Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 5 May 2016

Time:                                    8.30am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

27 April 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Cr Clearwater

Membership

Cr Cotter (Deputy Chair), Deputy Mayor Buck, Cr East, Cr Scandrett

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

The first Thursday of each calendar month except for January

Reports to:

Council

Long Term Plan Activities

·         water supply and water conservation

·         sewerage collection treatment and disposal

·         land and storm water drainage

·         flood protection and control works

·         natural hazards protection

­          natural hazards policy and planning

­          land instability management

­          other natural hazards management

·         roads and footpaths (inc. pedestrian malls and cycle lanes)

·         transport (including regional public transport and NZTA)

­          transport policy and planning

­          major cycle ways

­          parking (on and off street)

­          road operations

­          public transport infrastructure (including bus stops, shelters, seats and transport hubs)

­          transport education

­          harbours and marine structures

·         parks and open spaces

­          regional parks

­          garden and heritage parks

­          cemeteries

­          neighbourhood parks

·         waste management minimisation and disposal

­          residual waste collection and disposal

­          recyclable material collection and processing

­          organic material collection and composing

­          commercial and industrial minimisation

·         natural environment

­          natural environment policy and planning

­          environmental education

­          sustainability and energy initiatives and conservation of resources (including investigating electric buses)

·         all other transport issues such as regional public transport and NZTA

 

Responsibilities

·         Developing policy and strategy in relation to long term plan activities as listed above

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities (i.e. Infrastructure rebuild, major facilities rebuild and facilities rebuild)

·         Considering recommendations from Council’s Subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and providers in relation to infrastructure, transport and environmental planning, delivery and operation

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

Delegations

 

Riccarton Road Corridor Public Transport Priority And Hub Decision Making Delegation

 

At the Council meeting of 13 November 2014:

It was resolved that the Council:

             33.1     Confirm that the Riccarton Public Transport Hub waiting lounge, super stop and associated street works, and the Riccarton Public Transport Priority project are both issues of metropolitan significance within the meaning of the Council’s delegations register.

             33.2     Will make the final decision on the design version for the Riccarton Public Transport Hub waiting lounge, the super stop and associated street works.

             33.3     Delegate the decision on the final design version for the Riccarton Public Transport Priority project and associated street works to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee because of tight time-lines.

             33.4     Instruct staff to ensure that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board is kept informed on the proposals arising from both project streams and arrange appropriate briefing session(s) accordingly.

             33.5     Confirm that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will continue to make recommendations to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on issues such as on-street works through Part A reports for the Riccarton Public Transport Priority and the Riccarton Public Transport Hub projects.

 

 

Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) Programme – Delivery Programme and Design Guides

 

At the Council meeting of 29 January 2015:

It was resolved that the Council:

             7.1       Note the progress update on the Major Cycleway Route programme.

             7.2       Adopt Revision A of the Major Cycleway Design Principles Best Practice Design Guide and the draft Way Finding and Signage Guide in principle for the four selected routes as detailed in 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 7.7.3 and 7.7.4.

             7.3       Agree to the route prioritisation.

             7.4       Agree to the Major Cycleway Route programme being declared a Metropolitan Programme and delegate to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee all decision making powers.

             7.5       Note that the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and affected Community Boards will be advised prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

             7.6       Note that appropriate Community Board Members will be invited by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to participate in the relevant Major Cycleway Route item discussion.

             7.7       Adopt in principle the route selection recommendations and refer the final decision to the Infrastructure Transport Environment Committee, noting the route selections as detailed below will be subject to receiving recommendations from the affected Community Board and to full consultation then approval by the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee:

                         7.7.1   Quarryman’s Trail;

                         7.7.2   Rapanui – Shag Rock;

                         7.7.3   Uni-Cycle;

                         7.7.4   Papanui Parallel.


 

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 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.......................................................................................................................... 6

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 6

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 6

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 6

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 6

C       6.       Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle - Section Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue............... 33

C       7.       Rutland Street (Weston to Chapter) Parking Option Investigation......................... 79

A       8.       Contractor Parking Permits For Residential Homes................................................... 87

A       9.       Avon Temporary Stopbanks Management................................................................. 93

B       10.     Transport Unit - Quarterly Report............................................................................. 111

C       11.     Three Waters and Waste - March and April 2016 Report........................................ 129

B       12.     Zone Committees' Annual Reports............................................................................ 145

B       13.     Briefing - Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan...................................................... 159

C       14.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 177  

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 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 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 7 April 2016 be confirmed (refer page 7).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 7 April 2016

Time:                                    8.33am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor David East

 

 

6 April 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00018

That the apology for absence from Councillor Scandrett and the apology for early departure from Councillor East be accepted.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                            Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00019

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 3 March 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor East/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                               Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

Malcolm Mills spoke to the Committee regarding the Major Cycleways, Rapanui Shagrock, Section 1 - Recommended Scheme Option, Part 2 Report, item 7.

 

John Lawrence spoke to the Committee regarding the Warning lights on the back of traffic lights on one-way streets Report, item 8.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.


 

 

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 16 March 2016

6.   Northern Access Bus Lanes

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommends to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee that it recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the exclusive use of southbound buses and cycles be installed on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285 metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m. 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board 

2.         Revoke all parking and stopping restriction on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

3.         Resolve that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited on the east side Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

4.         Resolve that a Give Way control be placed against Link Road at its intersection with Main North Road.

5.         Approve the removal of the three trees to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp.

 

Board Recommendation

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved:

2.         To revoke all parking and stopping restriction on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

3.         That the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited on the east side Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

4.         That a Give Way control be placed against Link Road at its intersection with Main North Road.

5.         To approve the removal of the three trees to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp.

The division was declared carried by 5 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For:                           Member Davidson, Member Byrne, Member Jones, Member Norrish and Member Watson

Against:                 Member Keown

 


 

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00020

Part A

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council approve that a special vehicle lane for the exclusive use of southbound buses and cycles be installed on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285 metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor East                                                                                                                          Carried

 

The Committee adjourned from 9.05am to 9.08am.

7.   Major Cycleways, Rapanui Shagrock, Section 1 - Recommended Scheme Option, Part 2

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered a staff report on Section 1 of the Rapanui Shagrock Major Cycleway. Staff table a new set of plans at the meeting (attached).

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the whole of section 1 of the Rapanui-Shag Rock scheme for detailed design and construction as specified in the plans in Attachment C.

2.              Confirm that its decisions on 16 February 2016:

a.         Approve removal of the identified trees to allow implementation of the proposed scheme.

b.             Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the ITE committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

c.              Recommend the Major Cycleway Design Guidelines are updated to reflect the lessons learned from the Rapanui-Shag Rock consultation process.

Apply to the whole of section 1 of the Rapanui-Shag Rock scheme.


 

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00021

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.              Approve the whole of section 1 of the Rapanui-Shag Rock scheme for detailed design and construction as specified in the plans in Attachment C (attached).

2.              Confirm that its decisions on 16 February 2016:

a.              Approve removal of the identified trees to allow implementation of the proposed scheme.

b.             Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the ITE committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

c.              Recommend the Major Cycleway Design Guidelines are updated to reflect the lessons learned from the Rapanui-Shag Rock consultation process.

Apply to the whole of section 1 of the Rapanui-Shag Rock scheme.

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Request a memo on the status of the Coastal Pathway Project from Redcliffs to Sumner, especially around Deans Head, and how it interfaces with the other projects and addresses safety concerns.

2.         Request an update on the Linwood Village Masterplan.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor East                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

Councillor East left the meeting at 9.53am.

8.   Warning lights on the back of traffic lights on one-way streets

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered a staff report regarding warning lights on the back of traffic lights on one-way streets.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the report and recommend to Council:

1.         That warning lights are not installed on the back of traffic signals on one way streets.

2.         Note that staff will audit all one way street intersections and consider the use of additional signage and markings that comply with traffic regulations to enhance driver awareness where required.


 

 

        

 

Committee Decided ITEC/2016/00022

Part A

That the Committee receive the report and recommend to Council:

1.         That warning lights are not installed on the back of traffic signals on one way streets.

2.         Note that staff will audit all one way street intersections and consider the use of additional signage and markings that comply with traffic regulations to enhance driver awareness where required.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                          Carried

 

9.   Update Report Water Management Zone Committees

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered the Update Report Water Management Zone Committees and Leslie Woodberg from Environment Canterbury presented the report.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information in the zone committees' update report

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00023

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information in the zone committees' update report.

Councillor Cotter/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

The meeting adjourned from 10.24am to 10.34am.11

10. Briefing - Freight Management Plan

 

Staff briefed the Committee on the Freight Management Plan which is due to be presented to the Committee in May 2016.

 

11. Briefing - River Water Quality - Sewage Getting Into Rivers

 

Staff provided the Committee with a briefing on River Water Quality - Sewage Getting into Rivers.

 

 

   


 

 

Meeting concluded at 11.36am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson


 


 




 


 


 


   


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

6.        Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle - Section Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue

Reference:

16/266574

Contact:

Chris Brown

chris.brown@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

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 approve the scheme design for the section of the Uni-Cycle Major Cycleway from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue that are within road reserve.

1.2       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to approve the scheme design across University of Canterbury land, subject to;

1.2.1   University of Canterbury Council approval for the scheme design encroaching on University of Canterbury land (along University Drive, across Ilam Fields and a portion along Dovedale Avenue) through an easement agreement.

1.3       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to approve additional consultation for the proposed scheme design for the intersections of Hinau/Miro Streets and Miro/Totara Streets.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report staff generated to seek approval from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for this work as part of the Major Cycleway network as a result of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report is medium within Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by its ease of reversibility, its low significance to Maori but its higher significance in relation to agreed objectives and timeframes for the Major Cycleways project of which it forms a connecting link. Its significance is raised because it has generated interest due to the layout and the nature of the improved facilities it provides to cyclists and pedestrians.

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


 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the scheme designs for Ngahere Street, Totara Street, Miro Street, Hinau Street, Clyde Road, Ilam Road, Dovedale Avenue and Solway Avenue, proceed to detailed design and construction, as detailed in Attachment A.

2.         Approve the scheme designs for University Drive, Ilam Fields and the widening of the shared path on the south side of Dovedale Avenue proceed to detailed design and construction, subject to University of Canterbury approval, as detailed in Attachment A.

3.         Make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

4.         For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) An intersection of roadways is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway ; and (2)  The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) If the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Committee meeting of 5 May 2016; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Committee resolutions on the Uni-Cycle Major Cycleway report at the Committee meeting of 5 May 2016.

