Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 3 May 2016

Time:                                    9am

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sara Templeton

Islay McLeod

Alexandra Davids

Joe Davies

Yani Johanson

Paul Lonsdale

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

 

 

27 April 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Liz Beaven

Community Board Advisor

941 5602

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

B       6.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13  

C       7.       Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road - Intersection Operational Review............ 15

C       8.       Proposed Stop Control Rangatira Terrace at St Andrew Hill Road.......................... 25

C       9.       Kilmore Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions................................................... 31

B       10.     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report................................................... 37

B       11.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 43

B       12.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 43 

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Keith Land - Earthquake Commission

Keith Land, Earthquake Commission will provide an update to the Board on increased liquefaction vulnerability and increased flooding vulnerability. Mr Land will also advise on the plans for 2016.

 

4.2

Alex Cheesebrough - Student Volunteer Army

Alex Cheesebrough, President of the Student Volunteer Army will speak to the Board about the 'City Care Connect the Community' event to be held in Woolston on 14 May 2016.

 

4.3

Kim Morton - Otautahi Creative Spaces

Kim Morton will speak on behalf of Otautahi Creative Spaces Trust to update the Board on current projects and work funded by the Board.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

 

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 20 April 2016

Time:                                    3.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sara Templeton

Islay McLeod

Alexandra Davids

Joe Davies

Yani Johanson

Paul Lonsdale

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

 

 

19 April 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Faye Collins

Community Board Adviser

941 5108

faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

No apologies were received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00071

That the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 be confirmed.

Member Templeton/Member Lonsdale                                                                                                           Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Jeremy Barr - Land Information New Zealand

Jeremy Barr, Deputy Director, Crown Property Centre of Expertise, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) presented a deputation to the Board on the role of LINZ in the future use of the residential red zone which is essentially property management. He is responsible for the flat lands team and is keen to engage with stakeholders regarding processes and information sharing.

The Board was advised that there is currently no policy on access to the red zone which is regarded not as public land but as private land in Crown ownership. LINZ will be responsible for considering possible temporary use of the land.

The Chairperson thanked Jeremy Barr for his deputation.

 

4.2       Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service

Joel Browne, Manager, Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service (CETAS) presented a deputation to update the Board on the temporary villages.

The Board was advised that the life of the Linwood and Rawhiti Temporary Village had been extended to June 2017, subject to ongoing demand. After the village ceases to operate, the reserve land will be remediated and handed back to Council and the houses will be repurposed. Options for the potential for use for the houses are being explored including the potential for use for affordable housing.

 The Chairperson thanked Joel Browne for his deputation.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.   

 

6.   Proposed No Stopping Restriction 168 Stanmore Road

 

The Board received a report on a proposed no stopping restriction at 168 Stanmore Road.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00072

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Stanmore Road commencing at a point 125 metres south of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 28 metres.  

Member Lonsdale/Member McLeod                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

7.   Transfer of funds from Communication with Community Project to 2015/16 Hagley/Ferrymead Discretionary Response Fund

 

Staff Recommendation

The Board considered a report on the possible transfer of funds from the Communication with Community Project to the 2015/16 Hagley/Ferrymead Discretionary Response Fund and resolved to adopt the staff recommendation.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00073

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Transfers $5,000 from its Communication with the Community Project budget to the 2015/16 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Discretionary Response Fund.

Member McLeod/Member Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                     Carried

 


 

 

8.   Application to the Hagley/Ferrymead 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Linwood College - CACTUS

 

Staff Recommendation

The Board considered the application for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to Linwood College for the school's Combined Adolescent Challenge Training unit and Support programme (CACTUS) and resolved to adopt the staff recommendation.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00074

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $5,000 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to Linwood College towards the Combined Adolescent Challenge Training unit and Support programme (CACTUS)

Member McLeod/Member Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

9.   Application to the Hagley/Ferrymead 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Redcliffs Public Library Inc. - Children's library refurbishment

 

Staff Recommendation

The Board considered the application for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to Redcliffs Public Library towards the Children's Library refurbishment and resolved to adopt the staff recommendation.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00075

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $1,000 from its 2015/15 Discretionary Response Fund to Redcliffs Public Library Inc. towards Children's library refurbishment.

