Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 17 May 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library,
71 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

10 May 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@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

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

B       6.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................... 9

C       7.       Proposed Road Names - Franco Road and Holmes Hanover Lane............................ 11

C       8.       Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - 318 Riccarton Road.......................... 15

C       9.       Proposed Bus Stop Relocation - 67 Mandeville Street  ............................................ 23

C       10.     Proposed Bus Stops within the Riccarton/Wigram Ward: 90 The Runway (on Corsair Drive), Wigram............................................................................................................... 37

C       11.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 - Application - Chinese Joyful Club................................................................................. 47

C       12.     Riccarton Community Centre - Board Workshop - Report of 22 March 2016......... 51

B       13.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report - May 2016............................... 61

B       14.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 71

B       15.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 71

C       16.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 72  

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Steve Gilbert, on behalf of the Halswell Domain Action Group, will address the Board regarding the proposed Halswell Skate facility

 

4.2

Phillip Haythornthwaite, on behalf of the Disabled Persons Assembly, will address the Board regarding the Proposed Bus Stop Relocation - 67 Mandeville Street (item 9 refers).

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

 

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 3 May 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library,
71 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

3 May 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@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

Community Board Recommendation

That the apology from Natalie Bryden for absence and the apology from Vicki Buck for lateness, be accepted.

Member Laloli/Member Broughton                                                                                                                    Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Recommendation

That the minutes of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 19 April 2016, be confirmed.

Member Laloli/Member D Mora                                                                                                                          Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle Project - Kate Russell

             Kate Russell of 76B Hinau Street, addressed the Board regarding parking issues in Hinau Street associated with the Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle project.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Russell for her deputation.

Item 6 of these minutes records the Board's decision on this matter.

 

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

 

Member Buck arrived at the meeting at 04:27 pm.

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00051

At 4.41pm, during its consideration of item 6, the Board resolved that Standing Orders be temporarily suspended.

Member Broughton/Member M Mora                                                                                                             Carried

 

Resumption of Standing Orders

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00052

At 4.46pm, the Board resolved that the Standing Orders be resumed.

Member M Mora/Member D Mora                                                                                                                    Carried

 

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

 

The Board discussed the staff report on the Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle being made to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting on 5 May 2016.

A prior briefing on the project for those Board members available, had been given by staff on 2 May 2016.

The Board also took account of the deputation made in item 4.1 regarding Hinau Street. 

Staff in attendance responded to questions from members.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle - Section Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue report.

2.         Provide feedback by the Board Chairperson to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on 5 May 2016.

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00053

Part B

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decided:

1.         To receive and note the information in the staff report on the Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle - Section Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue project.

2.         That the Board Chairperson provide the Board's feedback in 3. below to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on 5 May 2016.

3.         To recommend that the infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee:

3.1       Approve the scheme designs for the Uni-Cycle (Ngahere to Solway) project proceed to detailed design and construction as per staff recommendations 1 and 2, but to exclude staff recommendations 15c and 15d, and 16g and 16h, to allow further consultation to be undertaken with residents with regards to parking restrictions on the south side of Hinau Street from Clyde Road to Puriri Street.

3.2       Request staff undertake additional consultation with residents on options for parking on the south side of Hinau Street.

3.3       Request staff undertake additional consultation with residents for changes in priority at the Miro Street/Totara Street and Hinau Street/Miro Street intersections.

Member Laloli/Member Broughton                                                                                                                    Carried

 

 

7.   Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received the following information from members:

1.              Project K - Hornby High School

2.              Westmorland - private fence built over Council land.

8.   Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 4.51pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

6.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/368309

Contact:

Peter Dow

Peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Parks Maintenance Update

Jill Gordon

Delta

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

7         Proposed Road Names - Franco Road and Holmes Hanover Lane

Reference:

16/474694

Contact:

Bob Pritchard

bob.pritchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 6844

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the proposed road names for the Spreydon Lodge Ltd subdivision, Halswell.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated resulting from naming requests from the subdivision developer.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

3.1 Approve the names Franco Road for the new road and Holmes Hanover Lane for the new private right-of-way in the Spreydon Lodge Limited subdivision in Halswell.

 

4.   Background 

4.1       This report relates to a subdivision currently being constructed and situated near the corner of Halswell and Hendersons Roads. The subdivision developer is Spreydon Lodge Limited.  

4.2       Thirteen new residential sections are to be created which will have access from a new road off Hendersons Road, with a further ten sections being served from a new right-of-way running from the new road.  This is an initial stage of a larger subdivision.

4.3       Spreydon Lodge Limited was established in the mid 1980's by the late Wayne Francis as the home of the "Franco Harness Racing Stables" and "Franco Breeding". It initially consisted of 180 acres in Halswell on the rural boundary of Christchurch before Mr Francis added two further properties to run his racing and breeding operation. Over the years Mr Francis built up a large number(100+) of some of the best-credentialed standard bred broodmares in New Zealand and Australia.

4.4       Until very recently the Francis Estate continued to operate Spreydon Lodge as a legacy to his memory and his vast involvement in the New Zealand Harness Racing industry.

4.5       The subdivision developer is proposing an equine theme in and around the homestead and the stables.

4.6       The development has commenced around the stables and homestead which are to be retained within the private owned reserve area.

 

 

 

4.7       Suggested road names are from horses owned by Mr Francis, for the first stage as follows:

4.7.1   Franco Road - Franco was the "brand" name of Mr Francis and there have been numerous horses bred and trained on site with this prefix in their name both in New Zealand and Australia.

4.7.2   Holmes Hanover Lane - which is the site of the most New Zealand bred winners ever at over 1400. The houses on the lane are proposed to face onto what was the home paddock by the homestead where Holmes Hanover used to graze.

4.8       Two additional options have been submitted in the event that Franco Road was declined by the Board, being Stanley Rio Lane and the second being Wayne Francis Boulevard.

4.9       There is a Stanley Street, Stanley Place and Stanleys Road but Stanley Rio Lane is sufficiently different in pronunciation.

