Christchurch City Council

Supplementary Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 10 March 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

 

 

7 March 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

Jo.Daly@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.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

55.     Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports...................................................................... 4

56.     Joint Public Transport Committee Update ............................................................................ 5

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

57.     Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016......................... 19

58.     Glyphosate Herbicide Use....................................................................................................... 55

INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

59.     Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley).................................................... 79

60.     Resolution to Exclude the Public........................................................................................... 94


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

55 Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

1.       Background

1.1          Approval is sought to submit the following reports to the Council meeting on 10 March 2016:

56.   Joint Public Transport Committee Update

57.   Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016

58.   Glyphosate Herbicide Use

59.   Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley)

61.   New Central Library Tender Acceptance

62.   Lichfield Street Car Park Rebuild

1.2          The reason, in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the reports were not included on the main agenda is that they were not available at the time the agenda was prepared.

1.3          It is appropriate that the Council receive the reports at the current meeting.

2.       Recommendation

2.1          That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on 10 March 2016.

 

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

56.    Joint Public Transport Committee Update

Reference:

16/239329

Contact:

Karleen Edwards

Karleen.Edwards@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to revoke a resolution from the Council meeting of 11 February 2016 regarding membership of the proposed Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport - Council decision CNCL/2016/00083.  This is to be done under Council Standing Order 3.9.18.  The remainder of the resolutions remain unchanged.  Refer attachment A for the Council resolutions from 11 February 2016, attachment 2 for staff report to the ITE Committee and attachment 3 for the report from ITE Committee to Council.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been generated at the request of the Chief Executive Officer.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance has been assessed in the previous report as Low. This decision is a follow up on the previous Council report on the proposed Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport (11 Feb 2016).

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Revoke the following Council decision of 11 February 2016:

a.         Agree in principle to form a Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport in general accordance with Option 5 (b) (which does not delegate the Councils public transport powers to this committee) outlined in this report, with the exception of membership. Council's preference is for the Joint Committee being made up of an independent chair, three representatives from Christchurch City Council and one representative from ECan, Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils, with NZTA and CDHB representatives in non-voting observer roles.

2.         Replace the decision with the following:

a.         Agree in principle to form a Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport in general accordance with Option 5 (b) (which does not delegate the Councils public transport powers to this committee), as outlined in the report of 11 February, with membership consisting of an independent chair, three representatives each from Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury, one representative each from Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils and one NZTA representative in a non-voting observer role.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Under Council Standing Orders section 3.9.18 Council may, on a recommendation contained in a report by the chairperson or chief executive, or the report of any committee, revoke or alter all or part of resolutions previously passed at meetings.

4.2       This report recommends that Council revoke part of the decision made on the proposed Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport that relates to its membership structure.  

4.2.1   The current resolution is:  Agree in principle to form a Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport in general accordance with Option 5 (b) (which does not delegate the Councils public transport powers to this committee) outlined in this report, with the exception of membership. Council's preference is for the Joint Committee being made up of an independent chair, three representatives from Christchurch City Council and one representative from ECan, Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils, with NZTA and CDHB representatives in non-voting observer roles.

4.2.2   The recommended replacement resolution is as follows:  Agree in principle to form a Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport in general accordance with Option 5 (b) (which does not delegate the Councils public transport powers to this committee), as outlined in the report of 11 February, with membership consisting of an independent chair, three representatives each from Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury, one representative each from Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils and one NZTA representative in a non-voting observer role.

4.2.3   These changes effectively agree to increase membership of Environment Canterbury representatives from one member of the proposed committee, to three.  It also removes reference to the CDHB being a member, in a non-voting observer capacity, which makes the resolution the same as the other strategic partners on membership.     

 

5.   Context/Background

Council Resolution

5.1       On the 11 February, Council adopted a resolution from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) regarding the proposed membership structure for the proposed Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport.  The ITE committee's recommendation to Council was for three representatives from CCC, one from ECan, Selwyn and Waimakariri and two non-voting members, one from NZTA and one from CDHB.  Council adopted this recommendation on the 11 February 2016.