Member Templeton/Member McLeod                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

10. Application to the Hagley/Ferrymead 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Te Whare Roimata - A community-led social enterprise for Linwood

 

The Board considered the application from Te Whare Roimata for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund towards  costs associated with starting a community-led social enterprise for Linwood.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $5,000 to Te Whare Roimata Trust from its 2015/16 Discretionary                                 Response Fund towards a community-led social enterprise for Linwood.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00076

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.              Makes a grant of $5,000 to Te Whare Roimata Trust from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund towards  costs associated with starting a community-led social enterprise for Linwood including a feasibility study.

2.              Request that staff work with Te Whare Roimata Trust to identify ways in which Council can support the establishment of the social enterprise.

Member McLeod/Member Lonsdale                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

11. Hagley Ferrymead Community Board 2016/17 Board Projects

 

Staff Recommendation

The Board received a report to consider Board Projects to be submitted to the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund and 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund and resolved to adopt the staff recommendation.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00077

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Nominate Youth Development Fund for $10,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

2.         Nominate Hagley/Ferrymead Community Recreation Events for $8,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

3.         Nominate Communication with the Community for $1,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

4.         Nominate Light Bulb moments Fund for $5,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

5.         Nominate Neighbourhood Week for $3,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

6.         Nominate Community Service Awards for $2,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

7.         Nominate Garden Pride Awards for $1,200 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

Member McLeod/Member Davies                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

 

12. Establishment of the Hagley/Ferrymead Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee

 

The Board received a report inviting it to consider the establishment of a Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee to allocate the Board's 2016/17 Small Grants Fund and the membership of any such committee.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00078

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.              Resolved to establish a Hagley/Ferrymead Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee.

2.              Resolved that membership of the Hagley/Ferrymead Small Grants Assessment Committee will consist of three community Board members being Brenda Lowe-Johnson, Joe Davies and Alexandra Davids and three community representatives.

Member Davies/Member Davids                                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

 

13. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report

 

 

The Board received a report from the Community Governance Team including information on matters arising, the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Plan, Board activities, community activities and events, community governance team activity and Board submissions.

-        An Annual Plan workshop will be held with residents on Wednesday 27 April 2016 in the Boardroom.

-        A follow up workshop for the Board to consider its submission will be held on Tuesday 3 May 2016.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00079

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Receives the report.

Member Templeton/Member Lonsdale                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

14. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00080

14.1    That the Board extends its vote of thanks to Jo Daly for her support  as Community Board              Adviser over a number of years and congratulates her on her appointment to a new role as              Council Secretary.

Member Templeton/Member Lonsdale                                                                                                           Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00081

14.2    The Board requests that staff provide an urgent briefing to the Board on the development of              the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan including information on why the Board has not been involved        until this point.

Member Johanson/Member Lonsdale                                                                                                              Carried

 

14.3    "West End"

             The community led proposal to rename an area of the ward as West End was discussed and the      Board requested staff advice on the proposal.

14.4    Pest Free Port Hills

             The Board was updated on the Summit Road Society's Pest Free Port Hills initiative.

14.5    Gayhurst Road Bridge

             The Board requested staff advice on the Gayhurst Road Bridge project.

14.6    Engagement with the Community

             Board members provided feedback on attendance at community events.

15. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under standing orders at this meeting.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 5.38pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Sara Templeton

Chairperson

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

16/455245

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Karleen Edwards,

Chief Executive

Rapanui - Shag Rock Cycleway

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 03 May 2016

2.         Notes that the correspondence from the Chief Executive has been provided to Michael and Irinka Britnell

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Hagley Ferrymead Community Board 3 May 2016 - Correspondence - Letter of response regarding Rapanui Shag Rock Cycleway

14

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

7.        Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road - Intersection Operational Review

Reference:

16/291718

Contact:

Paul Burden

Paul.burden@ccc.govt.nz

9418938

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board with a response to the matters raised by the Community at the public meeting held on 9 February 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is generated following the resolutions of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board on the 17th February 2016 which read as follows:

·   That the Board request that staff provide a report addressing the concerns expressed by the community on the safety of the St Andrews Hill Road/Bridle Path Road intersection and options for mitigation of these concerns.

·   The Board request that an additional camera be installed to monitor the intersection.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Receive the information that canvasses the concerns expressed by the community on the safety of the St Andrews Hill Road/Bridle Path Road intersection and the request for an additional camera

2.         Approve Option One (Do nothing).

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Do Nothing (preferred option) 

·     Option 2 - Install traffic signals on St Andrews Hill Road

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     No increase in delays at the intersection (Main Road/Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road)

·     No further costs.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Does not address the ongoing concerns of the community

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Bridle Path Road forms a "T" intersection with Main Road and both legs are controlled with traffic signals. St Andrews Hill Road forms a priority controlled (Giveway) "T" intersection with Bridle Path Road in very close proximity to Main Road. A plan of the intersection is shown in Attachment A.

5.2       The intersection configuration is recently established and arises from works associated with the substantive replacement of the Ferrymead Bridge and associated widening of Main Road to 4 traffic lanes. Council's original concepts sought to deny right turns out of Bridle Path Road onto Main Road and right turns out of St Andrews Hill Road onto Bridle Path Road which negated the need for a signalised intersection. The consultation process revealed significant concern from the community at this proposal and in addition staff were concerned at the viability and safety of the options for those motorists coming out of Bridle Path Road and wanting to head east towards Sumner. Consequently the right turns were retained and the intersection became signalised. Since completion of the intersection the community has raised further concern regarding the operational performance of the intersection and in particular ongoing concern is being raised at the level of safety afforded to motorists exiting St Andrews Hill Road turning onto Bridle Path Road. Despite some minor interventions to improve this (following a community meeting prior to Christmas which included the marking of yellow crosshatching across the eastern side of the intersection as shown in attachment B), the community still hold concerns. The operational issues were raised and discussed at a community meeting on the 9th February 2016 and this report seeks to address the main matters arising.

5.3       A broad summary of the community concerns (from meeting notes Trim16/167077) is as follows:

·   The perceived poor level of safety for motorists wanting to turn right out of St Andrews Hill Road onto Bridle path Road arising from;

·     The speed and lack of visibility of north bound vehicles on Bridle Path Road approaching the intersection;

·     The speed of vehicles turning right from Main Road into Bridle Path Road and the inability to detect whether they are travelling up St Andrews Hill Road or along Bridle Path Road

·     The lack of visibility of vehicles turning left into Bridle Path Road from Main Road and the inability to detect whether they are travelling up St Andrews Hill Road or along Bridle Path Road.

·     Queueing of vehicles on Bridle Path Road at the Main Road intersection extending across the St Andrews Hill Road intersection and the associated condition of being "trapped" partially across the intersection when part way through a right turn manoeuvre out of St Andrews Hill Road.

·   The overall speed of traffic passing through the intersection

·   The general feeling that the intersection configuration is unsafe.

5.4       A review of the intersection performance has been undertaken in the context of the issues that have been raised. The following information has been used in the assessment;

·   Safety Audits (Design Stage (Feb 2014) and Post Construction Stage (Nov 2015) and further Post Construction Audit Specific to Main Road/Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road (June 2015)

·   Morning peak survey (730am to 9am, 15 March 2016)

·   Off peak survey (11am to 12noon, 15 March 2016)

·   Evening peak survey (430pm to 530pm, 15 March 2016)

·   Video recording (730am to 9am, 15 March 2016)