4.10    There is currently a Francis Avenue, Frank Street, Frankish Lane and Francella Street, but they are all sufficiently different to Wayne France Boulevard to not to be confusing.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Franco Road/Holmes Hanover Lane

13

 

 

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

Bob Pritchard

Lelanie Crous

Subdivisions Officer

Personal Assistant / Business Administrator

Approved By

John Higgins

Peter Sparrow

Head of Resource Consents

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

8.        Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - 318 Riccarton Road

Reference:

16/402033

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop location at 318 Riccarton Road that has received approval by the owner or occupier of the adjacent property. Origin of Report

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  Where no objection (either by approval or no feedback) to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Receive the information in the staff report.

2.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following location:

a.         318 Riccarton Road.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.4 Ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install a bus passenger shelter at 318 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton Medical Centre), adjacent to an existing bus stop, as described in Section 6 of this report.

·     Option 2 - Do minimum, install bus stop seating only.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather,

·     Seating provided within the shelter, and

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

·     During the peak times of public transport usage the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.

4.4       Consultation has been undertaken with the owners or occupiers of properties adjacent to the proposed shelter.  Only the shelters where the owner or occupier of the adjacent property has provided feedback indicating approval or where there was no response received to the consultation are included within this report

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A bus passenger shelter is proposed for the bus stop location presented in this report due to the average daily (Monday to Friday) passenger boardings (ave. pax/day) being on average about 195 ave. pax/day for this bus stop.

5.2       Environment Canterbury (ECan) is responsible for providing public transport services.  The Christchurch City Council is responsible for providing public transport infrastructure.  The installation of this shelter is supported by ECan.

5.3       Council staff propose to install the bus shelter in the location outlined in the attached bus shelter plan (refer to Attachments A).  This does not impact on the bus stop location.

5.4       Under s339 of the Local Government Act (1974), the Council may erect on the footpath of any road a shelter for use by intending public-transport passengers or taxi passengers provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road.  The Council is required to give notice in writing to the occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter, and shall not proceed with the erection of the shelter until after the expiration of the time for objecting against the proposal or, in the event of an objection, until after the objection has been determined.

5.5       Staff confirm the shelter will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road, as a result of the proposed shelter installations.

5.6       Initially the bus shelter was proposed to be located adjacent to 316a Riccarton Road (Coachman Motel).  The associated consultation period for the initial shelter location occurred from Tuesday 19 January 2016 to Friday 5 February 2016.  The originally proposed site location would have resulted in the shelter being located towards the head (front) of the bus stop.  Following consultation with the owner of the motel, and a subsequent site assessment, it was deemed that while the installation of a bus shelter adjacent to 316a Riccarton Road would not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to the motel, it could unreasonably impact on the visibility of the motel sign.  Consequently the proposed bus shelter location has been shifted towards the middle section of the bus stop that is adjacent to 318 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton Medical Centre).  The revised location forms the basis of this report.

5.7       Further consultation has occurred with the representatives of the Medical Centre (the four on-site doctors) during March 2016.  The representatives of the Medical Centre confirmed in writing their approval of the proposed shelter during a meeting which occurred at the Medical Centre on Thursday 24 March 2016.

5.8       Information relating to the proposed installation of the bus shelter adjacent to 318 Riccarton Road has been provided back to the owners of the Coachman Motel (316a Riccarton Road), who are accepting of the proposal and appreciate the consideration given to their needs.

5.9       As there are a significant number of passengers boarding at this bus stop per day, the project also includes the installation of two benches to improve the level of comfort for passengers waiting for a bus.  It is considered likely that the combination of the benches and the proposed shelter will provide an incentive for passengers to wait in safer areas that are located away from the nearby driveways.

5.10    The two benches will be located adjacent to 316a Riccarton Road (Coachman Motel).  The Coachman Motel property fronting onto Riccarton Road has a low-height brick wall, which is currently used as seating by passengers waiting for a bus.  The owners of the Coachman Motel are supportive of installing the benches. 

5.11    A subsequent letter has been issued to all of the adjacent property owners/occupiers indicating that a request will be put to the Community Board regarding the installation approval.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at 318 Riccarton Road, adjacent to an existing bus stop.

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 includes the consultation with occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The property specifically affected by this option, due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter is 318 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton Medical Centre). 

6.5       As indicated in Section 5, initially the bus shelter was proposed to be located adjacent to 316a Riccarton Road (Coachman Motel), and the associated consultation period occurred from 19 January 2016 to 5 February 2016.  This location was revised to 318 Riccarton Road to minimise the proposed shelter from obscuring the motel signage, but continue to improve the level of service for the passengers who board a bus at this bus stop.

6.6       Further consultation has occurred with the representatives of the Medical Centre (the four on-site doctors) during March 2016.  The representatives of the Medical Centre confirmed in writing their approval of the proposed shelter during a meeting which occurred at the Medical Centre on Thursday 24 March 2016.

6.7       The Medical Centre's main concerns are not about the installation of a bus passenger shelter, rather the management of litter and location of where buses stop to allow passengers on and off the bus.

6.8       The concerns raised by the Medical Centre do not directly relate to the purpose of the Local Government Act (1974) section 339 (would the proposed shelter installation prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road).  Staff however acknowledge the Medical Centre's concerns and will investigate the installation of a second bin (there is currently one provided), and also investigate if the existing roster to empty the bin is sufficient to cope with the amount of litter that can occur at a busy bus stop.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - $13,500 for the installation of a bus passenger shelter and associated works (inclusive of two benches). 

6.11    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Costs will be met from the Passenger Transport Maintenance budget.

6.12    Funding source - The cost will be met from the Passenger Transport Infrastructure budget available for the installation of shelters.