5.2       In an effort to progress the establishment of the proposed Joint Greater Christchurch Committee for Public Transport this report recommends changing the resolution of 11 February regarding the membership structure so that it includes three representatives from ECan, three from CCC and one from Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils and one non-voting member from NZTA.  

5.3       This is aligned with the other partners, who also agreed with the Council having three representatives.  As all the partners need to work collaboratively together and agree on the terms for the joint committee, it is appropriate for the Council to modify its resolution on membership.

5.4       The other resolutions remain unchanged. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment 1 - Council Resolution on Joint Committee Membership

8

b  

Attachment 2 - ITE Report on Joint Public Transport Committee Option 5B

9

c  

Attachment 3 - ITE Report to Council

17

 

 

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

Rae-Anne Kurucz

Team Leader Transport

Approved By

Karleen Edwards

Brendan Anstiss

Richard Osborne

Chief Executive

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

  


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 3 March 2016

 

57.    Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016

Reference:

16/220041

Contact:

Sarah Amazinnia

sarah.amazinnia@ccc.govt.nz

941 7342

 

 

 

1.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Comment

 

1.             The Committee considered the report on the Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016.

 

2.             The Committee noted that Woolston was the incorrect suburb for the proposed facility and the staff recommendation was amended to read Waltham.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommend 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 Waltham.

 

 

 

3.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council 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 Waltham.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Creative Industries Support Fund Panel 3 Final Recommendations 2016

21

 

No.

Title

Page

a  

Circotica Application Form

26

b  

Circotica budget CISF

31

c  

Circotica draft lease CISF panel 3 2016

32

d  

Circotica Business Plan CISF panel 3 2016

41

e  

Circotica letters of support CISF panel 3 2016

46

f  

Circotica fundraising and sponsorship plan CISF panel 3 2016

53

 

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

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

 

b 

Circotica budget CISF

 

c 

Circotica draft lease CISF panel 3 2016

 

d 

Circotica Business Plan CISF panel 3 2016

 

e 

Circotica letters of support CISF panel 3 2016

 

f 

Circotica fundraising and sponsorship plan CISF panel 3 2016

 

 

 

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

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 March 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 3 March 2016

 

58.    Glyphosate Herbicide Use

Reference:

16/243256

Contact:

John Clemens

john.clemens@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

1.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Comment

 

The Committee considered a report on Glyphosate herbicide use and agreed it should be referred directly to Council.

 

 

2.   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.

 

 

 

 

3.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That Council:

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

a.      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.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Glyphosate herbicide use

57

 

 

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

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

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 3 March 2016

 

59.    Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley)

Reference:

16/239511

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the design and construction of the preferred pipeline diversion option for the Matuku waterway flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley (Option 1).

 

 

2.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the design and construction of the preferred pipeline diversion option for the Matuku waterway flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley (Option 1).

Note: That the Committee request a regular review of the maintenance of the waterways through the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley)

80

 

 

 


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley)

Reference:

16/129081

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to endorse to Council the preferred option for the Matuku Waterway flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated.

2.       Significance

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

2.1.1     The level of significance was determined by the small scale of the investment, localised impacts and wider benefits to the community within the Heathcote Valley.  There continues to be community interest in post-earthquake flooding issues in the Heathcote Valley.  The Matuku Waterway project is one of the projects being delivered on a fast-track programme within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP).  As a result any community engagement will be undertaken in parallel with the detailed design tasks to speed project delivery. 

2.1.2     At this stage community consultation has been limited to engagement with the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.              Approve the design and construction of the preferred pipeline diversion option for the Matuku waterway flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley (Option 1).