5.         Ngahere Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Ngahere Street commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction to the head of the cul-de-sac be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

6.         Ngahere Street – Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Ngahere Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction then following the northern and eastern kerb line (around the cul-de-sac) for a distance of 173 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ngahere Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ngahere Street, commencing at a point 57 metres east of its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

7.         Ngahere Street – Proposed Traffic control

a.         Approve the road marking changes on Ngahere Street from its intersection with Totara Street to the head of the cul-de-sac.

8.         Ngahere Street/Totara Street intersection

a.         Approve the road marking changes and traffic island changes at the Ngahere Street and Torara Street intersection as detailed on Attachment A.

 

 

9.         Totara Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 107 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 94 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

10.       Totara Street – Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 24 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Totara Street, commencing at a point 61 metres southwest of its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 46 metres. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

e.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres. Note 1 Applies.

f.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Totara Street, commencing at a point 55 metres north of its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 39 metres. Note 1 Applies.

11.       Totara Street – Proposed Traffic control

a.         Approve the road marking changes on Totara Street from its intersection with Ngahere Street to the intersection with Miro Street.

12.       Miro Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Miro Street from its intersection with Totara Street to its intersection with Hinau Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Miro Street from its intersection with Totara Street to its intersection with Hinau Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

 

13.       Miro Street - Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

14.       Miro Street – Proposed Traffic control

a.         Approve the road marking changes on Miro Street from its intersection with Hinau Street to the intersection with Totara Street.

15.       Hinau Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Clyde Road to its intersection with Puriri Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hinau Street commencing from its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly then north easterly direction, for a distance of 184 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Clyde Road to its intersection with Konini Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Konini Street to its intersection with Puriri Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

e.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Puriri Street and its intersection with Miro Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

f.          Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Hinau Street commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

16.       Hinau Street - Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 75 metres. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 137 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres. Note 2 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 2 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 1 Applies.

e.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 40 metres east of its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in a easterly then north easterly direction for a distance of 36 metres. Note 1 Applies.

f.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 147 metres north east of its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 37 metres. Note 1 Applies.

g.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in an easterly direction to the intersection of Konini Street. Note 1 Applies.

h.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hinau Street, between its intersection with Konini Street and extending in an easterly direction to the intersection with Puriri Street. Note 1 Applies.

i.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 1 Applies.

j.          Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the southern side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 17 metres east of its intersection with Puriri Street , and extending in an easterly then north easterly direction for a distance of 135 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm between March and November only. Note 1 Applies.

k.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 Applies.

l.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres. Note 1 Applies.

17.       Hinau Street - Traffic Controls

a.         Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and raised speed platforms on Hinau Street from its intersection with Clyde Road to the intersection with Miro Street.

b.         Approve that the pathway on the north side of Hinau Street commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 60 metres as detailed on Attachment A be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

c.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Hinau Street commencing at a point 48 metres from its intersection with Konini Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres as detailed on Attachment A, be resolved as a shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway where bicycles can travel westbound only, in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

d.         Approve that a bicycle priority crossing be duly established in accordance with section 11.4(5) of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004 on Hinau Street located at a point 53 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road.

e.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Hinau Street on the west bound approach to the priority bicycle crossing located at a point 60 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

f.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Hinau Street on the east bound approach to the bicycle priority crossing located at a point 46 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

18.       Existing Intersection – Clyde Road/Hinau Street intersection

a.         Approve that traffic controls at the intersection of Clyde Road and Hinau Street be revoked.

19.       New Intersection – Clyde Road/Hinau Street intersection

a.         Approve the lane marking changes, road surface changes and kerb alignment changes at the intersection of Clyde Road and Hinau Street, as detailed on Attachment A

b.         Approve that a Give-Way control be placed against Hinau Street at its intersection with Clyde Road.

20.       Konini Street - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Konini Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Konini Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and continuing in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

21.       Konini Street - Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Konini Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Konini Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

22.       Puriri Street - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies. .

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

23.       Puriri Street - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. Note 2 Applies.

24.       Existing Intersection – Hinau Street/Puriri Street intersection

a.         Approve that all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Hinau Street and Puriri Street be revoked.

25.       New Intersection – Hinau Street/Puriri Street intersection

a.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, road surface changes and traffic islands at the intersection of Hinau Street and Puriri Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

b.         Approve that a Stop control be placed against Puriri Street northern approach at its intersection with Hinau Street as detailed on Attachment A.

c.         Approve that a Stop control be placed against Puriri Street southern approach at its intersection with Hinau Street as detailed on Attachment A.

d.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Hinaui Street against the kerb, commencing at a point 19 metres west of its intersection with the Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 44 metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

e.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Hinaui Street against the kerb, commencing at a point 17 metres east of its intersection with the Puriri Street and extending in an westerly direction for a distance of 44 metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

26.       Clyde Road - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Clyde Road commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 79 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Clyde Road commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and continuing in a southerly direction for a distance of 160 metres. Note 1 Applies.

27.       Clyde Road - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Clyde Road, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 79 metres. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Clyde Road, commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 160 metres. Note 2 Applies.

28.       Clyde Road - Existing Traffic Controls

a.         Approve that all traffic controls on Clyde Road from the intersection of Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 121 metres be revoked.

29.       Clyde Road - Proposed Traffic Controls

a.         Approve the lane marking changes and kerb alignment changes on Clyde Road from the intersection of Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 121 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

b.         Approve that the pathway on the west side of Clyde Road commencing at a point 65 metres north of Kirkwood Avenue and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 106 metres as detailed on Attachment A be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

c.         Approve that the pathway on the east side of Clyde Road commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 37 metres as detailed on Attachment A be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

d.         Approve that a pedestrian and bicycle road crossing, controlled by traffic signals in accordance with sections 6 and 8.5(3) of the Land Transport Act- Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004, be installed on Clyde Road located at a point 22 metres north of its intersection with Hinau Street.

30.       Ilam Road - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Ilam Road commencing at a point 176 metres south of its intersection with Maidstone Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 241 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

 

 

 

 

31.       Ilam Road - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Ilam Road, commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres.  This stopping restriction is to apply to the eastern side located on the western side of the traffic island (bicycle lane separation island) inclusive of gaps for access points as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Ilam Road, commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres. Note 2 Applies.  This stopping restriction is to apply to the eastern side located on the western side of the traffic island (bicycle lane separation island) inclusive of gaps for access points as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ilam Road, commencing at a point 176 south of its intersection with Maidstone Road and extending in an southerly direction for a distance of 241 metres.  This stopping restriction is to apply to the western side located on the eastern side of the traffic island (bicycle lane separation island) inclusive of gaps for access points as detailed on Attachment A. Note 1 Applies.

32.       Ilam Road - Existing Traffic Controls

a.         Approve that the existing pedestrian crossing on Ilam Road, located at a point 121 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue be revoked.

b.         Approve that the existing pedestrian crossing on Ilam Road, located at a point 329 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue be revoked.

33.       Ilam Road - Traffic Controls

a.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and traffic islands on Ilam Road from the intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

b.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and traffic islands on Ilam Road from the intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

c.         Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule - Traffic Control Devices: 2004 on Ilam Road, located at a point 121 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

d.         Approve that a bicycle priority crossing be installed in accordance with section 11.4(5) of the Land Transport Rule -Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004 on Ilam Road located at a point 117 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

e.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road North on the southbound approach to the priority bicycle crossing located at a point 110 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

f.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road South on the northbound approach to the bicycle priority crossing located at a point 127 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

g.         That a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule - Traffic Control Devices: 2004 on Ilam Road, located at a point 329 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

h.         Approve that a bicycle priority crossing be installed in accordance with section 11.4(5) of the Land Transport Rule -Traffic Control Devices Rule on Ilam Road located at a point 325 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

i.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road North on the southbound approach to the priority bicycle crossing located at a point 318 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

j.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road South on the northbound approach to the bicycle priority crossing located at a point 335 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

34.       Dovedale Avenue - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at a point 77 metres east of its intersection with Solway Avenue and continuing in an easterly direction for a distance of 56 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

35.       Dovedale Avenue - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 90 degree angle parking on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at a point 77 metres east of it intersection of Solway Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 meters. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Dovedale Avenue, commencing at a point 95 west of its intersection with Solway Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 90 degree angle parking on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at a point 115 metres east of it intersection of Solway Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 meters. Note 1 Applies.

36.       Dovedale Avenue - Traffic controls

a.         Approve lane marking changes, road texture changes and kerb alignment changes on Dovedale Avenue from the intersection of Solway Avenue to the intersection of Waimairi Road as detailed on Attachment A.

b.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at its intersection with Solway Avenue and extending to its intersection with Waimairi Road as detailed on Attachment A be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

c.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against the northbound vehicles where the vehicle exit for the University intersects with the shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 60 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

d.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against the northbound vehicles where the vehicle exit for the University intersects with the shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 105 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

e.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against the northbound vehicles where the vehicle exit for the University intersects with the shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 171 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

f.          Approve that a regulatory supplementary 'turning traffic give-way to pedestrians and cyclists' sign be installed in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 10.5(2)(b) for left turning drivers from Dovedale Avenue to the University entrance/exit.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 171 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

g.         Approve that a regulatory supplementary 'turning traffic give-way to pedestrian and cyclists' sign be installed in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 10.5(2)(b) for right turning drivers from Dovedale Avenue to the University entrance/exit.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 171 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

37.       Solway Avenue - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Glenside Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 72 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

38.       Solway Avenue - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and continuing in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and continuing in a south westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Glenside Avenue and continuing in a north easterly direction for a distance of 72 metres. Note 1 Applies.

39.       Solway Avenue - Existing Traffic controls

a.         Approve that all traffic controls on Solway Avenue at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue be revoked.

40.       Solway Avenue - Traffic controls

a.         Approve lane marking changes, traffic island changes and kerb alignment changes as detailed on Attachment A.

b.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against Dovedale Avenue at the intersection with Solway Avenue as detailed on Attachment A.

c.         Approve that the pathway on the west side of Solway Avenue commencing at a point 12 metres north of Glenside Avenue and extending for a distance of 25 metres as detailed on Attachment A be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

d.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound bicycles only, be established on the west side of Solway Avenue against the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Glenside Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 72 metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

e.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound bicycles only, be established on the east side of Solway Avenue against the kerb, commencing at a point 25 metres northeast of its intersection with the Dovedale Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 68 metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

41.       Miro Street/Totara Street and Hinau Street/Miro Street  intersection

a.         Recommend that the traffic resolutions required for the implementation of these two intersections are brought back to the IT&E committee following additional consultation.