Legal Implications

6.13    Where no objection to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    The shelter is not installed, leading to a poor level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

6.15    Increased street clutter. Where street clutter has been identified through site assessments (e.g. rubbish bins located by the kerb edge (i.e. in less than ideal locations), excess number of public transport related poles, etc.), these footpath obstacles will be relocated to an appropriate location in close proximity to the shelter (e.g. the rubbish bin), and the number of poles reduced by maximising the use of the shelter (e.g. attaching the Real Time Information device 'bus finder' to the shelter).  This will help provide a de-cluttered footpath environment by the bus stop and improve the level of service for pedestrians passing the shelter and for passengers waiting for a bus.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.

6.17    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, but the shelter should be installed within three months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather,

·   Seating provided within the shelter,

·   Additional seating provided outside shelter,

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport, and

·   Provide a positive contribution to the overall streetscape.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council,

·   During the peak times of public transport usage the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.

7.   Option 2 - Do minimum, install bus stop seating only

Option Description

7.1       A bus passenger shelter is not installed at 318 Riccarton Road, adjacent to an existing bus stop.  Two benches would continue to be installed with this option, as there is currently no seating provided.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  As there is no bus passenger shelter proposed, the engagement requirements for this level of significance does not involve any consultation.

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       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - It does not ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - Bus passengers will not be provided shelter to wait for a bus

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - No amendment needed to the Council's Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $2,000 for the installation of bus stop seating.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Costs will be met from the Passenger Transport Maintenance budget.

7.8       Funding source - The cost will be met from the Passenger Transport Infrastructure budget available for the installation of shelters.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    It may reduce bus patronage on wet days, as passengers may choose another mode of travel as there is no shelter provided at the bus stop.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, but the two benches should be installed within two months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Seating provided for passengers waiting for a bus.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No shelter provided for passengers waiting for a bus at a busy bus stop.

·   It would undermine the approval of the adjacent property owners who have indicated approval to the installation of the bus passenger shelter.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 318 Riccarton Road

22

 

 

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

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Brenda  O'Donoghue

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

9.        Proposed Bus Stop Relocation - 67 Mandeville Street 

Reference:

16/396634

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider the options for the location of a bus stop on Mandeville Street.  Three options are presented, one for retaining the existing stop at 67 Mandeville Street, one for relocation to 65 Mandeville Street and the third for relocating to 71 Mandeville Street (refer to Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to fulfil Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolution RWCB/2016/00022, that staff consult local businesses on relocating the existing bus stop at 67 Mandeville Street to outside 65 Mandeville Street and to report back to the Board.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of the project against the 10 criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the preferred option (Option 1) of staff, which is to retain the existing bus stop at 67 Mandeville Street.

2.         Approve the retention of the parking resolutions associated with the existing bus stop located adjacent to 67 Mandeville Street.  ( Note: The parking resolutions were approved at a meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 6 May 2014.)

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.10 Improve the accessibility of bus stops via a targeted review and improvement programme

·     Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered, which are also shown in Attachment A:

·     Option A:  Proposed bus stop relocation to 65 Mandeville Street;

·     Option B:  Proposed bus stop relocation to 71 Mandeville Street; and

·     Option C:  Do nothing, bus stop remains adjacent to 67 Mandeville Street.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option, do nothing, bus stop remains at 67 Mandeville Street)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     No loss of on-street parking; and

·     No installation cost, already exists on-street

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Bus stop does not fully comply with the Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines 2009 however the deficiencies and risk are considered to be low due to the low patronage at this stop.

4.4       The other options both result in the loss of on-street parking which is in very high demand in this area.

4.5       A total of 42 submissions were received during the consultation period.  Analysis of the submissions indicates that 22 submitters rated Option A (65 Mandeville Street) as their top preference.  The next preferred option is Option C (bus stop remains adjacent to 67 Mandeville Street) with 19 submitters selecting this option.  The least preferred option was Option B (71 Mandeville Street), with only one submitter rating this option the highest.

4.6       Analysis of the completed feedback forms indicates that 16 of the 22 submission forms received were in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street), duplicate photocopies.  These forms all had the option ratings and comments section predetermined, with the only difference between forms being the name and contact details of the submitter that were completed in pen.  Such feedback could be viewed to be leading, and bias the assessment in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street).

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       At the meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (the Board) on 6 May 2014, installation of a new bus stop outside 67 Mandeville Street was approved.

5.2       While Council staff were aware of locational issues at the proposed bus stop, such as a grated drainage sump at the head of the driveway, and the kerb drop down within the mid-section of the bus stop box, the location was considered to be the best fit due to the following wider road network operating considerations:

·   significant demand for on-street parking; and

·   The proposed site being located on an area of the road where there was no legal parking spaces, due to the proximity of a nearby vehicle access way, and a driveway.

5.3       The Board received a submission from the Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) on 14 April 2015.  The DPA indicated the following reasons as the basis of their submission:

5.3.1   The bus stop does not comply with the Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines 2009 as it crosses a driveway resulting in the back door being located at a kerb cut-down, and there is a grated drainage sump located at the head of the bus stop box.

5.3.2   Due to the issues listed above, the bus stop does not meet the requirements of a person with a disability.

5.4       The submission by the DPA requested the bus stop located adjacent to 67 Mandeville Street be relocated further north by approximately 30 metres, adjacent to 71a Mandeville Street.

5.5       A staff memorandum was presented to the Board's meeting on 20 October 2015, to respond to the submission of the DPA.  The following provides a summary of the staff assessment and conclusions:

·   The Russley/Mt Pleasant bus route (number 140) provides a half-hourly bus service, which stops at the bus stop at 67 Mandeville Street.  The average daily number of patrons boarding the number 140 bus at 67 Mandeville Street, as recorded by Environment Canterbury during March 2015, was on average 1 passenger boarding per weekday and 0.1 passenger boarding during the weekend.

·   Relocating the bus stop to 71a Mandeville Street would require the removal of four parking spaces in an area where there is significant demand for on-street parking.

·   The existing location is not ideal, however if the bus stops adjacent to the raised kerb section at the front of the bus stop, passengers can board or alight the bus by stepping onto the raised area from the front door.  They should not need to step onto the gully cover.