 

4.       Key Points

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

4.1.1     Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·           Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2          Prior to the earthquakes Council, in discussion with affected landowners, purchased a strip of land between Morgans Valley and Bridle Path Road to enable diversion of the Southern Matuku Waterway away from the Heathcote Valley Drain to connect with the Northern Matuku Waterway along Cooks Lane. The waterway diversion was to be undertaken as part of a subdivision on either side of the waterway but the effects of the earthquakes have put the diversion on hold indefinitely.

4.3          During the flood events of 2014 the Heathcote Valley experienced flooding in a number of areas, and these were reported on by the Mayoral Flood Taskforce. Completion of the Matuku waterway diversion was identified as a necessary component of the flood protection works within the Heathcote Valley.

4.4          This project is on the LDRP fast-track programme. There is potential to begin construction of components of the proposed works within the current financial year (2015/16). In order to meet this tight timeframe approval of the preferred option and approval of the use of existing officer financial delegations to award the construction contract are being sought simultaneously.

4.5          The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 - Pipeline diversion along Bridle Path Road (preferred option)

·      Option 2 - New open waterway diversion

·      Option 3 - Do nothing

4.6          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6.1     The advantages of this option compared to the open channel option include:

·      Lower geotechnical and residual flood risks

·      Faster and easier construction allowing for earlier delivery of flood mitigation works

·      Greater control over flow splitting

·      Does not prevent future upgrades along the open channel corridor to achieve other benefits

4.6.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·      No enhancement of non-drainage values such as landscape or recreation

·      Greater disruption to Bridle Path Road during construction

 

5.       Context/Background

Project Background

5.1          The key features of the current drainage network relevant to this project are shown in Figure 1. Currently the Southern Matuku Waterway discharges into Heathcote Valley Drain, which then continues through a series of piped and open watercourses down to Truscotts Road Drain after Martindales Road.

5.2          Prior to the earthquakes Council, in discussion with affected landowners, purchased a strip of land (shown in magenta on Figure 2) between Morgans Valley and Bridle Path Road (between Cooks Lane and Martindales Road). This land was purchased to facilitate the diversion of the Southern Matuku Waterway away from the Heathcote Valley Drain to connect with the Northern Matuku Waterway along Cooks Lane (formerly Cooktown Drain). The waterway diversion was to be undertaken as part of a subdivision on either side of the waterway.

Figure 1 Matuku Waterway - Current Layout

 

Figure 2 Matuku Waterway Land Purchase (shown in magenta)

 

5.3          The purpose of this diversion was to reduce overflows onto Bridle Path Road from the Heathcote Valley Drain by diverting the Southern Matuku Waterway. The overflows primarily occur at the 'Key Overflow Point' shown in Figure 1.The overflows are due to the capacity of the inlet and the downstream network.

5.4          However, the land on which the waterway diversion was to be constructed was affected by the earthquakes, with portions of it red zoned. As a result of these earthquake impacts the subdivision is no longer practical in its original form, affecting the implementation of the waterway diversion.

5.5          During the flood events of 2014 the Heathcote Valley experienced flooding in a number of areas, and these were reported on by the Mayoral Flood Taskforce (Taskforce).

5.6          The Taskforce final report (Part C - Appendix B, page B33) reported the following causes of the March 2014 flooding resulting from overflows of the Matuku Waterway/Heathcote Valley Drain:

·      "The inlet grill that receives the flow from Heathcote Valley Drain on Bridle Path Road blocked and water overflowed along the east side of Bridle Path Road towards Cooks Lane. Some also flowed across Bridle Path Road and down Marsden Road, Station Road and then into Martindales and lastly Pawaho Place. Some water flowed across some properties on the north side of Marsden Road at the Bridle Path Road end."

·      "Overflow from Heathcote Valley Drain that headed north along east side of Bridle Path Road crossed to the west side at the intersection of Cooks Lane and flowed past the existing triple sump down the driveway and across a Bridle Path Road property."

5.7          Completion of the Matuku waterway diversion was identified by the Taskforce as necessary to reduce the risk of overflow of the Heathcote Valley Drain from reoccurring.

