an Idea process and the development of the draft Central City Recovery Plan.

5.2    As per the Long Term Plan, the fund is currently scheduled to decrease from approximately $323,000 to an annual allocation of $50,000 in the 2016/17 financial year. It is anticipated that the current level of subscription to the fund will prevail into 2016/17.

5.3       Staff are currently evaluating the performance of the fund to date, in order to ensure that the terms of reference and outcomes of the fund continue to remain in line with the Council's community outcomes and the current phase of rebuild and regeneration in the city.

       Circotica Ltd

5.4       Circotica Ltd is co-directed by Danny and Mim Syme. Both have extensive experience and networks within the Circus industry both here and abroad, and have committed to remaining in Christchurch to work towards re-establishing Christchurch as a centre of excellence in Circus-Arts for New Zealand.

5.5      Danny Syme graduated with a Diploma in Circus Arts from CPIT in 2005.  He has worked as a core member of the Loons Circus Theatre Company, Fuse Circus, Christchurch Circus Trust, and as a freelance artist. In addition he directs, writes, and has a Bachelor of Arts in Media Studies.

5.6      Mim Syme is originally from Wagga Wagga, Australia and has worked in the circus industry since the age of 11. She has studied circus and dance at the Turku Academy of Circus in Finland, and at Circo-Arts in New Zealand. Mim has a CPIT Bachelor in Performing Arts: Circus Arts and Physical Theatre. She is a highly sought after teacher and performer. She has worked throughout Australia and New Zealand, and in the US, Japan, Thailand, Germany, Finland & Nepal.

5.7      Danny and Mim are joined by a team of eight professional circus arts instructors.  Collectively the team has professional performance and training experience from New Zealand and internationally.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Circotica Application Form

52

b  

Circotica budget CISF

57

c  

Circotica draft lease CISF panel 3 2016

58

d  

Circotica Business Plan CISF panel 3 2016

67

e  

Circotica letters of support CISF panel 3 2016

72

f  

Circotica fundraising and sponsorship plan CISF panel 3 2016

79

 

 

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

Sarah Amazinnia

Carolyn Bonis

Strategic Arts Advisor

Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Approved By

Katherine Harbrow

Carolyn Ingles

Brendan Anstiss

Finance & Commercial Manager

Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

9.        Glyphosate herbicide use

Reference:

16/81387

Contact:

John Clemens

john.clemens@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend that the Council consider options in relation to the use of the herbicide glyphosate in spaces controlled by Christchurch City Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by consideration of criteria (a) to (j) with examples in the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. 

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment. This is a standard statement unless there is to be no community engagement or consultation.  In such a case update this statement accordingly.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommends to Council that:

1.         Should Council wish to consider an alternative methodology for open space management than the current

a.      That it adopt Option 2, significant reduction to glyphosate use, limited to sites closed to public, e.g. to facilitate capital works programmes, and to control pest plants where no other method is practicable, and to utilise a combination of Fatty Acid herbicides and physical techniques, as the preferred option; and

b.      Increase the capital and maintenance budgets of the respective operations units as detailed within this report.

2.         Consult with the public via the Draft Annual Plan on its proposal and the other options, including the proposed change to the maintenance and capital budgets required.

 


 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered.

Option 1 - No change to the current practice

Option 2 - Significant reduction to glyphosate use, limited to sites closed to public, e.g. to facilitate capital works programmes, and for pest plant control where no other method is practicable. Utilise a combination of Fatty Acid herbicides and physical techniques.

Option 3 - No use of glyphosate. Utilise a combination of Fatty Acid herbicides and physical techniques.

Option 4 - Physical techniques only.

The following table illustrates the overall financial implications of each option for council as well as estimating the risk to current levels of service.

 

Council Activity

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

No Change

Restricted glyphosate use

No use of glyphosate.

Manual techniques only

One-off Increase cost of Capital Renewal

(3 years to implement)

Parks

Nil

$ 4.88 m

$ 4.88 m

$ 4.88 m

Road network

Nil

$ 850 k

$ 850 k

$ 850 k

Waterways

Nil

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Other property

Nil

$ 400 k

$ 400 k

$ 400 k

Total (Split over 3 years)

Nil

$ 6.13 m

$ 6.13 m

$ 6.13 m

 

Increase cost of Capital Renewal

(per annum)

Parks

Nil

$ 835 k

$ 835 k

$ 835 k

Road network

Nil

$ 250 k

$ 250 k

$ 250 k

Waterways

Nil

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Other property

Nil

$ 70 k

$ 70 k

$ 70 k

Total Renewal cost per annum

Nil

$1.16 m

$1.16 m

$1.16 m

 

Increase cost of Maintenance

(per annum)

Parks

Nil

$1.64 m

$ 1.69 m

$ 3.03 m

Road network

Nil

$ 1.69 m

$ 1.69 m

$ 1.99 m

Waterways

 

$   285 k

$   285 k

$   285 k

Other property

Nil

$   190 k

$   190 k

$   190 k

Total

Nil

$ 3.81 m

$ 3.86 m

$ 5.50 m

Impact on rates - opex

Nil

0.45%

0.45%

0.88%

 

Capital Renewal - Note, the draft 2016/17 Annual Plan includes a $2.5m one off budget for this.  Additional capital would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Operational funds for maintenance / ongoing costs - Note, the draft 2016/17 Annual Plan currently includes $2m per annum for the increased operating costs.  The additional operating costs from the above table will have a rating impact as noted.

 

        Total Financial Impact on council operations (OPTION: 2 preferred option)

 

Annual Cost

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Capital ($ m)

2.04

2.04

2.04

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

maintenance ($m)

3.81

3.81

3.81

3.81

3.81

3.81

3.81

3.81

3.81

Total ($ m)

5.85

5.85

5.85

4.97

4.97

4.97

4.97

4.97

4.97

 

Risk to level of service: Least Significant of the alternatives.

Glyphosate will remain the primary tool for weeds and pest plants for which there is no practicable alternative.

 

Total Financial Impact on council operations (OPTION: 3)

 

Annual Cost

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Capital ($ m)

2.04

2.04

2.04

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

maintenance ($m)

3.86

3.86

3.86

3.86

3.86

3.86

3.86

3.86

3.86

Total

5.90

5.90

5.90

5.02

5.02

5.02

5.02

5.02

5.02

 

Risk to level of service: Significant increase in risk

Without Glyphosate the ability to manage pest plants in all environments, particularly associated to waterway and wetland margins will marginalise Council's ability to meet its obligations to the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

 

 

Total Financial Impact on council operations (OPTION: 4)

 

Annual Cost

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Capital ($ m)

2.04

2.04

2.04

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

1.16

maintenance ($m)

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

Total

7.54

7.54

7.54

6.66

6.66

6.66

6.66

6.66

6.66

 

Risk to level of service: Highest risk (not recommended)

Moving to a fully manual operation poses increased financial risk, limited ability to manage any pest plants and is very likely to result in lowered levels of service to the amenity values associated to open spaces in Christchurch.