42.       Trees

a.         Approve that four trees be removed at the western end of Hinau Street, outside number 48 Clyde Road and 106 Hinau Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Major Cycleways

·     Level of Service: 10.5.7 Improve the customer satisfaction with cycle parking facilities Level of Service: 10.5.1 Reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes on the network involving cyclists

·     Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve perception that Christchurch is a cycle friendly city

·     Level of Service: 10.5.3 Increase the number of cycling trips

·     Level of Service: 10.5.4 Reduce risk to cyclists using the network via a targeted programme of safety improvements at high risk locations

·     Level of Service: 10.5.5 Cycleways remain operational and maintained to a high standard

·     Level of Service: 10.5.6 Support shared bike schemes

·     Level of Service: 10.5.7 Improve the customer satisfaction with cycle parking facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install a cycleway from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue via the University of Canterbury (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Install a cycleway from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue with a 2 way cycleway on a section of Clyde Road

·     Option 3 - Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a continuous cycleway for people on bicycles that is in line with the objectives of the Major Cycleways and also in line with design guidance provided in the Christchurch Cycle Design Guide.

·     The route links up the key destinations such as the University of Canterbury, Ilam School and Christchurch Boys High School

·     Off road shared path along Dovedale Avenue to minimise conflict between the angled car parking and people travelling by bicycle

·     Dedicated 2 way cycleway along University Drive to reduce conflict with people travelling on foot in a high pedestrian demand area.

·     Improved pathway through Ilam Fields for people travelling on foot and by bicycle

·     Improved cycle facilities on Ilam Road. This includes improved separator design and new trees within the proposed cycle separator along Ilam road enhancing the tree lined nature of the street

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An easement is required across University of Canterbury Land.

·     The University of Canterbury reserves the right to close University Drive and the cycleway on their land in the event of an emergency. This is deemed to be a low risk.

·     High level of coordination required with the University of Canterbury to minimise the impact on their operation during the period of construction on their land.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Christchurch City Council is proposing to build a network of 13 new cycleways. The Major Cycle Routes will link the Central City to suburbs, education facilities, business and shopping areas as well as popular recreational destinations.

5.2       The Major Cycle Routes aim to increase the number of cyclists by providing improved facilities and increasing the level of safety.  This will in turn create a modal shift and help slow down the increase in private car use as well as meeting one of the key objectives of the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan, adopted in 2012.

5.3       The Uni-Cycle route runs from the University of Canterbury to the Central City. It is expected to attract many new riders who will commute to work or education or for recreational purposes. Uni-Cycle passes near a number of major high schools and several intermediate schools, in addition to the tertiary locations. This route connects with the Nor’West Arc at Ilam Road and the Northern Line Cycleway near Mona Vale.

5.4       This section of the Uni-Cycle route runs from Ngahere Street through the University of Canterbury to Solway Avenue.

5.5       The University of Canterbury has given significant support to the community by enabling the cycleway along University Drive and through Ilam Fields, having agreed to the design and working through the appropriate easements over what is freehold University land.

5.6       Construction of this project is scheduled to begin late 2016 and finish next financial year (Financial Year 2016/2017). Close coordination with the University of Canterbury would be required to minimise the impact on their operation during the period of construction.

5.7       As per the Council resolution of 29th January 2015, MCR Programme has been declared a Metropolitan Programme and all decisions delegated to the IT&E Committee.


 

6.   Option 1 - Install a cycleway from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue via the University of Canterbury (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option is to install a cycleway from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue via the University of Canterbury grounds.

6.2       This would involve installation of a low volume, slow traffic environment along Ngahere, Totara, Miro, and Hinau Streets and an upgraded signal controlled crossing on Clyde Road.

6.3       A new shared path on the west side of Clyde Road and a 2 way cycleway along the south side of University Drive.

6.4       Providing cycle priority crossings adjacent to the existing zebra crossings on Ilam Road as well as upgraded separated cycleways.

6.5       A shared path along the North of Ilam fields that continues on the south side of Dovedale Avenue to a new crossing point on Solway Avenue.

Significance

6.6       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 with affected stakeholders and the wider community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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

6.8       Have Your Say consultation for the Uni-Cycle Major Cycleway took place over a one month period closing on 9 March 2016.  Approximately 500 booklets were delivered to residents along the route, and also emailed or posted to internal and external stakeholders including transport and residents groups, schools, interest groups and the University of Canterbury.  Approximately 800 flyers were delivered to residents in the wider area including the student halls of residence. Additional booklets, flyers and posters were available at Council service centres, the UC Bike stand at Orientation Club Day and a display at the main University campus library. The information was also provided on the Council website and social media channels.

6.9       Staff attended ‘Go by Bike’ Day on 10 February 2016 with Uni-Cycle resources.

6.10    The information was provided on the Council website and social media channels.

6.11    A public drop in information session was attended by approximately 15 people including residents, school representatives and university student representatives was held at Ilam School on 16 February between 3.30pm and 5.45pm.

6.12    The proposed route extends from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue in the following sections: Ngahere Street to Clyde Road, University Drive, Ilam Road (between University Drive and the northern side of Ilam Fields), Ilam Fields, and Dovedale Avenue (from Waimairi Road to Solway Avenue).

6.13    The potential route through Riccarton House and grounds was not included in the consultation scope due to ongoing discussions with the Trust Board and consenting authorities. However, all feedback relating to the pathway through Riccarton House grounds was noted and is summarised below.


 

 

6.14    During the consultation period an additional informal meeting was held with residents in the Ngahere Street to Clyde Road section to discuss issues raised regarding this section of the route. In particular parking, safety at the Puriri Street intersection and managing vehicle speeds for safety.

6.15    Of 136 written submissions, 108 indicated support for the proposal, and approximately half of these gave additional comments and suggestions about the consulted route. Organisations indicating general or full support included Spokes, Canterbury District Health Board, NZ Automobile Association, Generation Zero, and the NZ Trucking Association.

6.16    Fifteen submitters provided comments only, but did not give a preference for or against the cycleway, covering a range of concerns and suggestions. 

6.17    Twelve of the thirteen who opposed the proposal were residents between Ngahere Street and Clyde Road and were concerned about aspects of this section - mainly safety and access including parking, congestion, and speed. They were also concerned about the possible cycle path going through Riccarton House grounds.

6.18    Many who commented strongly in favour of the proposal praised the design, the completion of a safer route between the University and the City, and the benefits of providing a safer and more enjoyable path for a wider range of users as a way of improving travel choice. Several others including Generation Zero commented on the resulting benefits to the environment from reduced congestion, health benefits (the indirect economic benefits from this), as well as the resulting reduction in motor vehicles.

6.19    There was general support (11) for the special road markings, and requests for clear signage and way-finding.

6.20    The portion of the route between Ngahere Street and Clyde Road encounters high parking numbers due the close proximity to the University of Canterbury. The design that went out for consultation proposed reinstatement of parking along the south side of Hinau Street (currently restricted from March to November).

6.21    A key concern regarding the proposal between Ngahere Street and Clyde Road was safety for cyclists, residents and pedestrians. This related to the amount of on-street parking and the lack of adequate traffic calming including at the Hinau/Puriri intersection. It was generally felt that there is not enough space on the road for all users.

6.22    The majority of submitters (86%) in support of the cycleway between Ngahere Street and Clyde Road did not support the additional parking that was proposed and suggested further restrictions on parking to support safety and access for other road users. Suggestions were made around limiting and managing parking to address safety and congestion issues in Hinau and Ngahere Streets. There was also general support for a slowed environment with some requesting a lower 30km/hr speed limit between Ngahere and Clyde.

6.23    University parking congestion was generally seen as something to be discouraged.

6.24    Residents of Ngahere Street were concerned about safety as the street is narrow, and congestion and visibility problems exacerbated by old style deep dish kerb and channelling which pushes parked cars out into the carriageway.

6.25    Six submitters were concerned that there should be separated cycle paths along the whole route, and in particular between Ngahere and Clyde Streets to ensure consistency and clarity for all users.


 

6.26    Access for cyclists and pedestrians from Hinau Street to University Drive was supported as a critical part of the route but some concerns were raised about safety, and desire lines. There were suggestions about the design of University Drive to make sure cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles can safely move through the street and from Clyde Road to Ilam Road. In this section a number of concerns were raised about the width of the path, potential issues with pedestrians on the cycleway, safe speeds and potential bottle necks at the short sections at either end where pedestrians and cyclists share the space.

6.27    There was strong support for the upgraded separated paths on Ilam Road including the removal of parking to accommodate this. There were also additional requests to ensure the separators are effective and safe for all users.  There were requests for the access to and from Science Road to be re-instated.  Several submitters requested behavioural markings for the shared path across Ilam Fields.

6.28    One resident on Solway Avenue was concerned about the loss of parking at the head of the T-intersection with Dovedale Avenue, however this was balanced by three submitters that wanted a central refuge island that would help pedestrians and cyclists get across the road at the end of the cycleway route and in a high pedestrian demand area.  Additional parking is being provided on Dovedale Avenue in the old bus stop that is being removed.

6.29    There was no feedback regarding proposed removal of trees and positive feedback regarding the proposed trees in the median down Ilam Road.

6.30    Related issues and concerns that were not part of this consultation included Riccarton Bush and Kahu Road:

6.30.1 All feedback relating to Riccarton Bush has been noted, but the section through Riccarton Bush is not currently out for consultation or approval. Owing to the significant heritage setting of the Riccarton bush house and grounds, the project team are working closely with the Riccarton Bush Trust Board and consenting authorities to determine if this route is appropriate, and if so whether the type of pathway proposed is suitable.

6.30.2 The pathway through the grounds of Riccarton Bush is Council's preferred route because it would cater to current bicycle and pedestrian demands, safety, and directness.  Riccarton Bush is still a key destination for all users, therefore if it is determined that the major cycle way route should not go through Riccarton Bush additional consultation will be undertaken with the community to discuss the alternative route and design options as this could impact on access and car parking.

6.30.3 Kahu Road: There were a number of comments suggesting safety measures on Kahu Road near Riccarton Bush. These measures including a safe crossing point were approved by the IT&E committee in October 2015, and started construction in April 2016.

6.31    Changes and responses following consultation

6.31.1 The following changes have been made to the proposed plan in response to consultation feedback, resulting in the final plan for IT&E committee approval.