New Open Waterway Diversion Investigation

5.8          In response to the findings of the Taskforce, the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) initiated investigations into the feasibility of the pre-earthquake proposal to construct a new waterway diversion.

5.9          While the preliminary investigation identified that an open waterway could be constructed on the land purchased by Council, a number of significant risks were identified:

·      Construction of an open waterway across the slope in loess soils. Loess soils have poor physical properties, lose strength when they get wet, and are highly erodible. This may increase the risk of failure and increases the cost of construction to install mitigation measures.

·      Residential properties downslope of the waterway. Having the waterway cross the slope above residential properties increases the risk resulting from any overdesign events or from failure, as flood waters could spill in an uncontrolled manner into areas previously not flooded.

·      The infrequent operation of the channel. A channel that permanently carries water allows for easier identification of seepage areas. However, this channel will be mainly dry and only operate when the weather is poor. This could make observation or identification of issues more challenging and difficult to resource.

·      Potential to transfer the flood risk to Cooks Lane due to the conveyance of over design flows. An open waterway may convey flows greater than the design flow downstream. This may transfer the flood risk downstream which is considered unacceptable.

5.10       While it was considered likely that most of these risks have design solutions, these will add cost and delays to the project. There is also the potential for Council to be left with an unacceptably high residual geotechnical and flood risk.

5.11       These risks are not present to the same degree on the existing Southern Matuku Waterway as it is located along the natural valley floor.

5.12       The cost of the new open waterway diversion has been estimated at $2.5 million using preliminary design sizes and quantities. This could increase depending on the ground conditions encountered.

5.13       The project team identified an alternative option, which is a piped diversion along Bridle Path Road. The pipe will intercept flows from Heathcote Valley and Martindales Drains, and discharge these into the Matuku Waterway on Cooks Lane. Figure 3 shows the routes of both the new open waterway (dashed blue) and the pipeline (dashed purple, including upgrading of a short section of open waterway in dotted magenta).

5.14       The next section describes the evaluation of the option of a pipeline diversion combined with an upgrade of Heathcote Valley Drain.

Figure 3 Matuku Waterway Diversion Options

 

Pipeline Diversion Investigation

5.15       The pipeline concept design report investigated the feasibility of upgrading a short section of Heathcote Valley Drain to connect to a new pipeline along Bridle Path Road (identified as
Option 1 in Figure 3). The aim of this work is to divert flows away from the existing undercapacity stormwater network in the Marsden Street area.

5.16       The feasibility of a pipeline along Bridle Path Road was confirmed in a study which considered geotechnical issues, services, location of inlets and outlets, and other factors affecting constructability.

5.17       A concept design was developed and the cost of the pipeline diversion (including any upgrading Heathcote Valley Drain) estimated at up to $2.5 million using preliminary design sizes and quantities.

5.18       The study also carried out a condition assessment of the Heathcote Valley Drain between the Matuku waterway and Bridle Path Road, and identified that it is in poor condition in places. As such it was recommended that this portion of the Heathcote Valley Drain be repaired and/or upgraded as part of this project. The cost of this is included in the preliminary estimate.

5.19       It is important to note that flows in excess of the pipe capacity will still flow along the existing overland flow route down Marsden Street. This is unavoidable, as if the flow conveyed to Cooks Lane is too large then new flooding will occur in that location. However, the pipeline diversion will be designed to remove sufficient flows from Marsden Street (so that flooding will be less frequent and severe than the current situation) without exacerbating flooding downstream of Cooks Lane.

5.20       Upgrade of the Marsden Street network downstream of Bridle Path Road was dismissed as it involves significant works on private property and there would be residual flooding risk for over design events. This option was not considered further and is not described in detail in this report.