 

4.3       Option 2 Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

Risk to level of service: Minimised

Glyphosate will remain the primary tool for weeds and pest plants for which there is no practicable alternative.

 

The advantages of this option include:

·   Use of mulching and infill planting and alternate methodologies to significantly reduce presence of weeds in the city's amenity spaces.

·   Glyphosate available as a 'last resort' tool for management of high priority pest plant species and where there is no other practicable methodology.

·   Public perception that Council is acting proactively and is committed to significantly reducing the potential risk that glyphosate use presents.

·   Favourable response to the use of glyphosate only in situations where it is needed for the effective control of priority pest plants, or in inaccessible public space.

·   Possible improvement in public perception from seeing contractors using physical (high pressure steam and manual) techniques more frequently, and operating with knapsack sprayers less frequently.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Appropriate checks and balances will need to be implemented for glyphosate usage to prevent 'creep back' in to wider maintenance activities.

·   Public perception that chemical usage is still taking place (even if Fatty Acid) and potential complaints about the odour associated with these products.

·   Minor risk to the current levels of service, particularly in high growth periods and during certain periods of the year may be limited as they recommended for application to dry foliage.

·   There is a practical balance between optimum control intervals for the various alternate methodologies (which ideally could be as high as twice per month in peak growth periods) and the associated costs of delivering this LOS (monthly frequency used for basis of costing).

·   Adopting a methodology, such as a high pressure steam treatment, that has been unsuccessfully used and disestablished both historically and by different local authorities as a chemical-free alternative methodology.

·   Adverse perception from operators spraying Fatty Acid herbicide with full body protection including face mask and respirator, which will still occur in some circumstances

 

·                 

 

 


 

5.   Context/Background

Uses and characteristics of the glyphosate

5.1       Glyphosate is approved for use as a herbicide in New Zealand by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

5.2       Glyphosate effectively kills all parts (leaves, shoots and roots) of a wide range of plants, including grasses, woody climbers, shrubs and trees by moving through the whole plant and inhibiting an important enzyme.

5.3       Glyphosate is used widely because it is broadly effective, is relatively inexpensive, and has fewer hazards compared with other herbicide chemicals.

5.4       As the active ingredient in numerous products glyphosate has uses in the routine control of vegetation found in parks, gardens, roadsides, building surrounds, and utility lines.

5.5       Glyphosate also has uses in more natural areas for the targeted control or eradication of environmental pest plants that threaten landscapes, native biodiversity and rare plants.

 

Concern about the safety of glyphosate

5.6       The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization.

5.7       Considering a range of information for humans and experimental animals, the IARC announced in March 2015 an overall evaluation that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans".

 

Response worldwide to the concern about the safety of glyphosate

5.8       In the opinion of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the IARC identified glyphosate only as a potential hazard (its "intrinsic toxicity potential"), and did not undertake a risk assessment, which would take into account the likely exposure of people and the environment to glyphosate when used properly.

5.9       The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority states that, in the current opinion of national authorities in countries such as the US, Canada, the EU and Australia, glyphosate is safe to be used as a herbicide.

5.10    The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority also reports that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Member States concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.

5.11    Glyphosate remains approved and in use by members of the public and other users in the US, UK, Australia, and most EU countries. It is currently banned from sale to the public in some countries, such as France and the Netherlands.

5.12    Formal reviews of glyphosate use, including risk assessments by government authorities worldwide, are likely to be made during 2016.

 

Response of councils in New Zealand to the concern about the safety of glyphosate

5.13    Local councils have responded to concern about the safety of glyphosate in a number of ways.

·   Some Local Boards of Councils in Auckland (before amalgamation e.g. Devonport) chose not to use glyphosate for some parks maintenance operations (Hot Water methodology for pavement weed control; designated spray-free areas for parks maintenance) in the 1990s.
Currently, as part of a cost saving initiative and regional LOS rationalisation, mechanical edging (completed for over 15 years) is been replaced by chemical edging with glyphosate in the Auckland Northern Contract. Some Local Boards (e.g. Devonport) are choosing to use discretionary funds to meet the cost differential to retain a non-chemical methodology. Auckland Transport is facing increasing Local Board pressure to introduce alternate control methodologies to glyphosate in the Rodney Local Board.

·   As reported by Tauranga City Council in September 2015, "all councils currently use glyphosate although some areas such as Devonport and Waiheke Island are attempting to be spray-free".

·   The Strategy and Policy Committee of the Tauranga City Council recommended the continued use of glyphosate while investigating alternative chemical and physical means of controlling vegetation, and ways to reduce the need for vegetation control.

·   Councils in the South Island in general are continuing to use glyphosate to manage vegetation while being aware of the debate being held nationally and internationally as to the risk assessment for people and the environment.

 

Use of glyphosate by Christchurch City Council

5.14    There are two principal uses of glyphosate within the operational units of Christchurch City Council: for the routine operational maintenance to control unsightly or otherwise unwanted plants (weeds), and for the targeted control of specified pest plants.

5.15    Routine operational maintenance using glyphosate is undertaken to control weeds in established amenity and revegetation plantings including at the bases of trees, on paths, kerbing, around buildings and other built assets. If weed control is not successful in hard surfaces, this can impact surface damage particularly for asphalt and provide a renewal risk.

5.16    Targeted control using glyphosate of specified high priority pest plants is undertaken under the Christchurch City Council Operational Pest Management Plan adopted in 2010 because these pest plants threaten natural landscapes, indigenous vegetation, essential services, or public health.

5.17    Awareness of the hazards associated with the application of any material used in the management of vegetation and other organisms has been heightened by the recent evaluation of the glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans, underlining the importance to applicators that materials are applied according to manufacturers' instructions and in a manner consistent with Council policies and regulations.

5.18    Glyphosate is used by Council operational units in the following ways.

Parks

Note that no spraying occurs in playgrounds or along registered spray-free boundaries; all weeds over 100 mm high are hand-pulled.

·   Chemical edging of amenity turf – 6 times/year

·   Tree circle chemical control – 6 times/year

·   Chemical control of weeds under 100 mm high in amenity gardens (excluding natural areas, sports fields and playgrounds) – 6 times/year

·   Chemical control of hard surfaces – 6 times/year

·   Pest plant control – as required in annual management programme

Road Network

·   Pavement weed control – budget split across 10 months of the year

·   Chemical edging of urban and rural turf – 4-6 times/year

·   Amenity gardens – 4-6 times/year

·   Pest plant control – as required in annual management programme

Waterways

·   Chemical control of vegetation, e.g. targeting along built structure such as some utility drains – Variable frequency depending on site and conditions – 2-4 times/year

·   Pest plant control – as required in the annual maintenance programme, and to fulfil obligations under the National Pest Plant Accord.