·   Site walkover/inspection 15 March 2016

5.5       The right turn out of St Andrews Hill Road onto Bridle Path Road is a reasonably demanding manoeuvre even for a confident and capable driver. A motorist must discern a suitable gap in traffic by being cognisant of vehicles possibly approaching from 3 directions being: right turning traffic from Main Road, left turning traffic from Main Road and traffic approaching from the left (north bound) on Bridle Path Road. A further, albeit uncommon, possibility is traffic turning right from Bridle Path Road into St Andrews Hill Road in breach of the "no right turn" restriction. Further complicating the ability to turn right out of St Andrews Hill Road is the length of queue arising from vehicles stopped on Bridle Path Road at the Main Road intersection. Some motorists in this queue have been observed to leave a gap by not queueing across the St Andrews Hill Road intersection and waving a right turning vehicle through the intersection. This can exacerbate an already difficult situation by pressuring the right turning motorist to commence the manoeuvre without adequately checking for approaching traffic from other directions.

5.6       The close proximity of the St Andrews Hill Road intersection to Main Road introduces a peculiar situation whereby it is extremely difficult to identify if a vehicle turning right from Main Road is going to turn up St Andrews Hill Road (affectively a right turn immediately followed by a left turn) or continue to turn right and travel along Bridle Path. Lazy and lack of indicating only serves to compound the problem for those wanting to turn right out of St Andrews Hill Road to determine who they need to give way to. This simply results in these vehicles giving way to all traffic which can unnecessarily delay the manoeuvre.

5.7       Another issue is the difficulty for motorists turning right out of St Andrews Hill Road and wanting to travel towards the City to get into the left turn lane on Bridle Path Road if there are vehicles queued at the Main Road intersection. This can result in vehicles perched on an angle within the intersection sometimes blocking through traffic. On occasion a vehicle wanting to get into this left turn lane will turn left out of St Andrews Hill Road and perform a highly dangerous U-Turn around the traffic island in Bridle Path Road.

5.8       The Design Stage Safety Audit acknowledges the geographical constraints of the intersection but does not mention any of the above issues. The lack of identification of these issues is surprising and had they been highlighted at design stage they may have influenced the current intersection configuration. The only reference to the Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road intersection was in terms of the vehicle tracking paths appearing tight particularly for buses and other vehicles turning right out of St Andres Hill Road into Bridle Path Road. The audit classifies this issue as Minor and the design is considered acceptable.

5.9       The Post Construction Safety Audit however devotes an entire section to the operation of the St Andrews Hill Road Intersection. Again, the audit acknowledges the "fixed constraints" which "limit space and viable layouts of the intersection". The audit acknowledges some of the above difficulties including the limited sight distance to the south and confusion regarding where the vehicles turning right from Main Road into Bridle Path are heading (along Bridle Path Road or up St Andrews Hill Road). In each instance the audit states that these issues could potentially lead to collisions.  The audit assigns a Frequency (probability of a crash) Rating of "Common" and a Severity Rating (likelihood of death or serious injury) of "Unlikely" to these issues.  The audit recommends that the traffic signal phasing be "refined" to "give drivers more opportunity to safely enter the intersection". In addition the audit recommends that trees and shrubs be pruned to improve visibility and that improvements in the signage and road markings be made to "better clarify permitted movements". The pruning and road sign and marking changes have been implemented.

5.10    The forced delay between the termination of the right turn green arrow on Main Road into Bridle Path Road and the termination of the left turn out of Bridle Path Road onto Main Road only occurs if there is demand for a right turning vehicle on Bridle Path Road at the Main Road intersection When this occurs then "C Phase" is called. This phase stops all other traffic including any traffic entering Bridle Path Road from Main Road. The comment in the audit implies that this opportunity is available every cycle, however, as stated, it only occurs when the phase is called. This is the best opportunity for de-conflicted right turns out of St Andrews Hill Road. It provides an opportunity for vehicles to exit St Andrews Hill Road after the queued vehicles on Bridle Path Road have cleared the intersection. This is not immediately clear by observation and would tend to only become evident to regular users who may take this opportunity. Unfamiliar users still tend to be very apprehensive about exiting during this period even though it affords the best opportunity to do so.