·   Relocating the bus stop is not considered warranted as the loss of parking outweighs the minor operational issues.

5.6       Arising from that information provided to the Board on 20 October 2015, the Board requested that staff investigate the relocation of the bus stop located at 67 Mandeville Street to 65 Mandeville Street, and respond back to the Board. 

5.7       A staff memorandum in response to the Board's October 2015 request regarding the relocation of the bus stop to 65 Mandeville Street was presented to the Board meeting on 16 February 2016.  The following provides a summary of the staff assessment and conclusions: 

·   Relocating the bus stop adjacent to 65 Mandeville Street, would result in a total loss of three on-street parking spaces.

·   The parking reduction would not be offset by parking that could be reinstated from the existing bus stop.  The existing bus stop is located on an area of road where there can be no legal parking spaces, due to the proximity of a vehicle access way, and a driveway.

·   The relocation of the bus stop would improve accessibility and safety for bus passengers as the rear door of the bus would no longer open over a dropped kerb and the front door of the bus would not open over a drainage grate.  However as the bus stop is relatively unused by passengers boarding a bus, the removal of the three on-street parking spaces may not be a justified reallocation of road space, where there is significant demand for on-street parking.  The relocation of the bus stop is not considered to impact the operational efficiency of the bus network.

5.8       The Board received the information and decided ' to request that staff consult local businesses on relocating the existing bus stop at 67 Mandeville Street to outside 65 Mandeville Street and to report back to the Board'. In response to the Board's request, staff have undertaken formal consultation for the relocation of the existing bus stop at 67 Mandeville Street.  Three options indicated in Section 4.2 were provided to the owners and/or occupiers of the property located adjacent to all options proposed.

5.9       The consultation period occurred from Friday 18 March 2016 to Friday 8 April 2016. 

5.10    Attachment B indicates the area in which consultation occurred.  Staff left the consultation document in all post boxes located within the consultation area.  The consultation document was mailed to all absentee owners.

5.11    A total of 45 submissions were received during the consultation period.  Analysis of the submissions indicates that 25 submitters rated Option A, (65 Mandeville Street), as their top preference.  The next preferred option is Option C (bus stop remains adjacent to 67 Mandeville Street) with 19 submitters selecting this option as their top preference.  The least preferred option was Option B (71 Mandeville Street) with only one submitter rating this option the highest.

5.12    In total 24 of the 25 submission forms received in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street) were received from those who rent or own a property at 71 Mandeville Street (Units A, B, C, D, E and F).  Analysis of the completed feedback forms indicates that 18 of the 25 submission forms received in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street) were duplicate photocopies.  These forms all had the option ratings and comments section predetermined, with the only difference between forms being the name and contact details of the submitter that were completed in pen.  Sixteen of the 18 replicated submission forms were from the tenants of 71 (Units A, B, E, and F) Mandeville Street.  The remaining two replicated submission (completed) forms were from the owners of these properties.  Such feedback could be viewed to be leading, and bias the assessment in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street).

5.13    Only one out of 13 submitters whose properties (businesses) are located adjacent to Option A, (65 Mandeville Street), are in favour of having the bus stop adjacent to their property.  Eleven of the 13 submitter were in favour of not moving the bus stop at all (Option C), and one submitter indicating Option B (71 Mandeville Street) as the preferred option.

5.14    Environment Canterbury (ECan), being responsible for providing the public transport services in Christchurch, would support any option including Option C.  Furthermore, Council staff are agreeable to accommodate the resolution of the Community Board if an option other than Option C, was to be adopted.


 

6.   Option 1 - Preferred Option, do nothing, bus stop remains at 67 Mandeville Street (referred to as Option C during consultation)

Option Description

6.1       Bus stop remains adjacent to 67 Mandeville Street.

6.2       The existing bus stop is located adjacent to the vehicle entrance to 67 Mandeville Street.  It is a permitted activity for a bus stop across a driveway, for the action of allowing passengers to board or disembark the bus at an authorised bus stop.  

6.3       The existence of the vehicle entrance means that the rear door of the bus does not open onto a full height kerb and passengers have to step down further to reach the road surface, which can be difficult for elderly or disabled passengers.  A storm water grate at the front of the bus stop means that buses may not be able to pull up to the kerb without driving over the grate.  The storm water grate also poses a risk to passengers who require the use of a walking cane.

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with Section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with Environment Canterbury as the relevant bus operator.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       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

6.6       Analysis of the 42 submissions indicates that the second most preferred option is the 'do nothing' option (Option C, 67 Mandeville Street) with 19 submitters selecting this option as their top preference. 

6.7       Maintaining on-street parking to cater for the significant parking demand generated by residential and businesses activities is the most common reason throughout all submission forms that indicated Option C as the preferred option.  Submitters referred to the Mandeville Street parking being at a "premium" and "cannot afford to lose any of the parks currently available".

6.8       The Director of Philatelic Properties, which is located directly adjacent to the existing bus stop at 67 Mandeville Street, stated that:

·   Whilst we objected to the placement of this originally, we now feel that it would be less disruptive to stay where it is. This would also maintain three parking spaces on the street in an area that is already at a premium. The buses do not cause undue delay to anyone accessing our property when setting down or picking up passengers as they only stop on demand.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is generally consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.  The bus stop provides access to the public transport network and increased mode choice.  However, it has some inconsistencies that may impact the bus stops accessibility and pedestrian safety as described in Section 6.3 above.

Financial Implications

6.9.1   Cost of Implementation - $0, bus stop already has been installed.

6.9.2   Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

6.9.3   Funding source - Transport and City Streets, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installation.

Legal Implications

6.10    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this area of the city to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board. 

6.11    At the meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 6 May 2014, the installation of a new bus stop outside 67 Mandeville Street was approved.

6.12    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. 