Property

·   Chemical control of weeds in gardens

Alternatives to the use of glyphosate for Christchurch City Council

5.19    Although several alternatives to glyphosate might be applied, none is able to replace it exactly because of the uniquely effective way in which glyphosate moves through the whole plant killing it down to the roots.

5.20    Alternative techniques also vary in their cost because, for instance, they need to be applied more frequently being less effective than glyphosate and/or they are more expensive to purchase or apply.

5.21    Alternative techniques that have been used (with limited success historically) instead of glyphosate are high pressure steam and manual work (the physical techniques), and application of a plant-derived herbicide. 

5.22    The plant-derived herbicides are sometimes called "organic" herbicides, but this is confusing because many other herbicides, such as glyphosate, also contain compounds that are chemically organic.

5.23    High pressure steam can be applied to kill the leaves of weeds. High pressure steam is effective against small annual weeds, although not very successful on deeply rooted, perennial weeds, which quickly grow back. Steam have been used unsuccessfully and disestablished by some local authorities as a chemical-free alternative methodology.

5.24    This methodology requires large quantities of water to be heated and burns up to 16L of diesel per hour (with resulting environmental impact), and hoses cannot be placed on turf areas as grass damage will result.

5.25    Manual vegetation control can be achieved by mowing or weed-eating, and weeding by hand pulling and hoeing. Mown areas quickly regrow, and hand weeding disturbs the soil allowing more weed seedlings to germinate or weeds to regenerate from plant fragments missed by the operator.

5.26    In the road corridor there is a risk that increased costs will occur, as a result of having to increase the level of traffic management for health and Safety purposes. This is not able to be quantified at this time.

5.27    Plant-derived herbicides kill the leaves of weeds by breaking down their surfaces and desiccating them, although deeply rooted plants might grow back.

5.28    The active ingredients in different plant-derived herbicides are fatty acids and/or pine oil. The fatty acids are chemical relatives of acetic acid found in vinegar, and are derived from coconuts. The pine oil comes from pine trees.

5.29    Plant-derived herbicide formulations vary from product to product. The hazards to people and the environment posed by the least hazardous formulation of Fatty Acid herbicide are compared with those of glyphosate in the following table. "Fatty Acid herbicide" is the term used for plant-derived or "organic" herbicide in this report.

 

 

Fatty Acid herbicide1

glyphosate

Hazards to people2

 

 

Acute oral toxicity

Not identified

Yes

Irritating or mildly irritating to the skin

Yes

Not identified

Irritating to the eyes

Yes

Yes

Corrosive to eye tissue

Yes

Not identified

Hazard to aquatic life2

 

 

Very ecotoxic to algae

Not identified

Yes

Harmful to fish

Yes

Not identified

Harmful to crustaceans

Yes

Not identified

Slightly harmful fish/other organisms

Yes

Yes

1 Hazards for one or more chemicals found in formulations containing only fatty acids.

2 For formal descriptions of hazards refer to the NZ Environmental Protection Agency website.

 

 

 

 

5.30    Because of the qualities outlined above, the alternative techniques to glyphosate application are more or less suitable and effective for use in different areas of operation as summarised in the following table.

 

Physical (High pressure steam)

Physical (Manual)

Fatty Acid herbicide

Parks

Suitable for hard surfaces, kerbs etc.

 

Suitable in high activity areas, city centre, Garden & Heritage Parks

Suitable in gardens only

 

Waterways

Cannot be applied

Suitable

Cannot be used (harmful to aquatic life)

Road network

Suitable

Applicable in high activity road landscapes

Not suitable (potential hazard to people, and risk of stormwater runoff harming aquatic life

Other Council properties

Suitable

Possibly suitable

Suitable

 

 

 

Capital renewal works to reduce or avoid the need for glyphosate

5.31    Council's ability to continue to deliver the current levels of service will be sustained only if investment is made as follows:

·    By increasing the density of plantings via capital renewal works to inhibit weed development.

·    By returning all gardens to a fully mulched state.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Continue using glyphosate according to current practice (status quo)

Option Description

6.1   Continue to use glyphosate for targeted control of specified pest plants and for routine operational maintenance as per current practice.  Accelerate the green asset renewal programme to minimise the risk of weed infestation in planted areas, thereby minimising the utilisation of glyphosate as a weed management technique.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

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       Community views and preferences have not been sought on this option.

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 - Nil

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs

This option will not require an increase in operational funding.

6.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

6.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    Risks

·   Growing awareness of potential harm from continuing use of glyphosate in public space.

·   Dissatisfaction of sections of the community that would feel disenfranchised if glyphosate were to be used and not replaced with a 'spray-free' or Fatty Acid option.

·   Potential risk to personnel applying the product if the product directions are not followed (i.e Improper or incomplete utilisation of protective equipment)

6.11    Mitigations

·      Monitor to ensure continual improvement in practice for the safety of applicators, the public and the environment.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies

Nil

 

 

 

Option 1 Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

 

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Glyphosate availability as a tool for management of high priority pest plant species.

·   No financial impact on core activities of amenity garden weed control, amenity turf chemical edging and hard surface weed control.

·   LOS maintained at current levels.

·   Moderate respect from some sections of the community for the appropriate use of a cost-effective herbicide (glyphosate) while having regard to any decision from national or international agencies that would affect its use.

·   Water-borne and dries quickly after application, minimising risk of contact of people and animals with wet product.

·   Low volumes required owing to effectiveness and not hazardous to applicator when applied as directed.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Glyphosate usage not reduced.

·   Public view that Council is not responding to potential health and Safety risk.

·   Appropriate checks and balances will need to be implemented for glyphosate usage to prevent over-use in maintenance activities.


 

 

7.   Option 2 - A combination of alternative physical and Fatty Acid herbicide techniques to glyphosate in public spaces. Limited use of glyphosate where it is the only practicable method.

 

Option Description

7.1   Use the most cost effective alternative combination of high pressure steam treatment, manual control, and Fatty Acid herbicide techniques, except where glyphosate is the only practicable method.  Use of glyphosate will be limited to closed sites, e.g. to facilitate capital work programmes, and for the control of pest plants, e.g. when killing an established pest plant either by digging it out or by using a more hazardous herbicide would result in widespread damage inconsistent with the conservation of biodiversity values. 

 

7.2       Methodology

Investment in the capital renewal of amenity garden areas will be required to minimise the risk to current levels of service. This would need to occur over a 3 year period levels of service. The following table describes the proposed alternative techniques for this option.

 

Techniques

High pressure steam

Manual techniques

Fatty Acid herbicide

Capital renewal investment

Glyphosate

Location

 

 

 

 

 

Parks

Hard surfaces and edges

Weed-eating, e.g. playground surrounds & ornamental gardens (existing LOS), reserve frontages with high visual profile.