5.11    There are no current capacity constraints observed at the intersections. Queues on both Bridle Path Road and St Andrews Hill Road seldom exceeded 5 or 6 vehicles and typically clear within a single cycle of the signals. The current signal phasing provides 48% of the cycle time to Main Road both directions, 26% to the right turn arrow from Main Road into Bridle Path (includes the left turn out of Bridle Path and east bound through movement on Main Road) and 16% to Bridle Path Road (left and right turns out). The remaining 10% is only used if there is a pedestrian wanting to cross Main Road otherwise it is apportioned to other movements. The phasing and cycle time, which is typically around 70 seconds, appears adequate for the current volumes. Growth in traffic volumes over the coming years may result in increased traffic using the intersection and corresponding increases in traffic coming down St Andrews Hill Road experiencing difficulty turning right. Whilst the delays are minor at present, this may not always be the case into the future.

5.12    The historical reported crash statistics for the intersection are essentially irrelevant given the substantial recent change to the configuration. A search of the Crash Analysis System (CAS) reveals no reported crashes since the changes were made.

5.13    Observations of vehicles travelling north bound along Bridle Path Road suggest that the operating speeds are typically between 40 and 60kph. The corresponding minimum required sight distance for motorists exiting St Andrews Hill Road is in the range 48m to 64m respectively (Austroads 2010). The measured sight distance equals approximately 62m, indicating that vehicles travelling at speeds of around 60kph and over may not be able to avoid a conflict with a vehicle turning right out of St Andrews Hill Road. This point is noted in the Post Construction Safety Audit. Vehicles travelling south bound along Bridle Path Road originate from those having turned directly off Main Road. Operating speeds are observed being much lower at 20 to 30kph. The corresponding minimum required sight distance for motorists exiting St Andrews Hill Road is in the range 10m to 16m (Austroads 2010). The measured sight distance is 28m.

5.14    Environment Canterbury have been contacted for comment. A spokesperson from "Go Bus" who have the contract for this route has said that the right turn out of St Andrews Hill Road is incredibly difficult - almost impossible for the drivers. Drivers tend to rely almost exclusively on other motorists letting them through. They say, in practise, this seldom occurs and they can end up turning left and driving south along Bridle Path Road and using the entrance to Ferrymead to turn around and then come back up Bridle Path Road.

5.15    The concerns being raised by the community are valid. The intersection configuration is far from ideal. The design safety audit fails to identify the concerns and the post construction audit, while identifying the concerns, considers the risk of a serious injury or fatality to be unlikely. The recommended mitigation measures have been adopted.

5.16    It terms of further mitigation, the only option appears to be to signalise St Andrews Hill Road. This option would improve the level of safety and address most of the outstanding concerns raised by residents at the public meeting. The disadvantages of this option are associated with the cost required to install the signals (which will be offset by the fact that ducting is already in place) and the increased delay this would incur on all vehicles using the intersection. It may well increase the average delay to vehicles exiting St Andrews Hill Road, however it would allow the right turn manoeuvre to be conducted more safely. A further disadvantage is that signalising St Andrews Hill Road also requires a new set of signals on Bridle Path Road prior to the St Andrews Hill Road intersection so that north bound vehicles are held while St Andrews Hill Road traffic exits. This results in a potentially unsafe situation of two sets of traffic signals in very close proximity. Historically this has shown to cause significant safety issues because motorists can become confused and see/abide by the wrong set of signals. So this option in itself would also be less than ideal.

5.17    The issues are finely balanced. The Council has, by adopting the findings and recommendations of the Post Construction Safety Audit, accepted that the level of risk is tolerable. The Council is not bound by the findings of the audit; it can choose to adopt a different view and can implement more or less mitigation than detailed. However, in this case the audit findings have been accepted. The problem arises frequently (every time someone wants to turn right out of St Andrews Hill Road) however the risk of serious injury or death is considered unlikely.