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    The absence of a full height kerb for passengers at the rear door of the bus, in addition to the drainage grate being located at the head of the bus stop may compromise passenger safety when boarding or disembarking the bus.  The risk is currently mitigated by insignificant use by passengers boarding at this bus stop, which is on average, one passenger per week day and 0.1 passenger per weekend. 

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies: Not applicable

6.15    Implementation timeframe:  Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   No loss of on-street parking; and

·   No installation cost, already exists on-street.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Bus stop has hazards that may compromise the safe and accessible use of passengers boarding or disembarking the bus if they chose to use the back door.

7.   Option 2 - Relocate bus stop to 65 Mandeville Street (referred to as Option A during consultation)

Option Description

7.1       Relocation of the bus stop to 65 Mandeville Street.

7.2       The proposed bus stop relocation would result in a net loss of three legal parking spaces, two from outside 65 Mandeville Street and one from outside 63 Mandeville Street.

7.3       Removal of the bus stop outside 67 Mandeville Street will not result in any gain of parking spaces because the spaces between vehicle entrances are too small for vehicles to legally park without blocking driveways.

7.4       When stopped at the proposed bus stop, the rear section of the bus will need to stop partially over the driveway of 63 Mandeville Street.  Stopping across a driveway is a permitted activity for buses that stop at an authorised bus stop for the purpose of allowing passengers to board or leave the bus. Such activities will result in access to and from the driveway being blocked for short periods of time.  The location of the driveway to 63 Mandeville Street is not located where the front or rear door of the bus would open onto.

Significance

7.5       As per Section 6.4, the level of significance of this option is low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       As per Section 6.5.

Community Views and Preferences

7.7       A total of 45 submissions were received during the consultation period.  Analysis of the submissions indicates that 25 submitters rated Option A (65 Mandeville Street) as their top preference. 

7.8       Analysis of the completed feedback forms indicates that 18 of the 25 submission forms received in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street) were duplicate photocopies.  These forms all had the option ratings and comments section predetermined, with the only difference between forms being the name and contact details of the submitter that were completed in pen.  Sixteen of the 18 replicated submission forms were from the tenants of 71 (Units A, B, E, and F) Mandeville Street.  The remaining two replicated submission (completed) forms were from the owners of these properties.  Such feedback could be viewed to be leading, and bias the assessment in favour of Option A (65 Mandeville Street).

7.9       Based on the assessment of the submitters address, it is viewed by staff that the most common reason for Option A (65 Mandeville Street) being the preferred option was to increase the distance between the bus stop and residential units at 71 Mandeville Street.  The reason for this conclusion is that of the 25 submitters who rated this option as their preferred, 22 have indicated that they live within the residential area adjacent to 71 Mandeville Street.

7.10    Only one out of 13 submitters whose properties (businesses) are located adjacent to Option A, (65 Mandeville Street) are in favour of having the bus stop adjacent to their property.  Eleven of the 13 submitter were in favour of not moving the bus stop at all (Option C), and one submitter indicating Option B (71 Mandeville) as the preferred option.

7.11    The reason why most submitters who own or occupy a property adjacent to 65 Mandeville Street, and who objected to this option, is due to the loss of parking which is currently viewed as providing insufficient parking capacity for the existing parking demand.  The following are some of the comments indicated by the submitters who work adjacent to 65 Mandeville Street and oppose Option A:

·   With a large number of businesses in the area and inadequate parking, we cannot afford to lose more car parking. The addressed bus route does not cater to workers living outside of the #140 Russley/Mt Pleasant area, neither do workers with existing childcare/carpooling arrangements benefit.

·   To obtain a street park, I have to be at work by 8am and changing the bus stop and losing more parking will cause extra stress that we don't need as workers in the area.

·   Parking in Mandeville Street is a challenge at the best of times and a loss of existing parking creates more issues for the broader business community as clients visiting, battle to find a park.

·   I cannot see any positives from moving the bus stop from its current location. Car parking is at a premium as it is.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.13    Cost of Implementation - approximately $1,000. 

7.14    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

7.15    Funding source - Transport and City Streets, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installation.

Legal Implications

7.16    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this area of the city to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board. 

7.17    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.18    Reduction in capacity of on-street parking, resulting in existing demand exceeding supply, which may lead to an increase in parking infringements and more cars being parked on-street over a wider area. 

7.19    Travel demand management measures that require less or no on-street parking could be promoted (e.g. travelling by bus, carpooling, cycling, etc.).  However, this can be quite challenging for businesses and residents to achieve due to personal/business commitments or for other reasons they are not in control of (e.g. ease of access to the bus route that travels along Mandeville Street).

Implementation

7.20    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.  This means another report to the Board to resolve the parking/stopping restrictions.

7.21    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, however installation should be completed within three months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved accessibility and safety for bus passengers.  There is a full height kerb at both bus doors for the passengers to board and disembark the bus, and no drainage grate;

·   Less expensive to install than Option B (71 Mandeville Street), however more expensive than Option C (67 Mandeville Street); and

·   Removal of one less on-street parking space than Option B (71 Mandeville Street), however three more than Option C (67 Mandeville Street) that removes no on-street parking.

7.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of three on-street parking spaces;

·   Bus when stopped may obstruct the driveway to 63 Mandeville Street for brief periods of time; and

·   Bus stop is located head-to-head with the bus stop located on the opposite side of the road.  This may encourage pedestrians to cross in front of the bus, which can compromise pedestrian safety.

8.   Option 3 - Relocate bus stop to 71 Mandeville Street (referred to as Option B during consultation)

Option Description

8.1       Relocation of the bus stop to 71 Mandeville Street.

8.2       The proposed bus stop relocation would result in a net loss of four legal parking spaces outside 71 Mandeville Street.

8.3       As with Option A, removal of the bus stop outside 67 Mandeville Street will not result in any gain of parking spaces because the spaces between vehicle entrances are too small for vehicles to legally park without blocking driveways.

8.4       A section of the grass berm will need to be sealed to provide a hard surface for bus passengers to board and disembark onto.

Significance

8.5       As per Section 6.4, the level of significance of this option is low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.6       As per Section 6.5.