Amenity gardens - spot spray garden and spray turf edges where no risk of chemical run-off into waterways or drainage systems.

Renew all garden mulch to optimum levels to supress weeds.

Renew all garden plantings to maximum plant density to supress weeds.

Utilise only in circumstances where no other appropriate technique is available for management (eradication or control) of priority pest plant species generally in Regional Parks - Or

In situations where the area of application is at sites closed to the public, e.g. to facilitate capital work programmes.

Road network

Hard surfaces and edges

Introduce mechanical edging and specialist equipment for mowing around posts to minimise edging requirements

Road Landscape gardens - spot spray where no risk of chemical run-off into waterways or drainage systems.

Garden edges (as above)

Renew all garden mulch to optimum levels to supress weeds.

Renew all garden plantings to maximum plant density to supress weeds.

Not applicable or only as required to meet contractual obligations with the NZTA and rural roads.

Waterways

Not applicable

Significant increase in manual weed-eating away from waterway

Cannot be used

Increase edge (riparian) plantings to minimise manual weed eating (Limited scope due to ownership of land parcels by third parties).

Utilise only in circumstances where no other appropriate technique is available for management (eradication or control) of priority pest plant species near waterways.

Other Council properties, e.g. Libraries, Leisure Centres

Hard surfaces and edges

Weed-eating e.g. bollards, buildings, furniture etc.

Amenity gardens - spot spray where no risk of chemical run-off into waterways or drainage systems.

 

Garden and turf edges (as above)

Renew all garden mulch to optimum levels to supress weeds.

Renew all gardens to maximum plant density supress weeds.

Not applicable

 

Significance

7.3       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       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

Community views and preferences have not been sought on this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

7.6   Cost of Implementation - Capital

This option will require an increase in one off capital renewal funding of $6.13 m over a 3 year period, and ongoing costs of $1.16 m per annum for all Council affected activities, as follows:

Parks

One off costs $ 4.88m over 3 years

·   Return all green asset gardens to fully mulched state for weed suppression will be in the order of $2 m split over 3 years. Assumption is that 50% of gardens require 100% renewal and 50% of gardens require 50% renewal.

·   Complete an infill planting programme and or reduce garden bed sizes $2.88 m split over 3 years. This cost is based on an assumption that the gardens are 25% below optimal levels.

Ongoing Costs $ 835k per annum

·   There will be a requirement to renew the mulch on a 6 yearly basis with a financial implication of $450k per annum.

·   Infill planting to renew asset with a financial implication of $385k per annum.

Road Network

One off costs $ 850k over 3 years

·   Return all green asset gardens to fully mulched state for weed suppression - completed 2015.

·   Complete an infill planting programme and or reduce garden bed sizes $850k split over 3 years. This cost is based on an assumption that the gardens are 25% below optimal levels.

Ongoing Costs $ 250k per annum

·   There will be a requirement to renew the mulch on a 6 yearly basis with a financial implication of $135k per annum.

·   Infill planting to renew asset with a financial implication of $115k per annum.

Waterways

Not applicable

Other Property

One off costs $ 400k over 3 years

·   Return all green asset gardens to fully mulched state for weed suppression will be in the order of $165k split over 3 years. Assumption is that 50% of gardens require 100% renewal and 50% of gardens require 50% renewal.

·   Complete an infill planting programme and/or reduce garden bed sizes $235k split over 3 years. This cost is based on an assumption that the gardens are 25% below optimal levels.

Ongoing Costs $ 70k per annum

·   There will be a requirement to renew the mulch on a 3 yearly basis with a financial implication of $40k per annum.

·   Infill planting to renew asset with a financial implication of $30k per annum.

7.7   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs

This option will require an increase in operational funding of $3.81 m per annum as detailed below:

Parks - $1.64 m per annum

·   use Fatty Acid herbicide for edging of amenity and informal mowing - $285k per annum

·   use Fatty Acid herbicide for amenity garden weed control (spot spraying methodology) - $525k per annum

·   use alternate methodologies and treatments for pest plants in Regional Parks - $50k

·   use high pressure steam treatment for weed control of hard surfaces - $780k

 

Road network - $1.69 m per annum

·   use high pressure steam treatment for edging of urban and rural mowing - $750k

·   use high pressure steam treatment for pavement weed control - $720k

·   use Fatty Acid herbicide for amenity garden weed control (spot spraying methodology) - $195k per annum

·   use alternate methodologies and treatments for pest plants - $25k

Waterways - $285k per annum

·   Increase use of weed eating – $260k

·   Use alternate methodologies and treatments for pest plants - $25k

Other property - $190k per annum

·   Use Fatty Acid herbicide for amenity garden weed control (spot spraying methodology) - $190k per annum

 

7.8   Funding source

·   Capital Renewal funds for the initial implementation.  Note, the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 includes a $2.5m one off budget for this.  Additional capital would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

·   Operational funds for maintenance / ongoing costs.  Note, the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 includes $2m per annum for the increased operating costs.  An additional $1.81m would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan - the rating impact of this is 0.45%.

 

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Risks

·   Minor risk of not achieving the current levels of Service due to the inability to manage problem weeds.

·   Fatty Acid herbicide presents environmental risks that are not fully quantified nor understood. There is very limited research available in relation to the residual impact of repetitive use on the environment.

·   Fatty Acid products pose a higher toxicity risk to the applicators. Potential risk to personnel applying the product if the product directions are not followed (i.e. Improper or incomplete utilisation of protective equipment)

7.11    Mitigations

·      Return all amenity garden areas to optimal levels to minimise weed infestation risk.

·      Limit the use of Fatty Acid products to areas where the product cannot come into contact with waterways

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies

·   Availability of mulch material in local market for volumes required.

·   Availability of plant and equipment for steam control methodology.

7.13    Implementation timeframe

·   Mulching and planting infill scheduled over 3 year period.

 

Option 2 Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

 

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Use of mulching and infill planting and alternate methodologies to significantly reduce presence of weeds in the city's amenity spaces.

·   Glyphosate available as a 'last resort' tool for management of high priority pest plant species and where there is no other practicable methodology.

·   Public perception that Council is acting proactively and is committed to significantly reducing the potential risk that glyphosate use presents.

·   Favourable response to the use of glyphosate only in situations where it is needed for the effective control of priority pest plants, or in inaccessible public space.

·   Possible improvement in public perception from seeing contractors using physical (high pressure steam and manual) techniques more frequently, and operating with knapsack sprayers less frequently.

·   Adverse reaction to the odour of the Fatty Acid herbicide.

 

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Appropriate checks and balances will need to be implemented for glyphosate usage to prevent 'creep back' in to wider maintenance activities.

·   Public perception that chemical usage is still taking place (even if Fatty Acid) and potential complaints about the odour associated with these products.

·   Minor risk to the current levels of service, particularly in high growth periods and during certain periods of the year may be limited as they recommended for application to dry foliage.