5.18    The second part of the Board's resolution states that an additional camera be installed to monitor the intersection. The existing camera provides panoramic views of the intersection and is considered adequate for monitoring purposes particularly for those issues relating to the substantive matter of the St Andrews Hill Road/Bridle Path Road intersection.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Do Nothing (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       No changes to the current intersection configuration.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       It is acknowledged that based on current views the community are unlikely to be satisfied with 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 - no additional costs

Legal Implications

6.8       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       There will continue to be a risk of crashes occurring at the intersection. The safety audit assigns a Frequency (probability of a crash) Rating of "Common" and a Severity Rating (likelihood of death or serious injury) of "Unlikely" to these issues.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

6.11    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   No increases in the current levels of delay/efficiency of the intersection.

·   No cost

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address the concerns of the community regarding the safety and operation of the intersection

7.   Option 2 - Install Traffic Signals on St Andrews Hill Road

Option Description

7.1       Signalising the St Andrews Hill Road intersection with Bridle Path Road. This would require the introduction of a further phase that stopped all other movements including north bound traffic on Bridle Path Road prior to the St Andrews Hill Road intersection. The minimum length of the phase would be 12 seconds. In a 70 second cycle this would amount to around 17% of the time being taken from the existing phases. This would have a significant negative effect on the overall efficiency of the intersection particularly in terms of extending queues/delays on Main Road.

7.2       The intersection configuration would stay the same however north bound traffic on Bridle Path Road would need to be stopped by a new set of signals prior to the St Andrews Hill Road intersection. Two sets of signals in close proximity are not ideal as motorists can be confused in terms of which signals to abide by.

7.3       While signalising St Andrews Hill Road would improve the safety for those exiting, it would introduce other potentially unsafe elements and significantly degrade the overall efficiency of the intersection.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       This option is consistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation - $150,000 unbudgeted

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $10,000 pa

7.10    Funding source - No funding source is currently available.

Legal Implications

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

7.12    The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards does not include the resolution of traffic signals due to their metropolitan significance. It follows that should the Community wish to advance this option then this should be via a recommendation to Council.

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    Despite that fact that ducting for signalisation has been installed, no detailed design investigation has been conducted into this option to determine its feasibility and actual effects on the network performance in terms of safety and efficiency.

7.14    There will be risks associated with road safety that are likely to have similar ratings to the existing risks being:  Frequency (probability of a crash) Rating of "Common" and a Severity Rating (likelihood of death or serious injury) of "Unlikely". No safety audit of this option has been undertaken and this option should not proceed until this is undertaken and the findings fully considered.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - Requires Council approval.

7.16    Implementation timeframe - Would depend on finances being made available given there is currently no budget.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   It allows vehicles to exit St Andrews Hill Road on a green signal affording a perceived increase in the level of safety.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It introduces increased delay to all vehicles using the intersection and in particular it will have a significant impact on the delay and associated queues on Main Road.

·   It introduces other safety concerns associated with vehicles on Bridle Path Road potentially not stopping on a red signal due to the confusion created by 2 sets of signals in very close proximity.

·   Funding is not budgeted

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Bridle Path/Main Road/St Andrews Hill Road Intersection - Traffic Signals

23

b  

Bridle Path/St Andrews Hill Intersection Photo

24

 

 

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

Paul Burden

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

 



Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

8.        Proposed Stop Control Rangatira Terrace at St Andrew Hill Road

Reference:

16/215576

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve the installation of a Stop control on Rangatira Terrace at its intersection with St Andrew Hill Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from a road user after a near miss at the intersection.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Approve the installation of a Stop Control on Rangatira Terrace at its intersection with St Andrews Hill Road.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve Stop Control  (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves road safety as it highlights the presence of the Rangatira Terrace / St Andrews Hill Road / Marama Crescent intersection and requires vehicles to stop on Rangatira Terrace before entering the intersection.