Community Views and Preferences

8.7       This was the least preferred option, with one of the 42 submitters indicating Option C (71 Mandeville Street) as their preferred option.

8.8       The reason why most submitters who opposed this option is due to the loss of parking.  Comments about Council rubbish collection, noise, vibrations, littering and anti-social behaviour where also indicated by residents as additional reasons why they did not want a bus stop by 71 Mandeville Street.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.10    Cost of Implementation - approximately $2,000. 

8.11    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

8.12    Funding source - Transport and City Streets, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installation.

Legal Implications

8.13    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this area of the city to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board. 

8.14    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. 

Risks and Mitigations

8.15    Reduction in capacity of on-street parking, resulting in existing demand exceeding supply, which may lead to an increase in parking infringements and more cars being parked on-street over a wider area. 

8.16    Travel demand management measures that require less or no on-street parking could be promoted (e.g. travelling by bus, carpooling, cycling, etc.).  However this can be quite challenging for businesses and residents to achieve due to personal/business commitments or for other reasons they are not in control of (e.g. ease of access to the bus route that travels along Mandeville Street).

Implementation

8.17    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.  This means another report to the Board to resolve the parking/stopping restrictions.

8.18    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, however installation should be completed within three months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved accessibility and safety for bus passengers as there is a full height kerb at both bus doors for the passengers to board and disembark the bus, the bus stop is located tail-to-tail with the bus stop located on the opposite side of the road, which is a best practice principle for pedestrian safety reasons, and there is no drainage grate within the bus stop area.

8.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of four on-street parking spaces; and

·   Most expensive of the three options to install, as a section of the berm would have to be sealed to provide a hard, flat surface for passengers to board and disembark onto.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Proposed Mandeville Street Bus Stop Relocation_Consultation Plan

34

b  

Proposed Mandeville Street Bus Stop Relocation_Consultation Area

35

 

 

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

Brenda  O'Donoghue

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Passenger Transport Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

10     Proposed Bus Stops within the Riccarton/Wigram Ward: 90 The Runway (on Corsair Drive), Wigram

Reference:

16/435492

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the installation of a new bus stop, as shown on Attachment A, and described by the following:

1.1.1   Corsair Drive (formal address 90 The Runway), south of The Runway, eastside of the southbound traffic lane.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a request from the Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Ngai Tahu who would like to improve public transport accessibility for persons travelling between Wigram Skies and other locations in Christchurch.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of the project against the 10 criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the parking resolutions for a new bus stop along a section of Corsair Driver:

a.         That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Corsair Drive, commencing at a point 35 metres south east of its intersection with The Runway and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres be revoked.

b.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Corsair Drive, commencing at a point 35 metres south east of its intersection with The Runway and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

c.         That a marked bus stop be installed on the north east side of Corsair Drive, commencing at a point 49 metres south east of its intersection with The Runway and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Corsair Drive, commencing at a point 63 metres south east of its intersection with The Runway and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install a new bus stop as described in Section 6 of this report.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improve accessibility to the Public Transport network by extending the 60 route into Wigram Skies (see Attachment B)

·     Maximise access to major travel demand generators (Wigram Skies town centre), and

·     During the development of the Wigram Skies sub-division, the location of the proposed bus stop had been pre-identified by the sub-division developer, Ngai Tahu, for future bus usage.  Until the bus stop has been formally resolved by the Community Board, this space is operating as on-street car parking.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of five on-street car park spaces, however as previously indicated this space has been set aside by the sub-division developers, Ngai Tahu, for future bus usage.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The inclusion of public transport services has always been envisaged to be part of the Wigram Skies sub-division.  The sub-division developer, Ngai Tahu, 'future proofed' the public transport requirements during the early transport planning stage of the sub-division.  This allowed for space on the road network being set aside for future bus stops, of which this proposed bus stop is one.  Ngai Tahu have also included the future bus stop locations on the sub-division sales map so that at the time of sale the property purchasers would be aware of these bus stops when weighing up the positives and negatives of the adjacent property.

5.2       The New World supermarket and many other shops are now open at the Wigram Skies town centre.  Ngai Tahu have indicated to Environment Canterbury (ECan) that the town centre is starting to get significant visitor numbers from outside the sub-division and that some people have raised concerns to about the lack of public transport options within the town centre.

5.3       At the start of February 2016, ECan approved the funding to allow the number (#) 60 bus route to extend from Aidanfield into Wigram Skies. 

5.4       The # 60 bus route connects Aidanfield to Southshore via the City Centre.  The existing terminus and associated layover facility for buses at the Aidanfield end of the route is located on Aidanfield Drive, just south of McMahon Drive. 

5.5       The # 60 bus route extension will allow buses to continue from Aidanfield Drive to Skyhawk Road, completing the route on Corsair Drive (see Attachment B).  The bus will then layover at the proposed bus stop while the bus driver waits for the next trip to start.  ECan have indicated that buses may layover for up to 15 minutes at a time, so that they have time to catch-up with the bus schedule.

5.6       More bus stops are planned for the route extension.  Again Ngai Tahu have made allowances in the road network for where these bus stops will go.  The associated bus stop consultation and approvals process are expected to get underway from July 2016 (i.e. within the new financial year 2016/17).

5.7       The proposed bus stop has the added benefit of providing a suitable layover location for buses.  As previously indicated, the current layover is located on Aidanfield Drive, south of McMahon Drive.  ECan have indicated to Council staff that the current arrangement is aggravating the adjacent property owners. 

5.8       The proposed bus stop is located directly adjacent to existing and future commercial activities, where the operational functions of the layover will negligible impact on these businesses.  However, on the west side of Corsair Drive, opposite the proposed bus stop, the currently undeveloped land is earmarked for future high density residential.  While it is possible the layover facility may receive complaints, installing the bus stop now provides future would-be residents the opportunity to design the dwellings so that there is sufficient noise control (e.g. double glazing), or to choose another plot or property away from the bus stop.

Public Consultation

5.9       The neighbouring property owners and tenants of the shopping centre "The Landing", who are specifically affected by the option to install a new bus stop at 90 The Runway were consulted with by post.  A 14 day consultation period commenced Monday 11 April 2016, and finished Tuesday 26 April 2016.

5.10    No objections were received.

6.   Option 1 - Preferred Option, Bus Stop Installation

Option Description

6.1       As shown on Attachment A, the proposed bus stop is located on the east side of Corsair Drive, just south of The Runway, and just to the north of a driveway to the town centre off-street carpark. 

6.2       Provision of the bus stop would allow for the # 60 bus route to extend from Aidanfield to Wigram Skies, providing a key public transport link to the town centre of Wigram Skies. 

6.3       As the proposed bus stop is located at an end point of the bus route, which means the bus stop would also function as a layover.  A layover allows the bus driver to wait until the correct bus schedule time has been reached before setting off on the next trip.  ECan that bus may layover for up to 15 minutes.

6.4       The bus stop type is a bus bay, which is located directly adjacent to the footpath, with unrestricted, full height kerb that is present along the full length of the bus stop.  The dimensions of the proposed bus stop are compliant to the recommended bus stop dimensions as per the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

6.5       All shops and businesses within the town centre are located within 400 metres walking distance of the bus stop.

6.6       Provision of a bus passenger shelter at this location at future date is considered likely due to the close proximity to the town centre, time passengers may have to wait for the bus to layover, and sufficient space be set aside by Ngai Tahu to allow the installation of the structure. 

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with Section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with ECan as the relevant bus operator.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       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 Ngai Tahu, their culture and traditions. 

6.9       Whilst this option does not impact the culture and traditions of Ngai Tahu, they are developers of Wigram Skies sub-division and have a vested interest in the provision of public transport, and associated bus stops within the development.

Community Views and Preferences

6.10    The neighbouring property owners and tenants of the shopping mall "The Landing", who are specifically affected by the option to install a new bus stop at 90 The Runway were consulted with by post.  A 14 day consultation period commenced Monday 11 April 2016, and finished Tuesday 26 April 2016.

6.11    No objections were received.

6.12    Environment Canterbury and the Wigram Skies subdivision developer, Ngai Tahu, support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13.1 Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost of this proposal is $1,000.

6.13.2 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

6.13.3 Funding source - Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installation.

Legal Implications

6.14    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.

6.15    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    Road users continue to park in the marked bus stop box.  The risk is mitigated by significant amount of off-street parking within the vicinity of the site, which can accommodate the removal of five on-street parking spaces. Bus companies have also been provided with the direct dial number for Christchurch City Council's Parking Enforcement to enable them to promptly report and deal with illegal parking in bus stops.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies: The implementation is dependent on the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board approving the recommendations as described in Section 3.

6.18    Implementation timeframe:  The timeframe for implementation is dependent on the contractor's workloads.  It is estimated that implementation should occur within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improve accessibility to the Public Transport network:  By extending the bus route into Wigram Skies (see Attachment B) it opens up a new residential and commercial catchment zone that provides people with a reasonably direct bus route to and from the City Centre, and other key activity centres.

·   Maximise access to major demand generators:  Bus stops should be located to maximise access to major travel demand generators.  Examples of major travel demand generators in close proximity to the proposed bus stop locations include the New World supermarket and other town centre businesses that have recently opened.

·   A bus stop bay has already been provided by the sub-division developer:  During the development of the Wigram Skies sub-division, the location of the proposed bus stop has been pre-identified by the sub-division developer, Ngai Tahu, for future bus usage.  Until the bus stop has been formally resolved by the Community Board, this space is operating as on-street car parking.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removal of five on-street car park spaces.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

Significance

7.2       See section 6.2 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See section 6.3 above.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See section 6.3 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6       This option is inconsistent with the Long Term Plan as it does not address the reduced effectiveness of the Public Transport network, and does not contribute to the increase in number of trips made by Public Transport.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - None. 

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not remove any on-street car parking.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not improve accessibility to the Public Transport network.

·   It does not maximise access to major demand generators.

·   It is inconsistent with the Council's Plans and Policies, refer to section 7.6 for further information.

·   It does not take advantage of a bus stop bay that has already been provided by the sub-division developer for the future use of a bus stop.

·   The existing terminus would have to remain on Aidanfield Drive, which has become a significant issue for residents who live in the nearby properties. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Proposed Bus Stop Installation Corsair Drive (90 The Runway)

44

b  

Wider Area Plan Wigram Skies and Aidanfield

45

 

 

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

Brenda  O'Donoghue

Peter Rodgers

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Passenger Transport Engineer

Consultant

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

11.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 - Application - Chinese Joyful Club

Reference:

16/452343

Contact:

Marie Byrne

Marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00054796

Chinese Joyful Club

Senior Group Service

$2,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from the Chinese Joyful Club.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve a grant of $1,000 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Chinese Joyful Club for its older Chinese adults activities.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$130,000

$101,791

$29,769

$28,769

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Riccarton-Wigram Community Board Discretionary Response Fund Application Decision Matrix - Chinese Joyful Club

49

 

 

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

Marie Byrne

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson

Mary Richardson

Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

12.    Riccarton Community Centre - Board Workshop - Report of 22 March 2016

Reference:

16/487980

Contact:

Peter Dow

Peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report presents for the Board's consideration and decision making, the outcomes of the Board Workshop held on 22 March 2016 regarding the Riccarton Community Centre.

1.2       The attached record of the Workshop was prepared by the appointed Facilitator, Dr Phil Driver, in conjunction with the Riccarton/Wigram Community Governance Team.

1.3       This report is staff generated to assist the Board's decision-making in progressing the rebuild of the Riccarton Community Centre.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide to:

1.         Receive the Facilitator's report of the Board Workshop regarding the Riccarton Community Centre held on 22 March 2016.