·   There is a practical balance between optimum control intervals for the various alternate methodologies (which ideally could be as high as twice per month in peak growth periods) and the associated costs of delivering this LOS (monthly frequency used for basis of costing).

·   Adopting a methodology, such as a high pressure steam treatment, that has been unsuccessfully used and disestablished both historically and by different local authorities as a chemical-free alternative methodology.

·   Adverse perception from operators spraying Fatty Acid herbicide with full body protection including face mask and respirator, which will still occur in some circumstances

 


 

 

8.   Option 3 - A combination of alternative physical and Fatty Acid herbicide techniques only (no glyphosate)

Option Description

8.1   As per option 2 except that Glyphosate will not be used in any circumstance. Use the most cost effective combination of physical techniques (high pressure steam and manual) and Fatty Acid herbicide.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consult to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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

8.4       Community views and preferences have not been sought on this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial implications

8.6   Cost of Implementation - Capital Renewal

As per option 2

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs

This option will require a minor increase from Option 2 to enable the ongoing management of Pest plants that were previously managed with the use of glyphosate.

An increase in operational funding of $3.86 m per annum required as below:

Parks - $1.69 m per annum

·   use Fatty Acid herbicide for edging of amenity & informal mowing - $285k per annum

·   use Fatty Acid herbicide for amenity garden weed control (spot spraying methodology) - $525k per annum

·   use alternate methodologies and treatments for Regional Parks - $100k

·   use high pressure steam for weed control of hard surfaces - $780k

 

Road network - $1.69 m per annum

·   use high pressure steam for edging of urban and rural mowing - $750k

·   use high pressure steam for pavement weed control - $720k

·   use Fatty Acid herbicide for amenity garden weed control (spot spraying methodology) - $195k per annum

·   use alternate methodologies and treatments for pest plants - $25k

 

Waterways - $285k per annum

·   Increase use of weed eating - $260k

·   use alternate methodologies and treatments for pest plants - $25k

Other property - $190k per annum

·     use Fatty Acid herbicide for amenity garden weed control (spot spraying methodology) - $190k per annum

8.8   Funding source

·   Capital Renewal funds for the initial implementation.  Note, the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 includes a $2.5m one off budget for this.  Additional capital would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

·   Operational funds for maintenance / ongoing costs.  Note, the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 includes $2m per annum for the increased operating costs.  An additional $1.86m would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan - the rating impact of this is 0.45%.

Legal Implications

8.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    Risks

·   As per Option  two plus;

·   Risk to delivery of levels of service increase slightly due to the increased difficulty in managing pest plants.

8.11    Mitigations

·   As per option 2

·   Increase funding for more manual approaches to manage plant pest species

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies

·   Availability of mulch material in local market for volumes required

·   Availability of plant and equipment for high pressure steam control methodology

8.13    Implementation timeframe

·   As per option 2

Option 3 Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·      As per option 2  plus;

·      Positive public perception from no glyphosate usage.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·      As per option 2 plus;

·      Council's ability to manage plant pest species, including those required to manage under the Regional Pest Plant Management Strategy, diminished.

 

9.   Option 4 - A combination of alternative physical techniques only (no Fatty Acid herbicide or glyphosate)

Option Description

9.1       No Spray techniques of either glyphosate or Fatty Acid alternatives to mitigate the risks of the unknown characteristics of Fatty Acid products. Use of the most cost effective combination of physical (high pressure steam and manual) techniques.

Significance

9.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       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

9.4       Community views and preferences have not been sought on this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial implications

9.6   Cost of Implementation - Capital Renewal

As per option 2

9.7   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs

 This option will require an increase in operational funding of $5.50 m per annum as detailed below:

Parks - $3.03 m per annum

·   use combination of Hot Water and mechanical edging of amenity mowing - $750k per annum

·   use hand weeding for amenity garden weed control - $1.4 m per annum

·   use alternate manual methodologies and treatments for Regional Parks - $100k

·   use high pressure steam for weed control of hard surfaces - $780k

Road network - $1.99 m per annum

·   use high pressure steam for edging of urban and rural mowing - $750k

·   use high pressure steam for pavement weed control - $720k

·   use hand weeding for amenity garden weed control - $520k per annum

Waterways - $285K per annum

·   Increase use of weed eating - $260k

·   use alternate manual methodologies and treatments for pest plants - $25k

Other property - $190k per annum

·   use hand weeding for amenity garden weed control - $190k per annum

9.8   Funding source

·   Capital Renewal funds for the initial implementation.  Note, the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 includes a $2.5m one off budget for this.  Additional capital would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

·   Operational funds for maintenance / ongoing costs.  Note, the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 includes $2m per annum for the increased operating costs.  An additional $3.50m would need to be included within the 2016/17 Annual Plan - the rating impact of this is 0.88%.

 

Legal Implications

9.9       Nil

Implementation

9.10    Implementation dependencies

·   Availability of mulch material in local market for volumes required

·   Availability of plant and equipment for high pressure steam control methodology

9.11    Implementation timeframe

·   Mulching and planting infill scheduled over 3 year period.

Option 4 Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

 

9.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   As per option 3 Plus

·   No increased risk to operators associated to Fatty Acid products.

9.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   As per option 3

 

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

John Clemens

Manager Conservation and Sustainable Development

Approved By

Jason Rivett

Andrew Rutledge

Mary Richardson

Finance Business Partner

Head of Parks

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

10.    Strengthening Communities Funding Schemes

Reference:

16/170704

Contact:

Mike Pursey

mike.pursey@ccc.govt.nz

941 6386

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to review and make the final decision on all Strengthening Communities Funding schemes criteria and policy as delegated by the Council.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Strengthening Communities Funding Schemes Report and Policy and Criteria Revision document.

2.         Consider the staff recommendations contained in 'Attachment A' for the revised Strengthening Communities Funding Schemes Policy and Criteria.

3.         Approve the Strengthening Communities Funding Schemes Policy and Criteria to allow funding to open for applications on 15 March 2016.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       At the meeting of 11 February 2016, The Council resolved:

·    That attachment A, pages 422 to 436 of the Council agenda, detailed revisions to criteria and policy, be delegated to CHED for further review and final decision.

3.2       Attachment A is provided outlining the recommendations that were put to Council at its meeting of 11 February 2016 and the revised recommendations now being put forward by staff to the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee for consideration and final approval for implementation in the 2016/17 Community Funding Round.

3.3       Council has approved and confirmed at its meeting of 11 February 2016 that applications for the 2016/17 Funding round will open on 15 March 2016. Criteria and Policy must be in place before the Strengthening Communities Funding Schemes can open.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Revised Policy and Criteria

105

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Mike Pursey

Claire Phillips

Team Leader Community Funding

Manager - Community Support Team

Approved By

Jenny Hughey

Mary Richardson

Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

11.    Housing Operations Monthly Report for December 2015, January 2016

Reference:

16/114661

Contact:

Bob Hardie

Robert.hardie@ccc.govt

941 6584

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to be updated on the operations of the Council's Housing Unit for the months of December 2015 and January 2016.