4.3.2   There are no known disadvantages to this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

 

5.1       The Council was contacted by a road user that narrowly avoided a collision on St Andrews Hill Road that resulted from a driver travelling through the intersection from Rangatira Terrace to Marama Crescent, apparently unaware of the presence of the intersection.  There have not been any reported crashes at the intersection in the last five years. 

5.2       Rangatira Terrace is slightly off set from Marama Crescent but the near miss issue noted above indicates drivers can treat this as a cross intersection with a through movement from Rangatira Terrace to Marama Crescent.

5.3       The Rangatira Terrace approach should be controlled and the visibility restrictions are such that Stop control is recommended. Stop control should be installed "at blind intersections where lack of visibility makes it unsafe to approach the intersection at a speed greater than 10 km/h".  This is the case for the Rangatira Terrace approach.  It is noted that the Marama Crescent approach to the intersection is presently Stop controlled. 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install Stop Control (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve a Stop control be installed on Rangatira Terrace at its intersection with St Andrews Hill Road. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The community has not been specifically consulted on the proposed Stop control as there are no specific impacts on property owners. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.5.1   Cost of Implementation - $500 for Stop control and markings.

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

6.5.3   Funding source - Traffic Operations budget - Signs Regulatory.

Legal Implications

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

6.7       The installation of any sign and/or markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.8       None identified

Implementation

6.9       Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval. 

6.10    Implementation timeframe - April / May 2016. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    This is the preferred option because it delivers improvements for road safety and protects vulnerable road users.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing (leave the Rangatira Terrace approach uncontrolled)

Option Description

7.1       Do not install any traffic controls on Rangatira Terrace at its intersection with St Andrews Hill Road.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is consistent with Section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The request for Stop control is from the community. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  This option is inconsistent with the Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings. 

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0. 

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable. 

Legal Implications

7.9       Not Applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - N/A. 

7.12    Implementation timeframe - N/A. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    There are no costs involved but this option does not mitigate the risk of a crash associated with either entering the intersection when it is unsafe to do so, or failing to identify the presence of the intersection through lack of markings.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Proposed Stop Control Rangatira Terrace at St Andrews Hill Road Layout Plan

30

 

 

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

Ryan Rolston

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

9.        Kilmore Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/380274

Contact:

Luke Morley

N/A

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions along Kilmore Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from the manager of Hotel Montreal located at the corner of Kilmore Street / Montreal Street intersection.  

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Revoke all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 49 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 30 metres west of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the entrance/exit driveways of Hotel Montreal.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes one parking space, but this is offset see 6.16.

 

5.   Context/Background

 

Background

5.1       Hotel Montreal is located on the corner of Kilmore Street and Montreal Street, it has its main car park access from Kilmore Street in the form of two driveways 5m apart.

5.2       Kilmore Street is a one way street which sees two traffic lanes travelling westbound towards Park Terrace.  It is classified as a Main Distributer Street along the majority of its length.

Site Information

5.3       Hotel Montreal contacted council explaining that their guests were experiencing difficulty accessing their car park entrances along Kilmore Street due to parked cars either side of both entrances all day.  This also obstructs visibility when leaving the car park.

5.4       It was observed that vehicles are regularly parked either side of both entrances including the gap between the two driveways which is 5m in length, larger vehicles can slightly overhang the driveways in this instance making access more difficult.

5.5       Due to the majority of users of the hotel being visitors unfamiliar with the area it is likely that they find locating and safely accessing the car park difficult when vehicles are parked there all day, they also have the lane positioning to think about as they should only be accessing the car park from the northern lane only (i.e. not turning across two lanes).  With the cars parked there blocking the view of the entrances it is easy to miss them completely.

5.6       The installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions and allocation of a parking space over Hotel Montreal's redundant driveway will make access safer for hotel users and other drivers on Kilmore Street by increasing visibility around the car park entrances. (Refer Attachment A). 