2.         Consider the proposed recommendations contained in the Board Workshop report.

3.         Endorse the elements of the Concept Design set out in the Board Workshop report and that these become the Provisional Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre.

4.         Instruct staff to:

4.1          Make the Provisional Concept Design available to the community and identified stakeholders, and

4.2          Communicate clearly to the community and identified stakeholders that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will consider the adoption of the Provisional Concept Design at its ordinary meeting on 19 July 2016. 

 

3.   Background/Key Points

3.1       At its meeting on 11 February 2016, the Council accepted the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board’s recommendations to pursue building Option One plus to investigate the possibility of incorporating a second floor or providing the potential for a second floor, and further, to consider:

3.1.1   That the Riccarton Community Centre is sufficiently staffed to enable the facility to operate effectively.

3.1.2   That the Service Centre remain in the Riccarton Commercial Area – either in the new Community Centre or another location.

3.1.3   That staff consult with the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board regarding the Service Centre location.

3.2       Staff prepared reports on these concepts for presentation to the Board's Riccarton Community Centre Workshop held on 22 March 2016.

 

 

3.3       Workshop Recommendations

The proposed recommendations arising from the Board Workshop for the Board to now consider are:

3.3.1   Future Proofing

Workshop Recommendation 1

 

That the Board ask staff to proceed with the design option which provides for the possible future expansion of the Riccarton Community Centre across the identified ground-level car park together with parking on the roof of the expanded building.

 

3.3.2   Service Desk/Centre

 

Workshop Recommendation 2

 

That the Riccarton Community Centre contain flexible, multi-purpose space that is capable of accommodating Council services which may evolve over time and noting that for this to be achieved, will result in the loss of some community based space.

 

3.3.3   Additional Staffing

 

Workshop Recommendation 3

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will provide early clarification of its views regarding the extent of Council ‘services’ to be provided in the Community Centre (refer recommendation #2) and hence staffing requirements.

 

3.3.4   Consultation

 

Workshop Recommendation 4

 

That future consultation on the Provisional Concept Design of the Riccarton Community Centre consist

of the opportunity for deputations to be made directly to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board after these recommendations have been considered and adopted by the Board.

 

3.3.5   Library Options

 

Workshop Recommendation 5

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will not promote the inclusion of a Council library within the Community Centre but will seek to have investigated other forms of library services.

 

3.3.6   Next Steps 

 

Workshop Recommendation 6 

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to agree on the following process for finalising the Concept Design for the Riccarton Community Centre:

 

·   That the Board decisions on the recommendations arising from this Workshop, be disseminated to the public in due course.

·   That opportunities are provided for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to receive deputations on the Provisional Concept Design for the Riccarton Community Centre. 

·   That providing the Board's decisions are in line with the Council resolution of 11 February 2016, the decisions made are to be referred to Council staff for implementation. 

 

(Note:   If the decisions made by the Board are outside the scope of the Council's resolution of 11 February 2016, the Board will submit its recommendations to the Council for consideration and adoption.)

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Riccarton Community Centre - Board Workshop - Report of 22 March 2016

54

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Jenny Hughey

Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

13.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report - May 2016

Reference:

16/368372

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5216

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Community Board Related Activities

1.1.1   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Business) Meeting, Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.1.2   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Confirmation) Meeting, Tuesday 31 May 2016 at 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.2       Update from Karla Gunby - Community Development Adviser 

1.2.1   Three areas have been identified by the Park Ranger and community groups to plant daffodils over the coming months.

1.2.2   I am assisting two groups with the University Consulting Agency 180 Degrees to assist with marketing and communications for their organisation.

1.3       Update from Marie Byrne - Community Development Adviser

1.3.1   I have been working with a group of colleagues to put together a capacity building workshop for small groups on issues such as group structure, basic accounting, charitable/incorporated status and new requirements under the revised Health and Safety legislation.

1.3.2   I attended the ANZAC Day service at the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library and have been working with the group on various issues.

1.3.3   I have been providing advice to a number of groups with their applications to the Board's Strengthening Communities Fund, Small Grants Fund, Discretionary Response Fund and Off the Ground Fund.

1.4       Community Board Adviser

1.4.1   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - Submissions Committee - Minutes of 22 April 2016

Attached are the minutes of the Submissions Committee meeting held on 22 April 2016 to consider the preparation of the Board's submission to the Council on the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 and Amended Long Term Plan 2015/25.

Staff Recommendation

That the minutes of the Board's Submissions Committee meeting of 22 April 2016 be received and noted for record purposes.           

2.   Consultation Calendar

2.1       For the information, the Council's Draft Business Improvement District Policy is open for submissions to be made until 17 May 2016.

3.   Funding Update

3.1       Attached for information, is the monthly status update of the Board's 2015/16 funding.

3.2       For record purposes, an Off the Ground Fund application was received from the Templeton Tots for the set up costs of a new playgroup in the Templeton area.  In accordance with the Board's resolution of 15 December 2015, three Board members approved the grant of $400 via email. 

4.   Council Activities and Decisions

4.1       Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle (Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue Section)

At the 5 May 2016 meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider approving the scheme designs for this project, the Committee resolved inter alia, to accept the recommendations of the Riccarton/Wigarm Community Board that further consultation be undertaken regarding (a) parking controls on the south side of Hinau Street (Clyde Road to Pururi Street), and (b), changes in priority at the Miro Street/Totara Street and Hinau Street/Miro Street intersections.

 

 

5.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide to:

1.         Receive the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report for May 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes of 22 April 2016

63

b  

2015/16 Board Funding Status Update

69

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Marie Byrne

Karla Gunby

Peter Dow

Matthew McLintock

Community Development Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Community Board Advisor

Community Governance Manager

Approved By

Jenny Hughey

Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 


 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

14.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

15.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 May 2016

 

 

16.  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:


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

17 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

17

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - Community Service and Youth Service Awards 2016 - Nominations

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Personal Details of nominees and nominators are included in the report

30 June 2016

The day following the Board's Community Service Awards Function