1.2       This report covers both months of December 2015 and January 2016 brings the reporting period into alignment with the March CHED meeting.   Future reports will be for one month only.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated to inform the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the key monthly operational activities.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision 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 as the report relates to ongoing operational activity.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information reported.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Housing Unit wait list has remained relatively static since August -December 2015 and reduced in January 2016 to 169 applicants.

4.2       The number of annual inspections completed is now above the monthly running target and on track for 100% completion by the end of the financial year.

4.3       As at the end of January 2016 the Housing Unit's occupancy rate remained high at 99.8% and above the annual target of 97%.

4.4       The overall debt including rent arrears and damage debt has increased as at the end of January 2016 and is higher than for the same period last year.  

4.5       The delivery of the tenant social activities program which promotes community development continues to gather momentum with an increased number of activities, an increase in the number of tenants attending activities and an increase in the number of external support agencies involved.

4.6       Staff continue to report health and safety issues as they relate to Tenancy Management which includes anti-social behaviour and welfare issues.

 

5.   Background

 

Figure 1 - Wait list

 

 

 

5.1       Figure 1 shows the following:

·   The Christchurch City Council wait list over 3 years

·   The total wait list of 169 at the end of January 2016 is lower than in January 2014 and January 2015.

·   The reduction of the wait list is mainly due to a recently completed review where applicants no longer have a need for housing or have not responded to a request for an update of their housing situation are removed from the wait list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 - Housing Applications

 

 

 

 

5.2       Figure 2 shows the following:

·   The number of Christchurch City Council housing monthly applications completed over three years.

·   There were 45 housing applications completed during December 2015 and 11 housing applications during January 2016.

·   Housing applications completed in December 2015 were higher than December 2014 and December 2015.   There is no apparent reason for the increased number of applications.  The reduction of applications in January 2016 reflects a seasonal influence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 - Housing Priority

 

 

 

 

5.3       Figure 3 shows the following:

·   A three year comparison of the number of priority Category A applicants identified for each month.

·   Of the applicants interviewed for the month of December 2015 there were 28 applicants rated as Category A.   For the month of January 2016 there were 7 applicants rated as Category A.

·   Category A applicant levels decreased in January 2016 and this is due to the reduced number of applicants for the same period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 - Inspections

 

 

5.4       Figure 4 shows the following:

·   The monthly targets for annual inspections to be completed and the actual monthly inspections completed.

·   A total of 832 inspections were completed by December 2015 and a total of 1340 inspections were completed by January 2016.

·   The number of inspections completed at the end of January 2016 is now above the monthly running target.

·   It is anticipated that the annual target of 100% completed annual inspections will be met.

·   This graph does not reflect the number of "other" inspections that are carried out during the year.   "Other" inspections include reactive maintenance, planned maintenance, tenant requests, vacating, pre vacating, letting, pre letting, tenant viewing, disaster, and Residential Tenancies Act breaches.  There are also some ad hoc inspections for various reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 - Housing Priority

 

 

 

5.5       Figure 5 shows the following:

·   The occupancy trend for the Housing Unit portfolio.

·   The occupancy rate continues to consistently exceed the target of 97 percent.

·   The occupancy rate for December 2015 was 99.5% and the occupancy rate for January 2016 was 99.8%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 - Debt Summary

 

 

 

 

 

5.6       Figure 6 shows the following:

·   The current overall debt owed by current and former tenants.

·   Overall debt has increased for the month of December 2015 and increased further for the month of January 2016.

·   This is a normal seasonal spike where tenants opt to compensate additional personal spending with their normally allocated rent money.

·   There is always a strong focus on reducing the overall debt using debt management best practise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities

 

5.7       The Housing Unit is focused on increasing community well-being in the housing complexes.   There are a number of initiatives in place or being considered to meet this objective.

·   BBQs continued to be held at various housing complexes and there is an annual plan to ensure the all complexes in the portfolio are supported in this way at least once during the financial year.    In the months of December 2015 and January 2016 there were BBQs held at  Norman Kirk Courts, Dover Courts, Haast Courts, Hennesey Place, Division Street, Veronica Place, Bryndwr Courts, Concord Place, Clent Lane and Manse Place.

·   The Annual Garden Awards were presented to the winners of each category at the Maurice Carter Courts in December 2015.   This event was very successful and well received by the tenants involved.  

·   There were 10 tenant organised activities at various complexes in the housing portfolio during December 2015 and January 2016.

·   The cessation of smoking programme is continuing for all new and existing tenants and to date almost 30% of tenants have signed tenancy agreements agreeing not to smoke in their unit.

·   The number of tenants joining Neighbourhood Support continues to steadily increase.

 

 

 

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

Robert Hardie

Team Leader Housing Operations

Approved By

Carolyn Gallagher

David Adamson

Head of Housing

General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

12.    Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme Monthly Report for January 2016

Reference:

16/126195

Contact:

Jeanette Gower

JeanetteGower@ccc.govt.nz

941 8021

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee on the Council's Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1    The decision(s) 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 the number of people affected by the actual repairs and rebuild programme.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

a.         Receives the information supplied.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme (the programme) is achieving the plan to increase the housing portfolio to at least 2,366 units by 2017/18 (refer Attachment 1; Attachment 2).

4.2       The portfolio has a total of 2283 open units which represents no change since the November/December reporting period due to construction site closures over the Christmas and New Year period.

4.3       During the January 2016 period, the following repair and rebuild programme activity occurred:

·    Site works commenced on eight new units at Osborne Street and foundation work completed.

·    Repair works commenced on closed units at Whakahoa and Concord Place.

·    One unit redecoration completed at Haast Courts.

·    EQ Repair project at Treddinick Place site works commenced.

·    The removal of foundations at Shoreham Courts was completed signifying the last of the Council Red Zoned Social Housing complex demolitions.

·    Demolition of 24 Units at Santa Cruz Lane continues and on target for completion by end February 2016.

·    Demolition of building structures completed at Brougham Village and final landscaping in progress with demolition to be complete by mid February 2016.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Progress and actions towards the programme priorities and related work is summarised below.

Priority One: New Builds

5.2       In total Council has approved a total of 61 new social housing units to be built. This comprises 53 one bedroom units and eight two bedroom units equating to a total of 69 beds.

5.3       A total of 27 new social housing units have been built, opened, and tenanted since 2014. This includes 12 units at Maurice Carter Courts in 2013/2014 and eight units at Knightsbridge Lane in 2014/2015. A further three units were completed at Berwick Courts and four at HP Smith Courts in 2015.