Option Selection

5.21       A multi-criteria analysis (MCA) workshop was held with the project design and review teams to compare the two options (a new open waterway versus a pipeline) against the following criteria:

·      Ease/flexibility of implementation

·      Constructability

·      Safety (construction and operation)

·      Residual flood risk

·      Operation and maintenance

·      Ease of consents/approvals/consultation

·      Impact on other values (cultural, landscape, heritage, recreation, ecology)

·      Disruption to traffic, community, businesses

 

5.22       These were scored and weighted based on relative preference, with a higher score representing the preferred option. The pipeline option scored 178 and the new open waterway scored 108.

5.23       Based on the outcome of the MCA workshop and the comparative costs of both options the decision was made to recommend the pipeline as the preferred option.

5.24       In order to meet the timeframes for fast-track delivery of this project, detailed design is underway for the pipeline diversion option. The decision to progress to detailed design ahead of a Council resolution was made on the basis of the availability of the design team, low cost of the detailed design work, and favourable feedback from the LDRP Working Group and the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board on the change to the design from an open waterway to a pipeline.

5.25       Detailed 2D hydraulic modelling has been undertaken to confirm that the pipeline option will deliver on the following two design outcomes:

·      Reduction in the frequency and severity of flooding resulting from overflows of the Heathcote Valley Drain; and

·      No significant increase in adverse effects downstream of the diversion (in the section of the Matuku Waterway beginning at Cooks Lane).

5.26       For a 2% annual exceedance probability (AEP) event the preliminary hydraulic modelling has shown:

·      A reduction in the extent and depth of flooding in the areas downstream of Bridle Path Road.

·      No significant increase in water levels in the Northern Matuku Waterway. 

The pre- and post-diversion model results for the 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) 1-hour duration events are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The pre-diversion flow is shown in Figure 3, and it can be seen that there is a well defined overland flow path from Marsden Street, through to Flavell Street and on to Martindales Road. This is shown in light blue, which represents flow 50-100 mm deep, with pockets of deeper flooding. While this overland flow path remains with the pipe diversion in Figure 4, it is shallower and less extensive.

No adverse effect can be seen downstream of Cooks Lane, with the flooding depth and extent along Truscotts Road and Deavoll Place remaining similar.

Further modelling is currently being undertaken to confirm the results and to identify the optimal configuration of the pipe diversion, but it is considered that the results provide sufficient confidence to proceed.

Figure 3   2% AEP existing (pre-diversion) peak flood depth and inundation extent

Figure 4   2% AEP post-diversion peak flood depth and inundation extent

6.       Option 1 - Pipeline diversion along Bridle Path Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          The key components of this option are shown in Figure 2 and consist of:

·      Upgrading the Heathcote Valley Drain with better scour protection. Detailed design may identify a need to increase capacity and this can be incorporated into this project if needed. Heathcote Valley Drain currently conveys flows from the end of the Southern Matuku Waterway to Bridle Path Road and this will continue with the pipeline option.

·      Installing a new pipeline along Bridle Path Road between Heathcote Valley Drain (opposite Marsden Street) and Cooks Lane. This will transfer the majority of flow away from the area currently at risk of flooding.

·      Maintaining the current overland flow route down Marsden Street when the flows are in excess of the design capacity of the pipe.

Significance

6.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works and negotiating access to the Heathcote Valley Drain with the current landowners.

6.3          The Community Board has been informed throughout the investigation and design process through a seminar and memos.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4          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

6.5          The Mayoral Flood Taskforce and public meetings at that time indicated concern from the community over flooding in Heathcote Valley. As such, although community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option, it is understood that the community has a strong preference for works to mitigate post-earthquake flooding in this area.

6.6          A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board was held on 23 October 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Board expressed support for the diversion of the Matuku waterway. They considered informing the community of the works to be sufficient engagement for this project. Since then the Board has been informed of the change in approach from a new open waterway to a pipeline diversion. No concerns have been raised about this change in approach, apart from the need to engage with the owners of the land on which the Heathcote Valley Drain is located.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8          Cost of Implementation - The preliminary cost estimate for the works is estimated at up to $2.5 million using preliminary design sizes and quantities. This will be reviewed upon completion of detailed design.

6.9          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Ongoing maintenance costs have not been evaluated at present. There will likely be some benefit to ongoing maintenance if improved scour protection of Heathcote Valley Drain is installed, but there will be some increase in operational costs due to the new pipeline.

6.10       Funding source - The LDRP has $42.5 million assigned in the LTP for use in the 2015/16 financial year and a total of approximately $150 million in the three year plan.  The LDRP will fund the works out of the 2015/16 and 2016/17 programme budget.

Legal Implications

6.11       A detailed consenting analysis is currently underway. It is expected that most of the proposed works will be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council, but some new consents may be needed.

6.12       Some tree removals may be required along the Heathcote Valley Drain, and this is currently being assessed.

6.13       Disposal of the land purchased for the open waterway has not been considered under this scheme. If it is confirmed surplus to drainage requirements then the matter will be referred to the Property Consultancy Team to manage. This will involve the Council Property Disposal process which will investigate and identify any other public work within the Council for the land prior to reporting to the Council for disposal. If disposal is recommended, then Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) requires Council to offer to sell any land that is no longer required for public work by private contract to the person from whom it was acquired or to the successor of that person.

6.14       Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme, particularly if the Heathcote Valley Drain requires widening. At present it is considered that the drain will not require widening, but access across private property may be required during construction.

6.15       Construction of the pipeline in Bridle Path Road may require engagement with affected residents.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16       If the pipeline does not intercept sufficient flow from the Heathcote Valley Drain then the downstream flooding issues may not be resolved. Correspondingly, if too much flow is transferred to Matuku Waterway at Cooks Lane then new flooding issues may be created. This risk is being mitigated through detailed hydraulic modelling to ensure that the correct flow balance is achieved.

6.17       Construction work to upgrade Heathcote Valley Drain involves risks if rainfall occurs during the works. This can be minimised through careful planning of the construction timing and sequence, and implementation of appropriate erosion and sediment control measures.

Implementation

6.18       Implementation dependencies - implementation of the works is dependent on receiving any relevant consents and approvals.

6.19       Implementation timeframe - construction could begin before the end of the 2015/16 financial year and are expected to be completed in the 2016/17 financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20       The advantages of this option include:

·      Lower geotechnical and residual flood risks

·      Faster and easier construction allowing for earlier delivery of flood mitigation works

·      Greater control over splitting of flood flows

6.21       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      No enhancement of non-drainage values such as landscape or recreation

·      Greater disruption to Bridle Path Road during construction than other options

7.       Option 2 - New open waterway diversion

Option Description

7.1          This option consists of a new open waterway diversion of the Southern Matuku Waterway from Morgans Valley to connect with the Northern Matuku Waterway at Cooks Lane (formerly Cooktown Drain). Private bridge crossings may be required for each property. The diversion is shown in Figure 3.

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are informing the community of the works and negotiating any access required for construction.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          The Mayoral Flood Taskforce and public meetings at that time indicated concern from the community over flooding in Heathcote Valley. As such, although community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option, it is understood that the community has a strong preference for works to mitigate post-earthquake flooding in this area.

7.5          A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board was held on 23 October November 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Community Board expressed support for the diversion of the Matuku Waterway. They considered informing the community of the works to be sufficient engagement for this project. The Community Board is being kept up to date on project progress through memos, which also provide an avenue for feedback.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7          Cost of Implementation - The preliminary cost estimate for the works is estimated at up to $2.5 million using preliminary design sizes and quantities. This has the potential to vary significantly depending on the ground conditions encountered and the amount of mitigation required to address that.

7.8          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - A new open waterway in this location is considered to have moderate maintenance costs consistent with other waterways in the area. More regular inspections may be required due to the higher risks if failure were to occur.

7.9          Funding source - The LDRP has $42.5 million assigned in the LTP for use in the 2015/16 financial year and a total of approximately $150 million in the three year plan.  The LDRP will fund the works out of the 2015/16 and 2016/17 programme budget.

Legal Implications

7.10       A detailed consenting analysis would be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there could be a need to apply for new consents.

7.11       Easements for private crossings of the open waterway may need to be provided for those properties currently without an easement.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12       Construction of an open waterway across the slope in loess soils has a high risk of failure, especially due to tunnel gullying which is difficult to manage and remediate. This is because loess soils have poor physical properties, lose strength when they get wet, and are highly erodible. Mitigation measures exist, but these will add to the cost of construction and may not sufficiently remove the risk.

7.13       Having the waterway cross the slope above residential properties increases the risk resulting from any overdesign events or from failure, as flood waters could spill in an uncontrolled manner into areas previously not flooded. Detailed hydraulic modelling can reduce this risk, but there is less control over flows than with a pipeline.

7.14       The infrequent operation of the channel increases the risk of failure. A channel that permanently carries water allows for easier identification of seepage areas. However, this channel will be mainly dry and only operate when the weather is poor. This could make observation or identification of issues more challenging and difficult to resource. Frequent maintenance and inspections would reduce this risk.

7.15       An open waterway may convey flows greater than the design flow downstream, increasing the potential to transfer the flood risk to Cooks Lane due to the conveyance of over design flows. This may transfer the flood risk downstream which would be unacceptable. Detailed hydraulic modelling can reduce this risk, but there is less control over flows than with a pipeline.

Implementation

7.16       Implementation dependencies - Due to the risks associated with an open waterway a detailed risk assessment would be required prior to implementation. Further hydraulic modelling and geotechnical investigations would be required to determine the full extent of that risk.

7.17       Implementation timeframe - Construction would need to take place during the summer construction season, with construction potentially beginning in October 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18       The advantages of this option include:

·      Potential for enhancement of non-drainage values such as landscape or recreation

·      Works are entirely on Council land

7.19       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Higher geotechnical and residual flood risks than other options

·      More difficult construction meaning later delivery of flood mitigation works

·      Less control over flows

8.       Option 3 - Do nothing

Option Description

8.1          Do not implement any diversion and leave the existing drainage network as it is.

Significance

8.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community that the project will not proceed.

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          The Mayoral Flood Taskforce and public meetings at that time indicated concern from the community over flooding in Heathcote Valley. As such, although community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option, it is understood that the community has a strong preference for works to mitigate post-earthquake flooding in this area.

8.5          A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board was held on 23 October November 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. Although the 'do nothing' option was not specifically discussed, the Community Board expressed support for the diversion of the Matuku Waterway.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7          Cost of Implementation - there are no costs associated with this option.

8.8          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - there may be costs associated with clean up after flooding.

8.9          Funding source - operations budget.

Legal Implications

8.10       No direct legal implications are identified for this option.

Risks and Mitigations

8.11       Higher risk of flooding than other options. Flooding in this area is difficult to mitigate without a diversion of flows away from the Heathcote Valley Drain.

8.12       High risk of adverse community reaction if no action is taken to mitigate flood risk.

Implementation

8.13       Implementation dependencies  - None

8.14       Implementation timeframe - N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15       The advantages of this option include:

·      No cost to Council

·      No disruption to Bridle Path Road or private property as no construction work

8.16       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      The Heathcote Valley community will remain at risk of flooding due to the Heathcote Valley Drain overflowing

·      Objectives of the LDRP not met

·      Less resilience

 

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

Peter Christensen

Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison

Michael Day

John Mackie

David Adamson

Unit Manager - Storm Water & Land Drainage Rebuild

Head of Business Partnerships

Head of Three Waters & Waste

General Manager City Services

 

 

 

  


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

60.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Council

10 March 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

61

New Central Library Tender Acceptance

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Publication of the information will prejudice the commercial position of the Tenderer

28 February 2018

LGOIMA Request, with potential redactions (Legal Advice to be sought prior)

62

Lichfield Street Car Park Rebuild

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

This report contains commercially sensitive information.

 Practical completion of the project.