5.7       The parking markings are unclear around this area as they haven't been removed when Hotel Montreal changed its driveway configuration, this will be tidied up as part of these works.

 


 

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

Option Description

Installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions as shown on Attachment A.Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Hotel Montreal are the only affected property and they are in favour of the proposals.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $500 approx.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the Hotel Montreal car park entrances.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes one car park, but this is offset by allocation of a park in front of their redundant entrance.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       The road remains as it is. - Do nothing.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to visibility at the driveways.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it is not addressing a safety issue.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the restricted sightlines at the driveways and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Kilmore Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (16/380741)

36

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Luke Morley

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

10.    Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/426563

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Matters Arising

1.1       Bromley Road Pedestrian Safety

A memorandum on this topic has been separately circulated to the Board. In summary, at the Board meeting on 5 April 2016 the Board considered a report with options for improved pedestrian safety around Bromley School and the Bromley Community Centre. At the meeting the Board also received a deputation from the Bromley Crossing Team who indicated support for option one of the staff report strongly advocated for the timeframe for the work to be brought forward on the grounds of pedestrian safety. 

 

The Board to decided to escalate the matter to the Council is to seek their decision to specifically allocate the necessary money to the project to be completed by the end of 2016.  As is necessary in these circumstances, staff advice is required to be provided to assist the Council in considering the Board's request. 

 

The memorandum outlined the staff advice which confirmed that the Bromley Road splitter island can be committed to within the 2016/17 financial year within the allocated budget identified in the draft Annual Plan and delivered before December 2016. 

 

The Board is invited to consider and agree to this course of action.

2.   Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Plan

Board members started reporting activities they are engaged in that contribute to achievement of the Community Board actions. Staff continue to monitor and record activities and other actions that contribute to meeting the aspirations of the Community Board Plan.

3.   Board Activities

3.1       Upcoming Board Meetings and Commitments

·   Monday 16 May, 4pm to 6.30pm, Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Seminar, Boardroom, 180 Smith Street.

·   Wednesday 18 May, 3.30pm, Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Meeting, Boardroom, 180 Smith Street.

·   Monday 23 May, 5.30pm Combined Community Board Seminar, Committee Room 2, Civic Offices.

·   Tuesday 31 May, 9am, Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Meeting, Boardroom, 180 Smith Street.

4.   Community Activities and Events

·    2015/16 Strengthening Communities and Small Grants Funds opened on Tuesday 15 March and close Saturday 30 April 2016.

·    Submissions for Annual Plan opened Wednesday 6 April and close Tuesday 10 May 2016.

5.   Community Governance Team Activity

Staff will update the Board at the meeting.

6.   Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund

6.1       The balances of the Boards community funds are as follows:

·     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - $4,118

·     Youth Development Fund - $4,950

·     Light Bulb Moments Fund - $2,650

 

6.2       Details of the allocated amounts are attached (Attachment A).

7.   Items for Information

7.1       Community Board Biannual Reporting October 2015 - March 2016 - Suburban Master Plan Progress

The attached (Attachment B) update of suburban master plan progress reflects the Strategy and Finance decision last October that the detailed 'dashboard of progress' be provided to Community Boards for information, with the Committee receiving an overview.  The Committee report will be considered on 19 May.  The complete Dashboard report for all Boards has been separately circulated.

 

8.   Community Board Submissions

There are no open Board submissions.

9.   Consultation Calendar

There are no open consultations.

 

10. Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Hagley Ferrymead Funding Update Table - 3 May 2016

39

b  

Hagley Ferrymead Community Board 3 May 2016 - Biannual reporting Oct 2015 - March 2016 - memo to Community Boards - Master Plans

41

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie MacDonald

Shupayi Mpunga

Brenda Preston

Diana Saxton

Peter Croucher

Governance Support Officer

Manager Community Governance - Hagley/Ferrymead

Community Support Officer

Community Recreation Advisor

Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Jenny Hughey

Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

03 May 2016

 

 

11.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

12.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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