5.4       The rebuild programme is currently on track to achieve the target total of 61 new builds by July/ August 2016 with works currently being finalised on 18 units at Harman Courts. A further eight units are currently under construction at both Innes Courts and Osborne Street.

5.5       Table 1 indicates the programme status for the 2015/2016 financial year.

Project Name

# units

2015 -2016 Programme Status

(as at 31 January 2015)

Complete or Target date

Tenanting Date

Berwick Courts

3

Project completed and tenanted September 2015.

Complete

Tenanted

HP Smith Courts

4

Project completed and tenanted October 2015.

Complete

Tenanted

Sub total

7

 

 

 

 

Harman Courts

18

·    Painting and fit off complete all blocks.

·    Contractor's quality assurance in progress.

·    External drainage complete all blocks.

·    Soft and hard landscaping works in progress.

Feb 2016

 

Innes Court

8

·    Tilt panel erection complete.

·    Concrete floor and foundations in progress.

·    First phase landscaping commenced.

June 2016

 

Osborne Street

8

·    Foundations and gravel rafts complete.

·    Ground floor slab complete.

·    Erection of timber frames in progress.

Aug 2016

 

Sub total

34

Currently under construction and due for completion by July 2016.

 

 

TOTAL

41

  On track to achieve the target of 41 new builds in 2015/16.

Table 1.

Priority One: Repair and Reopen Closed Units

5.5       A total of 112 closed social housing units have been repaired and reopened or are scheduled to be re-opened by July 2016.

5.6       Table 2 indicates the programme status for the 2015/2016 financial year.

Project Name

# units

2015 -2016 Programme Status

(as at 31 January 2015)

Complete or Target date

Concord Place

6

Reopened.  Repairs complete June and August 2015.

Complete

Aldwins Courts

11

All 11 closed units returned to service by July 2015.

Complete

Sub total

17

 

 

Concord Place

2

In progress

Jun 2016

Whakahoa Village

3

Procurement stage

Jun 2016

Glue Place

2

Planning and approvals stage

Jul 2016

Veronica Place

1

Procurement stage

Aug 2016

Cresselly Place

13

In planning stage

Dec 2016

Mary McLean Place

1

Planning and approvals stage

Nov 2016

Tommy Taylor

25

Planning, Approvals and procurement stage

Mar 2017

Airedale Courts

20

Procurement stage

May 2017

Sub total

67

 

 

TOTAL

84

Completed or scheduled for project commencement by July 2016. 

Table 2.

Priority Two: Complete essential repairs on open units

5.7       Essential repairs have been completed on some 407 social housing units to February 2016, with a further 117 scheduled for completion by November 2016.

5.8       Table 3 indicates the essential repairs programme status for the 2015/2016 financial year.

  

Project name

# units

2015 -2016 Programme Status

(as at 31 January 2015)

Complete or target date

Briggs Row

4

Repairs completed October 2015

Complete

Glue Place

1

Vacant unit repairs completed

Complete

Reg Adams Courts

1

Vacant unit repairs completed

Complete

Sandilands

1

Vacant unit repairs completed

Complete

Concord Place

1

Essential unit repairs completed

Complete

Dover courts

1

Essential unit repairs completed

Complete

Huggins Place

2

Essential unit repairs completed

Complete

Proctor

3

Foundation repairs -complete

Internal repairs deferred until 2018/19

Complete

 

Sandilands

N/A

Ancillary repairs underway. Service repairs completed.

Complete

Sub total

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

Halswell Courts

10

Planning stage

Apr 2016

Sandilands

24

Planning stage

May - Oct 2016

Treddinick Place

5

Site mobilised January 2016 - works in progress

Jun 2016

Avonheath Courts

6

Planning and approvals stage

Aug 2016

Haast Courts

27

Under repair

Aug 2016

Marwick Place

26

Planning and approvals stage

Oct 2016

Clent Lane

19

Planning stage

Nov 2016

Knightsbridge Lane

N/A

Procurement Stage - Laneway works and repairs

Apr 2016

Biddick Courts

N/A

Ancillary and services repairs and external painting to 16 units in progress

Apr 2016

Fred Price Courts

N/A

Ancillary repairs complete, essential repairs in planning

Jan 2017

Gloucester Courts

N/A

Planning stage 2 exterior weather tightness - 20 units

Dec 2017

Sub total

117

 

 

 

TOTAL

131

 

 

Table 3.

5.9       Report Cards provide project detail and timelines on all of the new builds, repairs and reopening of closed units, and the essential repairs on open units (refer Attachment 3, Attachment 4 and Attachment 5).

Priority Three: Develop a range of options to repair the balance of the portfolio

5.10    The Social Housing Portfolio had 2,649 units prior to the earthquakes.  The Draft Housing Activity Management Plan 2015-25 Level of Service aims to 'maintain at least 2,366 units by July 2018'.

5.11    Following the Council's consideration of the Housing Asset Optimisation Strategy staff will develop the next stage of rebuild and repair options and priorities.  These options could include proposals to complete full repairs on units that have had interim work completed, complete cosmetic repairs, demolish and replace units that are total constructive losses and rebuild more units.

Demolitions

5.12   The demolition of Red Zone properties under CERA management were fully completed by January 2016.

5.13   A total of 169 units were demolished to the period ending 31 January 2015.

5.14    A further 116 units are in the process of demolition or awaiting approval for demolition.

Project Name

# units

2015 -2016 Programme Status

(as at 31 January 2015)

Complete or Target date

Red Zone Units (Calbourne Courts; Bangor St; Captain Thomas courts; Shoreham courts; Bowie Place)

113

It is CERA's responsibility to complete these demolitions.  Calbourne Courts (26 Units) completed 24 April 2015.  Bangor Street (9 Units) completed end April 2015.  Shoreham Courts (28 Units) demolition of units completed 13 July 2015, removal of foundations completed January 2016.  Captain Thomas Courts (18 units) completed 14 August 2015. Bowie Place (32 units) completed 30 October 2015.

Complete

 

Brougham Village

24

Demolition of Blocks G;H;J completed 16 July 2015

Complete

 

Charles Street

4

Demolition completed 9 October 2015.

Complete

 

Sub total

141

 

 

 

 

Brougham Village

61

·  Demolition commenced 7 Sept 2015

·  All buildings have been demolished

·  Ground remediation underway

·  Landscaping for seeding in progress to be completed February 2016. 

Feb 2016

 

Santa Cruz Lane

24

·  Demolition commenced 14 December 2015.

·  On target for completion of demolition by end of February 2016.

·  Landscaping and seeding to be completed post demolition.

Mar 2016

 

Charles Gallagher Place

7

Approvals stage

Jul 2016

 

Avonheath Courts

11

Approvals stage

Jul 2016

 

Louisson Courts

13

Awaiting approval

Jul 2016

 

Sub total

116

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

257

Total demolitions completed to date, or approved and scheduled for demolition in the near future.