6.31.2 Way finding - signage will be installed as part of this project to clearly delineate the route and key destinations

6.32    Ngahere Street

6.33    Parking removed on the north side of Ngahere Street

6.34    Deep dish channels on Ngahere Street are not proposed to be replaced for another 10 years as they are currently in good condition, therefore will not be replaced as part of the cycleway project. However if residents on the south side of Hinau Street (where parking is retained) are having difficulty exiting their driveways, additional kerb blocks could be installed to widen driveways.

6.35    Totara Street

6.35.1 The length of no stopping outside of 56 Totara Street has been reduced.

6.35.2 Install traffic islands on Totara Street at the intersection with Ngahere Street to provide a safe right turning area for people travelling on bicycles.

6.35.3 The project team looked into an alternative design that changed the priority at this intersection so people travelling on bicycles took priority over through traffic on Totara Street, but it was determined that because Ngahere Street is a cul-de-sac this would be counter intuitive and could lead to driver confusion.

6.36    Miro Street

6.36.1 Hinau/Miro intersection - Change priority of intersection to follow cycle route (subject to additional consultation)

6.36.2 Miro/Totara intersection - Change priority of intersection to follow cycle route (subject to additional consultation)

6.37    Hinau Street

6.37.1 Remove parking on the south side of Hinau Street between Puriri Street and Clyde Road.  Currently parking is restricted between March and November.

6.37.2 Install pedestrian islands on Puriri Street so the stop signs can be gated, this will require the ramps and speed table to be extended on the approaches. This will slow traffic down approaching Hinau Street and vehicles turning from Hinau into Puriri Street.

6.37.3 All existing traffic calming features will be checked during detailed design to ensure they comply with Council’s standards and where required, changes will be undertaken to ensure the calming devices are slowing traffic.

6.37.4 Parking is to be restricted on the bend outside of 38 Puriri/60 Hinau to create greater visibility around the corner.

6.37.5 30km/hr speed limit - Changes to speed limits are subject to further assessments and consultation, which we propose to be undertaken following implementation and monitoring of the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures.

6.37.6 Slow street proposed for Ngahere Street to Clyde road - Due to the low volume nature of the streets, and without any peak traffic generating uses (such as schools etc) separated cycleways or painted on-road cycle lanes were not deemed to be required.  Additional traffic calming features are proposed to reduce further traffic speeds to ensure people on bicycles feel comfortable using the road space.

6.38    Clyde Road

6.38.1 Install green paint over driveways at 52-54 Clyde Road on the east side.

6.38.2 Install green paint over the driveway at 41 Clyde Road on the west side.

6.39    University Drive

6.39.1 Extend pedestrian crossing markings over the cycleway to re-enforce pedestrian priority at these points.

6.39.2 Re-instate the vehicle right turn facility into the Law Car Park at the request of the University and relocate the information board at the eastern end of University Drive.

6.40    Ilam Road

6.40.1 Break in the median to allow right turns to/from Science Road for cyclists.


 

6.41    Ilam Fields

6.41.1 No change

6.42    Dovedale Avenue

6.42.1 Modify the two vehicle crossings at the western end so they are consistent with each other

6.43    Solway Avenue

6.43.1 To install a pedestrian refuge crossing and associated road markings

6.44    Consultation Summary

6.44.1 Consultation and summary feedback table is attached in Appendix C

6.44.2 All submitters have been sent a summary of the consultation and information about Board and IT&E committee meeting times, including how to request speaking rights at the IT&E meeting on 5th May 2016.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.46    Cost of Implementation - $4m

6.47    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - an additional cost of $4,500/year

6.48    Funding source - Line item in Council's Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025) for Major Cycleways: Uni-Cycle Route

Legal Implications

6.49    An easement agreement is currently drafted between the Christchurch City Council and the University of Canterbury and an "in principal" agreement has been reached. This will be presented to the University of Canterbury Council for signing if the scheme design is approved.

6.50    Where the proposal is not on University of Canterbury land, there are no legal implications as all other work is on Christchurch City Council land.

Risks and Mitigations

6.51    Riccarton Bush - The Christchurch City Council design team are currently in ongoing discussions with the Trust board and consenting authorities to see if this route is appropriately designed for the setting. If this cannot be resolved an alternative route would be required, but as the current pathway through Riccarton Bush is an existing key cycle route this will not change the current scheme design as the alternative route, that has been considered, would extend North from the Ngahere/Totara Street intersection, then East along Kahu Road.

6.52    University of Canterbury - The University of Canterbury have agreed in principal for the cycleway to be installed on their land. A formal easement is currently drafted and will be presented to University of Canterbury Council if the scheme design is accepted. The University of Canterbury requirement to close access due to an emergency is considered low risk.

6.53    Resource consent - Works in close proximity to the Avon River along University Drive will require resource consent. We have minimised this impact of contaminated storm water runoff by narrowing of the road corridor.

6.54    Miro/Totara Street and Hinau/Miro Street intersections - Due to public consultation feedback received, and issues raised within the independent safety audit it is proposed to change priority at these two intersections, which will require further consultation.

6.54.1 Following additional consultation if it is deemed unsuitable to complete these intersection priority modifications there are alternative treatments that can be designed that keep current road priorities.

Implementation

6.55    Implementation dependencies  - Resource consent and University of Canterbury approval

6.56    Implementation timeframe - completed FY2016/17

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.57    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a continuous cycleway for people on bicycles that is in line with the objectives of the Major Cycleways and also in line with design guidance provided in the Christchurch Cycle Design Guide.

·   The route links up the key destinations such as the University of Canterbury, Ilam School and Christchurch Boys High School

·   Off road shared path along Dovedale Avenue to minimise conflict between the angled car parking and people travelling by bicycle

·   Dedicated 2 way cycleway along University Drive to reduce conflict with people travelling on foot in a high pedestrian demand area.

·   Improved pathway through Ilam Fields for people travelling on foot and by bicycle

·   Improved cycle facilities on Ilam Road. This includes improved separator design and new trees within the proposed cycle separator along Ilam road enhancing the tree lined nature of the street

6.58    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An easement is required across University of Canterbury Land.

·   The University of Canterbury reserves the right to close University Drive and the cycleway on their land in the event of an emergency. This is deemed to be low risk.

·   High level of coordination required with the University of Canterbury to minimise the impact on their operation during the period of construction on their land.


 

7.   Option 2 - Install a cycleway from Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue with a 2 way cycleway on a section of Clyde Road

Option Description

7.1       The scheme is as per Option 1, but with a two way cycleway on the West side of Clyde Road (instead of a shared path).

7.2       For the reasons outlined in 7.16 the Christchurch City Council design team do not recommend this option.

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 consult with affected stakeholders and the wider community.

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

7.5       This option was not consulted with the public. But a resident on Clyde Road raised a concern during consultation regarding safety when they reverse from their driveway. They mentioned there were a number of people already cycling/skate boarding along the footpath, and suggested that installation of a shared path would encourage greater numbers to speed past their driveway in close proximity. They were also concerned about the safety of pedestrians, particularly young children sharing this space with cyclists.

7.6       The design team investigated an option of installing a two way cycleway on the West side of Clyde Road between Hinau Street and University Drive and keep the current pedestrian footpath. (see Appendix B)

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 - $4m

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - an additional cost of $4,500/year

7.10    Funding source - Line item in Council's Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025) for Major Cycleways: Uni-cycle Route

Legal Implications

7.11    As per option 1 (6.49 and 6.50)

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    As per option 1 (6.51 - 6.54)

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - Resource consent and University of Canterbury approval

7.14    Implementation timeframe - completed FY2016/17

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   As per option 1 (6.57)

·   The two way cycleway on Clyde Road (see appendix B) creates greater space between the driveway on the West side properties and the cycleway. This gives more time and greater visibility to drivers when leaving their properties before they encroach into the cycleway.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   As per option 1 (6.58)

·   The two way cycleway on Clyde Road (see appendix B) creates additional safety risks as raised in the independent safety audit, where a shared path was preferred. To fit the two way cycleway in, because road space is limited, the north bound on road cyclist would need to join the two way cycleway. To safely do this the two way cycleway layout would need to be counter intuitive with the north bound cyclist on the right, and south bound on the left.

·   The independent safety audit noted "it is likely that many people will still choose to keep left, and this will be a source of conflict with those who do comply with the non-conventional layout. The relatively short length of the facility, and the fact that it would be the only one of its kind in Christchurch exacerbate the likelihood of this layout causing confusion." The safety risk of this proposal was rated as moderate (frequency = occasional, severity = likely).


 

8.   Option 3 - Do nothing

Option Description

8.1       This option is to do nothing

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section two of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult with directly affected stakeholders, and also key stakeholders on project need, opportunities and solutions so that any concerns, alternatives and aspirations are understood and considered.

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       No consultation was undertaken on this option.

8.5       The same stakeholders are specifically affected by this option due to their interest in cycleways and how it affects them as individuals and groups.  Their views are supportive of the preferred option (plan for consultation) and a 'do nothing' option would not meet their expectations.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency - Not delivering the major cycleway.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - Unless improvements are made to infrastructure there is unlikely to be a modal shift as the interested but concerned cyclists will continue to feel uncomfortable cycling and will not consider this as a suitable alternative mode of transport.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary - Improve existing infrastructure along the route to make nervous and new cyclists comfortable to try cycling as an alternative mode of transport.

Financial Implications

8.7       None

Legal Implications

8.8       None

Risks and Mitigations

8.9       The 'do nothing option' presents a risk to Council as its approved as part of LTP 2015-2025 and Council is creating a "network" of Major Cycleways therefore all of the works need to be completed.

Implementation

8.10    None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.11    The advantages/disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is not the preferred option because it does not meet the objectives of the Major Cycle Routes.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Uni Cycle - Riccarton Bush to Solway Avenue - Plans for approval

55

b  

Clyde Road - Option 2 - Information only

62

c  

Consultation submission and feedback summary table

63

 

 

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

Chris Brown

Philippa Upton

Gemma Dioni

Lynette Ellis

Project Manager

Consultation Leader

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Planning & Delivery

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

7.        Rutland Street (Weston to Chapter) Parking Option Investigation

Reference:

16/455710

Contact:

Brendan Bisley

brendan.bisley@ccc.govt.nz

Ext 8385

 

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 consider the results of the investigation from the two resolutions requested at the 16th February ITE meeting when the Papanui Parallel MCR was approved, and approve the recommended options.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to update the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on their resolution at the 16th February meeting where it approved the Papanui Parallel scheme.

1.3       The committee asked staff to investigate retaining parking on Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston or on surrounding streets to assist parking and to investigate traffic signals at the Springfield/St Albans and Springfield/Edgeware Intersections.

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Retain the existing semi-mature trees on the west side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston and do not install parking on the east side of Rutland Street as per the scheme approved by ITE at the 16th February ITE Meeting.

2.         Request staff to monitor the Springfield/St Albans and Springfield/Edgeware intersections for 12 months post implementation of the Papanui Parallel MCR Works to determine if the signalisation of the two intersections is required and if this is found, to plan for the implementation of the traffic signals in the next LTP.

 

4.   Key Points

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

§    Activity: Major Cycleways

o      Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve perception that Christchurch is a cycle friendly city

4.2       The following options were considered for the Rutland Street Parking:

o      Option 1 - Retain the parking as per the approved scheme plan of the 16th February

o      Option 2 - 10 additional on-street carparks on the east side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston. This option requires the removal of 13 existing semi-mature street trees (7 on the west side and 6 on the east side)

o      Option 3 - Angled parking in Weston Road

In relation to the traffic signals, an option was developed for each intersection to ascertain if traffic signals could be accommodated and the impact on parking.

 

In relation to funding for the projects, these have not been allowed for in the current LTP. The projects would need to be funded separately to the Papanui Parallel MCR as the current estimates for Papanui Parallel show the schemes will require the current funding allocation without the additional signals costs.

 

4.3       Rutland Street Parking Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

§    The advantages of this Rutland Street option include:

·        Retention of the existing street trees on the west side of Rutland Street.

·        Chapter Street and Weston Road are lightly parked and have sufficient capacity to provide parking in close proximity.

·        The treatment in this block is consistent with adjacent blocks of Rutland Street and has retained cycle facilities over parking

§    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        On-street parking is only available on the west side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston which reduces the current on-street parking available in this block.

4.4       Traffic Signals Summary

·    Modelling indicates that the two intersections will work without traffic signals initially, although traffic signals will reduce congestion and delays on Springfield road.

·    Staff recommend the intersections are monitored for the 12 months after construction of the MCR to confirm if signalisation of the two intersections is required and if this is found, to plan for the implementation of the traffic signals in the next LTP.

 

5.   Context/Background

Consultation

5.1       Council staff undertook consultation on the Papanui Parallel MCR in the last quarter of 2015 and received 656 submissions. Staff had 5 public meetings and made 80 changes to the original scheme option to address the issues raised by the community and stakeholders and these were approved by the ITE committee at its 16th February 2016 meeting.

5.2       The main issues raised in the consultation were retention of the existing street trees and berms (20%), provision of business parking (20%) and retention of residential parking (16%)

5.3       The Papanui Parallel scheme option presented to the ITE in February 2016 has tried to balance the needs of the cyclists, residents, businesses and motorists and compromises have been made where once group has needed priority over another.

5.4       At the ITE meeting, the committee resolved the following:

·    Request staff investigate retaining parking on Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston Streets or on surrounding streets to assist parking.

·    Request staff investigate the installation of traffic lights at Springfield/Edgeware intersections and Springfield/St Albans Intersections to de-emphasise Trafalgar Street and enhance safety as part of the cycleway project.


 

 

5.5       This report is the investigation of these two matters and we have 4 options:

·    Option 1 - parking from Weston to Chapter - Approved Scheme with parking on the west side only

·    Option 2 - parking from Weston to Chapter - both sides with removal of existing street trees

·    Option 3 - angle parking on Weston Road and parking on the west side of Rutland

·    Option 4 - Traffic Signals at St Albans/Springfield and Edgeware/Springfield - monitor intersection post construction to verify the need for the signals

5.6       In the option information detailed in this report we have only discussed aspects that have changed and items such as significance, impact on Mana Whenua, Community View and Preferences, Alignment with Council Plans and policies are not detailed as they are unchanged from the report provided on the 16th February 2016. 


 

6.   Option 1 (Rutland Street) - Approved Scheme Option presented at February ITE meting (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option retains the street trees on the west side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston. The retention of the street trees results in insufficient carriageway width to accommodate parking on the east side so parking is only on the west side of Rutland Street which is the same as the adjacent blocks of Rutland Street. This is shown in Attachment A - Approved Scheme

Financial Implications

6.2       This option has no additional financial implications over what was approved at the ITE meeting of the 16th February

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

§ 6.3       The advantages of this Rutland Street option include:

·    Retention of the existing street trees on the west side of Rutland Street. These trees have been assessed by an arborist and are in good health. At the time of the original consultation on the wider scheme, 20% of the 656 submissions received were asking for retention of the existing trees and berms and the trees in this block are the most mature of the street trees along Rutland Street.

·    Chapter Street and Weston Road are lightly parked, have sufficient capacity and no time restrictions to provide parking in close proximity to local residents and the church located in this block

·    The treatment in this block within the wider MCR is consistent with adjacent blocks of Rutland Street and has prioritised amenity values and cycle facilities over parking

§    6.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    On-street parking is only available on the west side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston which reduces the current on-street parking available in this block.

7.   Option 2 (Rutland Street) - East side parking

Option Description

7.1       Relocation of the kerb on the west side of Rutland Street to be closer to the residential boundaries and removal of the 7 existing street trees, we are able to accommodate parking on both sides of Rutland Street, with 10 carparks on the east side of Rutland street being installed. This is shown in Attachment B - Rutland Street revised parking options.

Financial Implications

7.2       The changes to provide the additional carparking would be approximately $55,000 ($5,500 per carpark). Maintenance costs are expected to be the same as the preferred option once built

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.3       The advantages of this option include:

·  This option installs an additional 10 on-street carparks on the east side of Rutland Street

7.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·  This option requires the removal of an additional 7 semi-mature healthy street trees

·  The resultant narrow grass berms on the west side will make it very difficult to replace the removed street trees on the west side of the corridor.

·  This option prioritises parking over cycle facilities and street amenity values and results less consistency along the Papanui Parallel route.

8.   Option 3 - Parallel parking in Weston Road

Option Description

8.1       As an alternative to the Rutland Street parking, we investigated angle parking in Weston Road as this is closest to the Oratory Church. Staff developed an option for one location to assess if angle parking was feasible and the expected costs. This is shown on the Attachment B - Rutland Street revised parking options plan.

Financial Implications

8.2       Installation of the angle parking as shown would be approximately $95,000. The angle parking would gain an additional three parks over what is currently available without the angle parking, so each additional park would be approximately $31,667 to install.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.3       The advantages of this option include:

·  This option does not require the removal of the additional trees in Rutland Street and retains the consistency of treatment along this section of Rutland for cyclists.

8.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·  The angle parking only gains three additional parks and the cost per park ($31,667) is high. The on-street parking demand in the side streets is not high so there is good availability of on-street parking within reasonable walking distance without the added cost of the angle parking.

·  The angle parking would require the removal of some existing street trees in Weston Road.

·  No consultation has been undertaken with adjacent residents in Weston Road

9.   Traffic Signals at St Albans/Springfield and Edgeware/Springfield

Option Description

9.1          In relation to the traffic signals, an option was developed for each intersection to ascertain if traffic signals could be accommodated and the impact on parking. Traffic lights can be incorporated at both intersections with minimal changes to the current kerb positions. The signals will result in parking removal near the intersection (estimated to be 6-8 carparks at each intersection) to accommodate the lanes and splitter islands required for the traffic signals.

 

9.2          The installation of signals will improve right turning movements from Springfield Road into St Albans Street and from Edgeware Road into Springfield Road.

 

9.3          Localised consultation will be required with the directly affected properties and staff have already received an objection to the proposed signals from the medical centre on the St Albans/Springfield corner as a result of the ITE resolution on the 16 February, so anticipate they will object to any plans we propose for that corner due to the reduction in on street parking.

 

Financial Implications

9.4          It is estimated that each intersection will cost $200,000-$250,000 to install depending on service conflicts with the signal poles.

 

9.5          Funding for these projects not been allowed for in the current LTP. The projects would need to be funded separately to the Papanui Parallel MCR as this work has not been allowed for in budget or scope.

 

Recommendation

9.6          Modelling indicates that the two intersections will work without traffic signals initially, although traffic signals will reduce congestion and delays on Springfield road.

 

9.7          Staff recommend the intersections are monitored for the 12 months after construction of the MCR to confirm if signalisation of the two intersections is required and if this is found, to plan for the implementation of the traffic signals in the next LTP.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Approved Scheme

85

b  

Rutland Street revised parking options

86

 

 

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

Brendan Bisley

Lynette Ellis

Project Manager

Manager Planning & Delivery

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

8.        Contractor Parking Permits For Residential Homes

Reference:

16/317955

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 for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to be informed of the Officer's consideration of introducing a contractor parking permit scheme for residential home rebuild/repair in streets where parking restrictions apply.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Council resolution on 15th October 2015 whereby the Council requested a report on contractor parking permits to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee. This came via a Part A report from the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board which resolved to "request that the Council consider exploring the option of trialling "Contractor Parking Permits" to assist in the rebuild of residential homes post-earthquake in areas that are governed by parking restrictions. If successful the Board further suggests that the Council consider extending this scheme more generally to cover Contractors who provide services to homes such as garden/cleaning services, plumbers, painters, electricians etc."

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by 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 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Endorse the current permission based approach to granting dispensation for contractors' vehicles that need to be parked for extended periods in streets/areas where parking restrictions apply.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Continue with current permission based approach (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Introduce a permit based system


 

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     working adequately

·     easily administered and not subject to fraud

·     No additional costs

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     May not be well known and therefore could present the perception of there being no process in place

·     Could be subjective or inconsistent in application as criteria is not publicly available.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A deputation was made to the Fendlaton/Waimairi Community Board by a resident from Holmwood Road suggesting the Council adopt a parking permit system for contractors working on residential property damaged by the earthquakes on streets where parking restrictions apply. Contractors' vehicles would then be exempt from the parking restriction allowing them to park and get on with the repair work as efficiently as possible. The deputation included an example of a similar scheme currently offered in the Devon County Council in the UK.

5.2       The most common parking restriction in residential areas in Christchurch is 2 hours. This will generally apply to one side of the street only. The opposite side will typically be occupied throughout most of the day by commuters/workers/students etc. vehicles associated with the high traffic generating activity that necessitated the adoption of the parking restriction in the first instance i.e. Mall, University etc. It follows that if a trades person arrives at the work site early enough then it is likely that there will be unrestricted kerbside parking available. However if they leave and return during the day or arrive at the site after 8:30am then it is likely that the only parking available will be time restricted (P120). Unless authorised these trade vehicles are subject to the same enforcement of the restriction as any other vehicles.

5.3       The Christchurch City Council operates a "permission" based approach which is not vastly different to the permit based system being suggested. Trades people can contact the Parking Compliance team and request extended stay within time limited parking restrictions in residential areas. The Compliance Team keeps a record of the registration numbers of authorised vehicles which is relayed to enforcement staff. This system has operated for at least 20 years and is working well despite the obvious increase in trade's people working within residential areas in association with the rebuild.

5.4       It may well be that a lack of awareness of this approach has triggered the desire for the possible adoption of a permit based process. The main issues with a permit based approach are that they are open to abuse and fraud. This is a particular risk around university campuses. It also follows that a permit based system comes with an operational cost to administer the system which would include enforcement.

5.5       Within the CBD there are several options for contractors which include hiring a meter shroud, construction parking zones and the permission based system. These have been working effectively however there may be scope for improvement through incorporating booking/approval through the Council website 'Transport for Christchurch'. This will be explored further as part of the review of Council systems.

 

6.   Option 1 - Continue with Existing Permission Based Approach (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Trades people continue to contact the Parking Compliance Team for approval to park for extended periods within time restricted parking areas. This system provides for multiple vehicles (registration plates numbers supplied) to be exempt from infringement notices.

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 low.

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       No community views have been sought in association 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 - no additional costs

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - no additional costs

6.8       Funding source - existing operational budgets

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    Part 8, Clause 2 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides  an authorised Officer of Council with the authority to reserve parking for a specific trade or other specified vehicle.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    Not applicable

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

6.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost

·   Not subject abuse/fraud

·   Not changing something that is working

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Possible lack of awareness amongst tradespeople

7.   Option 2 - Adopt a Contractor Parking Permit System

Option Description

7.1       A permit based system whereby Council issues a permit (to be displayed in the authorised vehicle(s)) to contractors giving exemption from time limit restrictions.

Significance

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

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       No Community views have been sought in relation to 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 - Circa $15,000 for set-up

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Circa $10,000pa

7.8       Funding source - Not provided for

Legal Implications

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

7.10    Part 8, Clause 2 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides  an authorised officer of Council with the authority to reserve parking for a specific trade or other specified vehicle.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Not applicable

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Circa 3-6 months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   None

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Setup and ongoing operational costs that are not currently provided for.

·   Open to abuse/fraud

 

 

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

Authors

Paul Burden

Steffan Thomas

Steve Parry

Senior Traffic Engineer

Operations Manager

Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

9.        Avon Temporary Stopbanks Management

Reference:

16/418006

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 recommend to Council which option for management of the Avon Temporary Stopbanks progresses to detailed design and construction.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by considering the proposed improvement (or maintenance) of the level of service, and the area which benefits from the temporary stopbanks. There has been a level of public interest in the stopbanks, and this project will provide greater certainty about Council's intentions for the management of the temporary stopbanks. The overall programme is significant and has wide ranging impacts across the city however the proposed costs are comparably low.  The temporary stopbanks management project is one of the projects being delivered on a fast-track programme within the 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 Burwood-Pegasus Community Board who have had a presentation and discussion on the results of the investigation in the temporary stopbanks.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Grant approval for the fast-tracked sandbag replacement construction works to be procured under existing staff delegations.

2.         Progress the preferred Temporary Stopbanks Management option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.       

 

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       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Enhanced level of service (preferred option)

·   Option 2 - Maintenance of existing design level of service

·   Option 3 - Do minimum

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

1.1.1.1.1.           Increased level of service provided along the majority of the temporary stopbanks

1.1.1.1.2.           Reduced risk of failure

1.1.1.1.3.           Greater certainty for residents about the level of protection provided

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

1.1.1.1.4.           No increase in level of service provided to a small area of residential red zone

1.1.1.1.5.           Higher cost than maintaining current level of service

 

5.   Context/Background

Construction of Avon Temporary Stopbanks

5.1       Temporary stopbanks were constructed following the 2011 earthquakes to mitigate tidal flood risk in the lower reaches of the Avon River. They extend from just upstream of North Avon Road to Bridge Street (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Temporary Stopbanks Extent

5.2       The stopbanks were initially constructed to a level of 10.8 m and later raised to 11.2 m RL (Christchurch Drainage Datum, CDD. All subsequent levels are quoted in CDD). The stopbanks were constructed under emergency circumstances without the level of detail or design that would typically apply to a permanent structure. At the time of construction the temporary stopbanks had a perceived design life of 5 years and while their height intended to match expected tide events, they were not designed for any specific flood event.

Avon Temporary Stopbank Management Investigation

5.3       The long-term management options for river and tidal flood protection are not decided, and the location and timing of permanent stopbanks is dependent on decisions about the Residential Red Zone (RRZ) as the optimal location for the permanent stopbanks is further away from the river than the current alignment.


 

5.4       Due to the dependency on RRZ decisions a study was initiated by the LDRP to:

·   Assess the condition of the stopbanks through a walkover and geotechnical investigations;

·   Determine the risks to the temporary stopbanks during future earthquakes, flood events and daily tidal flows, and develop a decision tree with regards to modifying the form and location of ongoing temporary measures;

·   Investigate options for altering existing temporary stopbanks to extend their lifespan and make them more permanent whilst adhering to the objectives of the Flood Protection Activity Management Plan; and

·   Produce an issues and options report detailing potential strategies for the temporary stopbanks, recommending a preferred option.

5.5       The Temporary Stopbanks investigation considered the current state of the temporary stopbanks and whether their life could be extended up to a maximum of 20 years. The rationale for extending their life is that:

·   The location of the permanent stopbanks is dependent on decisions about the Residential Red Zone (RRZ);

·   Permanent stopbanks will need to be considered in the context of sea level rise and other adaptive strategies, and as such will take some time to fully resolve; and

·   The capital cost of the permanent stopbanks is significant, and outlaying this large amount of capital early in the programme will restrict addressing some other high risk areas.

5.6       The study has been completed and draft reports submitted. The study concluded that aside from the sections with sandbag construction, the temporary stopbanks are relatively stable. This was contrary to the expectations of the Project Control Group, which expected the study to identify that significant strengthening works are required. However, the Project Control Group and Project Advisory Group are satisfied that the assessment carried out is robust and have confidence in the findings.

5.7       A peer review is currently underway and is expected to be completed within a month. Any findings from this peer review will be incorporated into the final reports and included in the detailed design.

Key risks identified

5.8       The key risks identified by the study were inundation of protected areas either by overtopping and/or piping failure due to:

·   Deterioration of sandbags

·   River flooding (as opposed to the tidal events that the stopbanks were designed to protect against)

5.9       The stopbanks are also susceptible to large earthquake events, but it is not considered economic to strengthen the temporary stopbanks to withstand large magnitude earthquakes. Much of the stopbanks are currently located on the edge of the river which is at highest risk of lateral spread in an earthquake. Permanent stopbanks are likely to follow an alternative alignment so investment in strengthening the stopbanks to withstand seismic events would be lost, and is better withheld until the final alignment of the permanent stopbanks has been decided.

5.10    In the recent February 14 2016 earthquake (M5.7) the stopbanks experienced cracking at one location on New Brighton Road (Figure 2). Increased seepage was also identified at another location near Waitaki Street. An emergency works package was developed to repair these two sections, and the crack has since been repaired and the seepage works are soon to begin.

5.11    Seepage through the stopbanks in some locations is not unexpected and in some places may cause some nuisance ponding on adjacent land. However, the risk of failure as a result of this has been assessed and is not considered a significant risk. If seepage is noticed to increase in an area then remedial works may be required to reduce this.

5.12    A survey of the stopbank crest following the February 14 2016 earthquake revealed only minor (<100 mm) changes in level of the stopbank since the previous crest survey in May 2015 (except where sandbags had deteriorated or been removed). This has shown that aside from some localised failures the stopbanks as a whole performed well during the earthquake.

Figure 2 Earthquake damage to temporary stopbanks (New Brighton Rd after 14.2.16)

 

5.13    To address damage arising from earthquakes there are two approaches to the short- to medium-term management of the stopbanks:

·   As the stopbanks are largely stable, intervene in a reactive manner only when damage occurs; or

·   Strengthen the stopbanks to minimise damage due to earthquakes

5.14    Reactive strengthening and seepage control is seen to provide the best value to Council while maintaining the level of protection required. It will involve the capital funds already allocated being applied over time as required in localised strengthening works.

Replacement of sandbag sections

5.15    Addressing the sections with deteriorated sandbags (Figure 3) has been identified as the highest priority. Five specific sections, totally 560 m, were identified where strengthening work is recommended to commence as soon as possible.

5.16    Sandbags were used during the original construction where there was limited space available or only a nominal height required. In some locations these access restrictions have now been resolved, which enables alternative construction methods to be considered. Such alternatives include concrete barriers (either with or without, the backing of a compacted gravel bank), or compacted gravel embankments. 

5.17    The replacement of the sandbag sections with more robust materials is included in all the options presented.

 

Figure 3 Deteriorated temporary stopbank sandbags on New Brighton Road

 

Flood overtopping

5.18    The temporary stopbanks were originally installed to provide tidal protection for a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) tide with 300 mm freeboard. This equated to a design level of RL11.2 m. No allowance for sea level rise was made.

5.19    Permanent stopbanks are likely to provide protection (with 400 mm freeboard) for the 1% AEP fluvial event down to a minimum RL dictated by the peak 1% AEP tide level with sea level rise.

5.20    The risk assessment considered the risks due to overtopping for the 0.5%, 1% and 2% AEP events. This assessed the societal and individual risks from these events using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method and risk analysis as prescribed within the Australian Council of Large Dams (ANCOLD) guidelines. FMEA is a systematic method for evaluating a structure to identify where and how it might fail and the risk analysis is used to assess the relative impact of different failures, in order to identify the parts of the structure that are most in need of change. 

5.21    The conclusion of this analysis was that for all three events (0.5%, 1%, and 2% AEP) the risk posed by overtopping exceed the ANCOLD limit of tolerability for societal and individual risk for the existing stopbanks.

5.22    The risks are driven by deterioration of the sandbags (outlined above) and flood overtopping. If these two risks were resolved, then the risk of failure associated with the temporary stopbanks would be within societal and individual tolerability limits, as defined by the ANCOLD criteria, for a design life up to 20 years.

5.23    The options presented below provide three alternatives for the management of the temporary stopbanks and these risks.

5.24   

6.   Option 1 - Enhanced level of service (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option consists of:

·   Replacement of the sandbags with more robust materials; and

·   Raising the stopbank level to increase levels of service over the majority of the length.

Sandbag Replacement

6.2       Due to the urgency of the works detailed design of the replacement of the sandbag sections has commenced. This works package also includes provide rock protection to a short section of the stopbanks exposed to undercutting due to vegetation die-off at Kibblewhite Street.

6.3       In some places consideration may need to be given to encroaching into the existing road footprint. This will need to be negotiated with Council's roading planners and with SCIRT. This is likely to be limited to small sections where the river is close to the road and a limited stable footprint is available for the stopbank.

6.4       A tight design timeframe has been agreed, with delivery of the detailed design scheduled for mid-May 2016. Construction is currently programmed to begin at the end of July 2016.

6.5       The construction for the replacement of the sandbags sections is expected to cost up to $1M. It is proposed to procure these works under existing delegations once a more detailed construction estimate is completed.

6.6       Seepage through the stopbanks is not unexpected and represents a low risk of failure. However, seepage will require some remedial works over time to reduce this where it is noticed to increase. Seepage control works are underway at Pump Station 204 (Waitaki Street) and it is expected that remedial works may be required to reduce seepage at other locations over time. Any replacement works or raising of the stopbank level will also consider this issue.

Raising Stopbank Levels

6.7       The risk assessment considered the risks due to overtopping for the 0.5%, 1% and 2% AEP events. This risk can be reduced through raising the crest level of the stopbanks.

6.8       To consider the levels required the stopbanks can be considered as three distinct sections (Figure 4):

·   Downstream, tidally dominated (from the estuary to upstream Avondale Road bridge or chainage[1] 14,500)

·   Middle section from upstream of Avondale Road bridge to just upstream of Porrit Park (chainage 12,100)

·   Upper section from Porrit Park to the end of the temporary stopbanks, just downstream of the western end of Retreat Road.

 

Figure 4 Temporary stopbank sections

6.9       The water levels throughout these sections change distinctly, as shown in Figure 5. The upper section has higher flood levels which reflect the increased gradient of the Avon River at that point, and the higher land level. The middle section has relatively flat flood levels and the required stopbank level is dominated by river flooding. Flood levels in the downstream section drop rapidly, and the 1% AEP tide with 300mm freeboard dictates the stopbank height.

Figure 5 Avon River sections

 

Downstream section (tidally influenced areas)

6.10    This section extends from the estuary up to chainage 14,500 (or just upstream of the Avondale Road bridge). Overtopping in this section is dominated by extreme tide events.

6.11    It is recommended that the stopbanks are maintained at the original design level of RL11.2 m. This will provide protection against overtopping for the 1% AEP tidal event (with 300 mm freeboard), and will still be higher than the 0.5% AEP design flood event (with freeboard decreasing with distance up the river).

6.12    The level of service provided by the temporary stopbanks will be less than that planned for the permanent stopbanks, which are likely to be constructed at least 400 mm above the 1% AEP floor or tide level with allowance for 1 m sea level rise (SLR). However, it is considered that the proposed level of service with a reduced freeboard and no allowance for SLR is acceptable within the design horizon of 20 years.

6.13    Raising the stopbanks to a constant RL11.2 m will require topping up the level of the stopbanks along parts of both banks of the river, although the majority of the stopbanks currently meets this design level.

6.14    Some work to sections with oversteep batters may also be required, and this section also includes some sandbag sections which will be replaced in the early works.

6.15    The preliminary rough order construction cost estimate to raise the downstream section to RL11.2 m is $0.5M. This is based on the material costs and costs to place the materials without any geotechnical or physical constraints. The final construction cost may be up to three times this amount, or $1.5M.

Middle section (from Avondale Road bridge to just upstream of Porrit Park)

6.16    This section extends from chainage 14,500 up to chainage 12,100 (or from Avondale Road bridge to just upstream of Porrit Park).

6.17    In this section the tidal influence decreases and the water level for the 0.5% AEP design flood event is above RL11.2 m (CDD) (although the 1% and 2% AEP events remain below this level).

6.18    Overtopping in this section represents the highest risk due to the number of green zone properties exposed to flood risk.

6.19    It is considered feasible to raise the stopbanks in this section to RL11.3 m which is approximately 50 mm above the 0.5% AEP flood level, approximately 150 mm above the 1% AEP flood level, and approximately 250 mm above the 2% AEP flood level.

6.20    While this does not provide the level of protection proposed for the permanent stopbanks (1% AEP flood plus 400 mm), it is considered this is sufficient for the maximum 20 year timeframe being considered for the temporary stopbanks.

6.21    Raising the stopbanks to this level will reduce the societal and individual risks identified in the risk assessment to below the limit of tolerability for existing structures (although without the standard freeboard normally adopted in stopbank design).

6.22    Some work to sections with oversteep batters may also be required, and this section also includes some sandbag sections which will be replaced in the early works.

6.23    The preliminary rough order construction cost estimate to raise the downstream section to RL11.3 m is $0.4M. This is based on the material costs and costs to place the materials without any geotechnical or physical constraints. The final construction cost may be up to three times this amount, or $1.2M.

Upper section (from Porrit Park to the end of the stopbanks)

6.24    This section extends from chainage 12,100 (upstream of Porrit Park) to the end of the stopbanks (upstream of North Avon Road).

6.25    Initial review of the modelling data shows that stopbanks in this area only protect unoccupied RRZ property, and that there are no green zone properties or occupied red zone properties at risk of flooding above the floor level as a result of overtopping. Overland flow paths do not appear to exist between the RRZ and the green zone ensuring that flood waters will remain in the RRZ.

6.26    Figure 6 shows the extents of the RL11.2 m water level (assuming that water can freely flow with no restriction to these locations, commonly referred to as a 'bathtub' model). This shows that in the middle and downstream sections there are substantial areas of occupied properties which would be affected if the stopbanks failed and the water reached that level (or higher). However, in the upper section there are no occupied properties at risk of flooding above the floor level, even in a 1% AEP event. This is higher than the level of service provided in many other parts of the city.

Figure 6 Avon River sections and inundated properties at RL11.2 m

 

6.27    In the upper section the flood levels also start to rise significantly above the original design level of RL11.2 m. At the upper limit of the temporary stopbanks the 0.5% AEP flood level is approximately RL11.7 m, and works to increase the height of the stopbanks to provide that level of flood protection would be significant.

6.28    Furthermore, upstream of the upper extent of the temporary stopbanks there are properties at risk of inundation from flood events that have no stopbank protection. This is common throughout the city in the older residential areas. Protection for the properties upstream of the current temporary stopbanks will be considered under the separate downstream rivers and tidal flood protection LDRP project, but this is considered outside the scope of the temporary stopbanks project.

6.29    Based on this analysis it is not proposed to raise the stopbanks in the upper area as it is not subject to the same risks as the middle section. This will result in no increase (or decrease) in the level of service currently offered. However, there are two caveats to this which will be confirmed during detailed design:

·   A check needs to be made to determine if any occupied red zone properties in this area will be at risk of flooding above the floor level in a 2% AEP event; and

·   Overland flow paths need to be rigorously scrutinised to confirm that there are no flow paths between this area and the green zone.

6.30    If the investigations identify that either of these situations present a risk then the decision not to raise the level of the stopbanks in this area will be reviewed.

6.31    The cost of the maintenance of this section at existing levels has not been quantified. The costs will either be included in the operational budget, or will be required when reactive strengthening capital works is identified.

Significance

6.32    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.

6.33    The Community Board has been informed of the findings of the condition assessment and risk analysis and will be further informed about the preferred option and design process at the next board meeting.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.34    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

6.35    There is an interest in the condition and management of the temporary stopbanks in some sectors in the community, and the media have also requested information recently. From these interactions it is understood that the community wants to be assured that the stopbanks are fit for purpose, and that there is a preference for an increased level of maintenance of the stopbanks.

6.36    The LDRP presented the findings of the Temporary Stopbanks Report to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 4 April 2016. At this point the preferred option had not been confirmed with the Programme Control Group and so was not presented to the Board. A memo on this option will be prepared and circulated to the Board to seek feedback, and a request made for time to present this option to the Board on 16 May 2016.

6.37    Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with the Community Board and through enquiries from the community to the project team.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.39    Cost of Implementation - The current estimate is for detailed design and construction costs to be up to $4M. This is dependent on the ground conditions encountered, and the ability to utilise parts of the road corridor where the separation between the river and the road is minimal.

6.40    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs for the stopbank will not be materially affected over the life of the asset as the proposed option does not result in the construction of a new asset. However, if the temporary stopbanks are to be a longer term feature of the riverside then a more intensive maintenance programme may be required.

6.41    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  The construction of the original temporary stopbanks was supported through the cost share agreement with central Government. HIGG approval will be required to support cost share funding of replacement of the sandbag sections and raising the level along parts of the stopbanks.

Legal Implications

6.42    A detailed consenting analysis will 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.

6.43    If partial road closures are necessary (to allow for economical construction of portions of the stopbank) then approvals will be required.

Risks and Mitigations

6.44    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

6.45    Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports have been commissioned and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes, though this will primarily occur for trees within the current stopbank which are dead or dying.

6.46    The temporary stopbanks are not designed to prevent groundwater flow from the river into the surrounding land, and this will continue to be an issue in some of the downstream areas.  

Implementation

6.47    Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

6.48    Implementation timeframe - Detailed design for the sandbag replacement is scheduled for completion mid-May 2016, with completion expected by the end of December 2016. Detailed design for raising the stopbank levels is currently programmed for completion by the end of September 2016 with completion of physical works by the end of next financial year (mid 2017).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.49    The advantages of this option include:

·   Increased level of service provided along the majority of the temporary stopbanks

·   Reduced risk of failure

·   Greater certainty for residents about the level of protection provided

6.50    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No increase in level of service provided to a small area of residential red zone

·   Higher cost than maintaining current level of service

7.   Option 2 - Maintenance of existing design level of service

Option Description

7.1       Rather than increasing the level of service in the middle section this option is to maintain the level of the stopbanks at the original design RL of 11.2 m in the middle and upper sections. No change is proposed to the current levels in the upper section.

7.2       This option also requires the replacement of the sandbag sections with more robust materials as per Option 1. The cost estimate remains similar with a cost of up to $1M.

7.3       The cost for this option in the downstream section is the same as for Option 1 which is $1.5M.

7.4       The middle section, rather than being raised to RL11.3 m, would be increased to only RL11.2 m. This would not reduce the societal and individual risk to the same level, with the level of risk likely to remain above the limit of tolerability for existing structures under the ANCOLD guidelines.

7.5       The cost for raising the low portions of the middle section to RL11.2 m is estimated at $0.5M, compared to the estimate of $1.2M for raising the stopbanks to RL11.3 m.

Significance

7.6       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 as there is no reduction in the level of service.

7.7       The Community Board has been informed of the findings of the condition assessment and risk analysis and will be further informed about this option and design process at the next board meeting.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.8       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

7.9       There is an interest in the condition and management of the temporary stopbanks in some sectors in the community, and the media have also requested information recently. From these interactions it is understood that the community wants to be assured that the stopbanks are fit for purpose.

7.10    In general there appears to be a preference for an increased level of maintenance of the stopbanks and this option may not meet community expectations when tolerable risk limits are explained.

7.11    The LDRP presented the findings of the Temporary Stopbanks Report to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 4 April 2016. At this point this option was not presented to the Board. A memo on this option will be prepared and circulated to the Board to seek feedback, and a request made for time to present this option to the Board on 16 May 2016.

7.12    Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with the Community Board and through enquiries from the community to the project team.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.13    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, although the impact on the level of service has not been specifically calculated.

Financial Implications

7.14    The current estimate for detailed design and construction costs for this option is up to $3M. This is dependent on the ground conditions encountered, and the ability to utilise parts of the road corridor where the separation between the river and the road is minimal.

7.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs for the stopbank will not be materially affected over the life of the asset as the proposed option does not result in the construction of a new asset. However, if the temporary stopbanks are to be a longer term feature of the riverside then a more intensive maintenance programme may be required.

7.16    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  The construction of the original temporary stopbanks was supported through the cost share agreement with central Government. HIGG approval will be required to support cost share funding of replacement of the sandbag sections and raising the level along parts of the stopbanks.

Legal Implications

7.17    A detailed consenting analysis will 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.

7.18    If partial road closures are necessary (to allow for economical construction of portions of the stopbank) then approvals will be required.

Risks and Mitigations

7.19    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

7.20    Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports have been commissioned and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes, though this will primarily occur for trees within the current stopbank which are dead or dying.

7.21    There is a risk that the community will not accept this level or service. However, it represents a maintenance or improvement over the existing levels of service.

Implementation

7.22    Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

7.23    Implementation timeframe - Detailed design for the sandbag replacement is scheduled for completion mid-May 2016, with completion expected by the end of December 2016. Detailed design for raising the stopbank levels is currently programmed for completion by the end of September 2016 with completion of physical works by the end of next financial year (mid 2017).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduced cost (up to $1M saving) over Option 1.

·   Potentially less disruption due to lower design levels in the middle section.

7.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduced level of service over Option 1.

·   The level of risk which remains is above that deemed tolerable for existing structures under the ANCOLD guidelines.

8.   Option 3 - Do minimum

Option Description

8.1       This option only allows for the replacement of the sandbag sections with more robust materials as per Option 1. The cost estimate remains similar with a cost of up to $1M.

8.2       No change in levels will be made to the upper, middle or downstream sections except where structural instabilities are identified.

Significance

8.3       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 as there is no reduction in the level of service.

8.4       The Community Board has been informed of the findings of the condition assessment and risk analysis and will be further informed about the range of options and proposed design process at the next board meeting.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.5       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

8.6       There is an interest in the condition and management of the temporary stopbanks in some sectors in the community, and the media have also requested information recently. From these interactions it is understood that the community wants to be assured that the stopbanks are fit for purpose.

8.7       In general there appears to be a preference for an increased level of maintenance of the stopbanks and this option may not meet community expectations when tolerable risk limits are explained.

8.8       The LDRP presented the findings of the Temporary Stopbanks Report to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 4 April 2016. At this point this option was not presented to the Board. A memo on this option will be prepared and circulated to the Board to seek feedback, and a request made for time to present this option to the Board on 16 May 2016.

8.9       Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with the Community Board and through enquiries from the community to the project team.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.10    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, although the impact on the level of service has not been specifically calculated. It does not represent a reduction in existing levels of service.

Financial Implications

8.11    The current estimate for detailed design and construction costs for this option is up to $1M. This is dependent on the ground conditions encountered, and the ability to utilise parts of the road corridor where the separation between the river and the road is minimal.

8.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs for the stopbank will not be materially affected over the life of the asset as the proposed option does not result in the construction of a new asset. However, if the temporary stopbanks are to be a longer term feature of the riverside then a more intensive maintenance programme may be required.

8.13    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  The construction of the original temporary stopbanks was supported through the cost share agreement with central Government. HIGG approval will be required to support cost share funding of replacement of the sandbag sections and raising the level along parts of the stopbanks.

Legal Implications

8.14    A detailed consenting analysis will 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.

8.15    If partial road closures are necessary (to allow for economical construction of portions of the stopbank) then approvals will be required.

Risks and Mitigations

8.16    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

8.17    Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports have been commissioned and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes, though this will primarily occur for trees within the current stopbank which are dead or dying.

8.18    There is a risk that the community will not accept this level or service. However, it represents a maintenance or improvement over the existing levels of service.

Implementation

8.19    Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

8.20    Implementation timeframe - Detailed design for the sandbag replacement is scheduled for completion mid-May 2016, with completion expected by the end of December 2016. Detailed design for raising the stopbank levels is currently programmed for completion by the end of September 2016 with completion of physical works by the end of next financial year (mid 2017).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduced cost (up to $3M saving) over Option 1.

·   Less construction disruption.

8.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduced level of service over Option 1.

·   The level of risk which remains is above that deemed tolerable for existing structures under the ANCOLD guidelines.

·   Reduced level of community confidence in the temporary stopbanks for a 20 year design life.


 

 

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

Peter Langbein

John Mackie

David Adamson

Unit Manager - Storm Water & Land Drainage Rebuild

Finance Business Partner

Head of Three Waters & Waste

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

10.    Transport Unit - Quarterly Report

Reference:

16/421505

Contact:

Chris Gregory

chris.gregory@ccc.govt.nz

941 8608

 

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 receive the quarterly report from the Transport Unit.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

2.1.2   Community engagement and consultation is not required as this is an update report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the Transport Unit Quarterly Report for March 2016.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Network performance is relatively stable but still with a high level of impact from earthquake repairs to infrastructure and from new developments.

4.2       The majority of the capital programme is well underway but with a relatively high level of construction required in the last three months of the year.

4.3       A number of projects have been delayed by the consultation process or consenting process. These projects have been re-phased as part of the 2016 draft Annual Plan. This particularly applies to the Major Cycleway Programme, Marshlands Road Bridge and the Port Hills Geotechnical Contracts.

4.4       A panel contract for design of Major Cycleways has been awarded to two teams of consultants and a similar contract is out to market for the construction element. This will enable streamlining and integrated delivery of sections of the various routes by allocating parcels to known contractors and design consultants early in the programme.

4.5       The contract for the Zone 3B Risk Mitigation for Sumner Road is currently out to tender for award in May. This will allow the $40M remediation project to proceed early in the new financial year.

4.6       Some routine maintenance issues with roadside mowing and street cleaning are arising, particularly in the Eastern suburbs, as the SCIRT rebuild comes to an end and there is a transition to day to day activities. These are being addressed with the maintenance contractors.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The monthly report is intended to provide committee members with:

·   Update on key network performance statistics, and

·   Update on the status of the major projects in the transport capital programme, and

·   Update of maintenance activities, and

·   Schedules of planned renewals in the carriageway and footpath activities.

5.2       In future as more detail is finalised around three year rolling programmes and outputs from associated condition assessments these will be provided for information.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Transport Quarterly Report - March 2016

113

 

 

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

Chris Gregory

Head of Transport

Approved By

Peter Ryan

David Adamson

Head of Performance Management

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

11.    Three Waters and Waste - March and April 2016 Report

Reference:

16/447456

Contact:

John Mackie

John.mackie@ccc.govt.nz

9416548

 

 

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee of the activities of the newly established 3 Waters and Waste team as well as providing a progress update on the construction activities of the SCIRT Alliance, who are undertaking the repairs and rebuild of the horizontal infrastructure damaged by earthquakes.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Three Waters and Waste March and April 2016 report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The new Three Waters and Waste unit which commenced in January 2016 post the Fit for Future restructuring, is responsible for the delivery of water, wastewater and stormwater services including horizontal infrastructure earthquake rebuild projects that are eligible for funding under the CCC-Crown cost share agreement.  The attached report provides an update on 3 Waters and Waste operations as well as both SCIRT and non-SCIRT horizontal infrastructure works.

 

3.2       The attached report (Attachment 1) is a brief summary of key activities carried out through the period March/April 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

3 Waters and Waste Monthly Report March/April 2016

130

 

 

Signatories

Author

John Mackie

Head of Three Waters & Waste

Approved By

Peter Ryan

David Adamson

Head of Performance Management

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

12.    Zone Committees' Annual Reports

Reference:

16/227888

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report provides the Committee with the annual reports from the three water management zone committees.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information in the Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora zone Committees' annual reports.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Each water management zone committee is a formal joint committee of Environment Canterbury and the district council(s) in which the zone is located.  There are three zone committees whose zones include portions of Christchurch:  Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora.

3.2       These three water management zone committees have prepared their annual reports.  The content of these reports covers the period from the inception of the committees through to the end of calendar year 2015 (Attachments A, B and C). 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee Annual Report 2016

146

b  

Banks Peninsula Zone Committee Annual Report 2016

150

c  

Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee Annual Report 2016

154

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

13.    Briefing - Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan

Reference:

16/398402

Contact:

Angela McDonnell

angela.mcdonnell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8379

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       Staff will present a briefing to the Committee regarding the Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Christchurch City Road Safety Action Plan July 2015-June 2016

160

 

 

Signatories

Author

Angela McDonnell

Community Travel Adviser

Approved By

Angela McDonnell

Community Travel Adviser

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 2016

 

 

14.  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:


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

05 May 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

15

Organics Processing Plant Odour Complaints

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

The option of Relocation and Purchasing of Properties would need to be agreed with each individal separately and in confidence

WHEN AN OPTION OR ACTION HAS BEEN AGREED ON

 

 



[1] Chainage refers to measurements of the length (in metres) of the river and is used to identify locations in the hydraulic models and for surveying purposes.