 

Table 4.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment 1. Social Housing Portfolio Comparison Update January 2016

140

b  

Attachment 2. Social Housing Portfolio Stream 2 Intensification Projects Progress January 2016

141

c  

Attachment 3 - Social Housing Report Cards - Rebuild (January 2016)

142

d  

Attachment 4 - Social Housing Report Cards - Reopen Closed Units (January 2016)

145

e  

Attachment 5 - Social Housing Report Cards - Essential Repairs (January 2016)

154

 

 

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

Claire Milne

Programme Liaison Advisor

Approved By

Jeanette Gower

Carolyn Gallagher

David Adamson

Manager Housing Rebuild & Liaison

Head of Housing

General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

13     Community Facilities Rebuild Update February 2016

Reference:

16/141110

Contact:

Darren Moses

darren.moses@ccc.govt.nz

021 377023

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to be informed about the status of the priority projects being delivered by the Community Facilities Rebuild Unit (CFRU) for the month of February 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       Not applicable to this information-only report.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This information report provides a monthly programme update on some of the key CFRU activities for reporting from January 2016 to mid-February 2016.

4.1.1      A summary of the Community Facilities projects can be found in Attachment A and a summary of the Heritage Facilities can be found in Attachment B.

4.2       The programme in its entirety is currently scheduled to be completed by December 2018.  This includes all of the new build/rebuild projects and all of the repair schemes.  The programme is also tracking to be delivered within the budget enveloped set by Council in the 2015 -2025 Long Term Plan.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council is running a major earthquake repair and rebuild programme, looking at the future of the 1,600 residential and non-residential buildings it owns.  This work is undertaken by the Community Facilities Rebuild Unit.

·   Of these 1,600 facilities, 600 buildings are from Social Housing which are reported separately, leaving the remaining Heritage and Community Facilities for this Committee to consider.

The management of Health and safety on all Community Facility rebuild sites is paramount.  Council is a signatory to the Canterbury Rebuild Safety Charter.  The team are taking all practicable steps to ensure we met all of our requirements under the current and future HSE legislation.  To date, in the current financial year we have recorded nil lost time injuries across the many live construction sites we are accountable for.  The table below is a record of HSE activity on our site for December 2015 and January 2016

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

CHED 03 March 2016 Community Facilties Report ATTACHMENT TWO Heritage Programme

167

 

 

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

Darren Moses

Manager Capital Delivery Community

Approved By

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

 

14.    Anchor Projects and Major Facilities CHED Report

Reference:

16/144356

Contact:

Peter Vause

Peter.Vause@ccc.govt.nz

9418856

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide a monthly status update on the projects being delivered by the Anchor Projects and Major Facilities Unit of the City Services-Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       This information report provides a monthly programme update on Anchor Projects being delivered within the Cost Sharing Agreement and Major Facilities.

3.2       A breakdown of overall project anticipated cost is represented in Graph 1.

 

4.   Background

4.1       The Cost Sharing Agreement signed between the Crown and the Council forms the basis on each Anchor project for cost, funding, delivery responsibility, governance arrangement, ownership, operating cost liability and estimated project completion date.

4.2       Work has been completed at Christchurch Art Gallery and Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre. 

4.3       The Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre, Nga Puna Wai, Old Municipal Chambers and Canterbury Provincial Chambers are in the planning stages.

4.4       The New Hornby Library, South West Pool and South Library are in the investigation stages.

4.5       Consultants have been engaged to begin investigating potential strategies for the repair or restoration of the Old Municipal Chambers. Preliminary design for repair/restoration of Stage 1 of the Canterbury Provincial Chambers has been completed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph 1: Anchor Projects & Major Facilities Value ($M) – excludes Infrastructure

 

Description: M:\FIAP UNIT REPORTS\CHED Elected Member Updates\Reports\Portfolio Value by CategoryV2.JPG

 

 

5.   Comments

 

 

5.1       New Central Library:

Construction tenders for the New Central Library closed on 9 December 2015.  A Recommendation for acceptance will be submitted to Council on 25th February 2016. 

 

CCC has engaged SGL Funding for potential philanthropic funding.

 

5.2       Performing Arts Precinct:

Planning continues with the focus being on maximising the opportunities in the Precinct by identifying the most suitable land and funding arrangements. Construction of The Piano (the Music Centre of Christchurch's building) on ongoing with completion planned for mid-2016.

 

5.3       Christchurch Town Hall:

Design requirements being developed for the Cambridge Block, Limes Complex, kitchen and former Boaters Restaurant. Demolition of Cambridge block and Boaters restaurant now complete. Jet grouting progress across the building in a West to East direction - Back of House Auditorium is now complete.

 

5.4       Metro Sports Facility:

The revised scope and additional Crown funding was confirmed by Cabinet on 3 August 2015. An RFP for design consultancy services closed on 30th October 2015.  Concept design is currently underway. An ROI for ECI services was released on 21 October 2015 and an RFP for project Management and Quantity Surveying services is currently in the market

 

5.5       Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre

The new facility is being constructed to replace facilities lost at QEII in the earthquakes. The site was selected by a Community Advisory Group after consideration of a number of different sites in the Burwood/Pegasus area. The Ministry of Education have confirmed QEII Park as the preferred site for the rebuild of the Shirley Boys and Avonside Girls High Schools.

Engagement on the sale and purchase of land to the MOE is planned to begin in March 2016 with a final decision by Council mid-2016.

 

5.6       NGA Puna Wai

RFPs for Design Team, Project Management and Quantity Surveying services has been released and appointments expected in March 2016. Ongoing discussions are occurring with key funding partners and sporting stakeholders. Programme timelines being developed and will be confirmed once consultant teams appointed.

 

5.7       New Hornby Library

Geotechnical investigations are being planned in Kyle Park, to understand whether sports fields can be located there. A scoping exercise will be conducted to understand the practicality and feasibility of combining the Library with the South West Recreation & Sport Centre. A business case will be drafted in the following months with the aim to substantiate the need to build the facility and investigate the feasibility of its maintenance for the years to come. 

 

5.8       South West Recreation and Sport Centre

Ensure community facilities and services are of sufficient capacity to meet current and projected populations and changing demographics. Location still to be approved but options include Denton Park and Hornby High School Sites.

 

5.9       South Library

Three repair options are being investigated for the repair of the building.

A peer review has been submitted for the structural design of the three schemes and they are now being priced.

The estimate for the repairs will be finalised in the last week of February.

A report will then be drafted summarizing the findings and recommending the way forward.

 

6.  Financial Implications

 

6.1       There are no financial implications to the staff recommendation.  The programme funding will be managed under the Crown Cost Share agreement and through normal Council planning and approval processes as appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

V14b Anchor Major Projects Elected Member Update 2016-01-31

211

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Vause

Development Director

Approved By

Peter Vause

Shaun Hubbard

David Adamson

Development Director

Head of Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services

General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

03 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator