Shirley/Papanui Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 6 July 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Papanui Service Centre,
Corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Davidson

Aaron Keown

Jo Byrne

Pauline Cotter

Ali Jones

Barbara Watson

Emma Norrish

 

 

30 June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

941 5414

judith.pascoe@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

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Role of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board

 

Chair

Mike Davidson

Membership

Aaron Keown (Deputy Chair), Jo Byrne, Emma Norrish, Barbara Watson, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones

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 uneven.

Meeting Cycle

Twice monthly on the first and third Wednesdays of the month.

 

The role of the community board is to:

 

 

Shirley/Papanui Community Board Objectives

For the 2013-2016 Triennium

 

These objectives have been agreed to by the Shirley/Papanui Community Board. They are intended to guide decision-making and provide a basis for the Board's advocacy work now and in the future. These objectives will be achieved through partnerships with the community, community organisations, local businesses, government agencies and the Christchurch City Council.

 

§  Raise Board profile and strengthen communication

§  Work co-operatively with other wards and community boards

 

§  Empowering, enabling, supporting local communities

§  Giving the community its own voice and sense of involvement

 

§  Give the community an understanding of what is happening in the wards

 

§  Contribute to a sustainable, healthy city.

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C       7.       Proposed Road Names - Thompsons Road and Blakes Road (RMA92028985)......... 15

C       8.       Proposed Road Names - 84 Tomes Road (RMA92030837)......................................... 19

C       9.       Blighs Road from Papanui Road to Watford Street................................................... 23

C       10.     Shirley Community Facility - 10 Shirley Road............................................................. 39

C       11.     Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Neighbourhood Trust..................................................................... 117

B       12.     Shirley/Papanui Community Board Area Update.................................................... 121

B       13.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 129

B       14.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 129 

 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Papanui High School

 

Emma Fellowes will report to the Board on behalf of the Papanui High School Students regarding their participation in the Secondary School Futsal Nationals in Wellington 5-6 April 2016.

 

4.2

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Isabella Ralston, Emma Logan, Catherine Hooker and Anna Hooker

 

Isabella Ralston, Emma Logan, Catherine Hooker and Anna Hooker will report back to the Board regarding their attendance at the Australian Nationals in Rhythmic Gymnastics 30 May to 5 June 2016.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

 

Shirley/Papanui Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 15 June 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Papanui Service Centre,
Corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Davidson

Jo Byrne

Pauline Cotter

Ali Jones

Emma Norrish

Barbara Watson

 

 

14 June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

941 5414

judith.pascoe@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

SPCB/2016/00080

An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Jo Byrne.

An apology for late arrival was received and accepted from Aaron Keown.

 

Member Davidson/Member Watson                                                                                                                Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00081

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 1 June 2016 be confirmed.

Member Watson/Member Norrish                                                                                                                     Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Serena White

             Serena White reported back to the Board regarding her experiences when attending the Los Angeles Dance Tour 2016.

Part B

             The Chairperson thanked Ms White for her report.

 

4.2       Belfast Community Network – Joss Buttriss

             Joss Buttriss, Community Development Worker, updated the Board on the Belfast Community Network’s project with the Northcote Community.

Part B

             The Chairperson thanked Ms Buttriss for her deputation.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There were no petitions presented.

7.   Greywacke Road Proposed Stop Control

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00082 (original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved:

1.         To revoke the Give Way control currently against Greywacke Road at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road

2.         That a Stop control be placed against Greywacke Road at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road

Member Norrish/Member Byrne                                                                                                                        Carried

 

8.   Harewood Road Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Board Comment

The Board discussed the benefits of moving the current bus stop located outside the new Mitre 10 Mega retail outlet on Harewood Road in a south-easterly direction further towards the entrance of the new store.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction to the railway lines.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres;

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 64 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 77 metres;

4.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 141 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres;

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 155.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of four metres;

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 201.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction to the railway lines.

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00083

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction to the railway lines.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres;

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 64 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 77 metres;

4.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 141 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres;

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 155.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of four metres;

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 201.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction to the railway lines.

Member Norrish/Member Byrne                                                                                                                        Carried

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00084

The Board also resolved to request that staff continue to investigate moving both the bus stop and the bus shelter outside Mitre 10 Mega on Harewood Road 12 metres towards the entrance of Mitre 10 Mega.

Member Norrish/Member Byrne                                                                                                                        Carried

 

6.   Staff Briefings

 

 

6.1       Redevelopment of St Albans Park

 

Part B

The Head of Parks Unit, Andrew Rutledge, briefed the Board on the proposed redevelopment of St Albans Park. To ensure that the park is redeveloped to meet current community needs it is proposed that the community and interested parties be consulted regarding their use of the park.

An engagement plan will be brought to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board and staff are proposing that a small reference group with a community board member be established to give a connection to the community.

 

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board noted the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

Member Byrne left the meeting at 4:47 pm.

Member Cotter left the meeting at 5:00 pm. Member Cotter returned to the meeting at 5:02 pm.

 

9.   Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme - Phoenix Athletic Club

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $500 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Scheme to the Phoenix Athletics Club to assist Thomas Maslin and Cameron Maslin to attend the DownUnder Athletics meet at the Gold Coast, Australia, from 6 to 14 July 2016.

2.         Approves the transfer of $500 from the Board’s 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Board’s 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme to fund the above grant.

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00085

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve a grant of $600 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Scheme to the Phoenix Athletics Club to assist Thomas Maslin and Cameron Maslin to attend the DownUnder Athletics meet at the Gold Coast, Australia, from 6 to14 July 2016.

2.         Approve the transfer of $600 from the Board’s 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Board’s 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme to fund the above grant.

 

Member Jones/Member Watson                                                                                                                        Carried

 

10. Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme - Meg Alexandra Glading

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00086 (original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve a grant of $500 from its 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme to Meg Alexandra Glading towards representing New Zealand as part of the Junior White Sox U19 team at the Hawaiian Invitational Softball Championships.

2.         Approve the transfer of $500 from the Board’s 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Board’s 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme to fund the above grant.

 

Member Watson/Member Norrish                                                                                                                     Carried

 

11. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Ward Area Update

 

11.1    Speed Limit Review Submission

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00087

Part C

The Board discussed the Council’s request for feedback on the proposed changes to the speed limit with particular reference to the roads within the ward as follows:

·                Belfast Road – 180m west of Blakes Road to 50m east of Blakes Road. 80 to 50 industrial development area.

·                Blakes Road – 300m north of Belfast Road to 630m south of Belfast Road. 80 to 50 industrial development area.

·                Greywacke Road – entire length. 100 to 50 road extension, industrial development.

·                Highsted Road – 50m north of Claridges Road (existing 50/80 change point) to 500m south of Styx Mill Road. 80 to 50 residential development.

 

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Make a submission to the Council endorsing the proposed changes to the speed limits for the roads listed above and delegated authority to the Board Chairperson to approve the final submission.

 

The Board also decided to record its disappointment in the submission that school speed zones had not been considered in the proposed speed limit changes.

 

Member Watson/Member Jones                                                                                                                        Carried

 

11.2    Courtenay Street Upgrade

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00088

Part C

The Board were advised of a meeting that had been held on Monday 13 June 2016 with staff and residents of Courtenay Street regarding the upcoming Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) works and upgrade.

The Board noted that residents had requested that fruit trees (nectarine, feijoa and a nut bearing tree other than a walnut) be planted as part of the upgrade to the area.

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

 

1.              Request that staff investigate the planting of fruit trees on Courtenay Street as part of the SCIRT works and upgrade of Courtenay Street and consult with the residents over the variety of fruit trees to be planted.

 

Member Cotter/Member Jones                                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00089 (original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part B

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Receive the report.

Member Cotter/Member Jones                                                                                                                           Carried

12. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

There were no matters for discussion at this meeting.

13. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under standing orders at this meeting.

   

Meeting concluded at 5.31pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6th DAY OF JULY

 

Mike Davidson

Chairperson

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

16/742180

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

Judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Dr Nancy Higgins

Worthington Contractors, Stapletons Road

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 06 July 2016

2.         <Enter text>

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Shirley Papanui Community Board - 6 July 2016 - Correspondence In - To Board from Dr Nancy Higgins re Worthingtons Contractors and Stapletons Road

14

 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

7         Proposed Road Names - Thompsons Road and Blakes Road (RMA92028985)

Reference:

16/623342

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board to consider and approve the proposed road names.

Origin of Report

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

1.3       The subdivision is for 62 lots and is located at 19 Blakes Road, Belfast.

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board approve the names listed below which are in the vicinity of Thompsons and Blake Roads.

·        William Nicholls Drive

·        Robert Duncan Road

·        Berg Way

·        Booth Way

·        McLendon Green

 

4.   Background 

4.1       William Nicholls was the original landowner, and was responsible for the Kaputone Wool Works at Belfast.

4.2       Robert Duncan was another landowner in the locality as was Booth and McLendon.

4.3       George Berg, a saw miller, and his wife owned land in the vicinity. He sold a large block in 1999.

4.4       Alternative names suggested if the above was not successful are:

4.4.1   John Hayhurst

4.4.2   Thomas Borthwick

4.5       The road names proposed are consistent with LINZ requirements and the Council’s Road Naming Policy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Thompsons and Blakes Roads

17

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

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

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

8         Proposed Road Names - 84 Tomes Road (RMA92030837)

Reference:

16/623494

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the proposed road names.

Origin of Report

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

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board approve the name Campana Lane for the road which runs off 84 Tomes Road.

 

4.   Background 

4.1       This is a Mike Greer Homes Development located at 84 Tomes Road.  The subdivision is for 6 lots.

4.2       The Shirley/Papanui Community Board will recall declining the name “Prestige Lane” at the meeting held 20 April 2016.

4.3       The following alternative names were suggested:

4.3.1   Campana Lane – the Riach family owned the Campana Hardy Plan Nursery for eighty years before selling it to Mike Greer Homes two years ago and this name will recognise this nursery.

4.3.2   Benriach Lane – The former landowners, Mr and Mrs Riach liked this name because the Riachs were contemporaries of the Tomes, Innes and Bretts families. The traditional name is Benriach. Ben is the Scottish name for a mountain, while riach is a greyish colour.

4.3.3   Riach Lane – is the 3rd preference. 

4.4       The names are in accordance with LINZ requirements as well as the Council’s Road Naming Policy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Campana Lane

21

 

 

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

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

9.        Blighs Road from Papanui Road to Watford Street

Reference:

16/645989

Contact:

Megan Reid

Enter email address

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the staff recommendation of making no changes along Blighs Road from Papanui Road to Watford Street at this time.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated and is in response to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board request that staff investigate traffic queuing issues on Blighs Road at the intersection with Papanui Road.

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 assessment of the magnitude of the project and the number of properties affected by the preferred plan.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approves the option of Do nothing along Blighs Road from Papanui Road to Watford Street at this time.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.1 Provide journey reliability on specific strategic routes

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Do nothing (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Remove parking along the north side of Blighs Road from 181 Blighs Road to the intersection with Papanui Road, remove the kerb build out outside 197 Blighs Road, shift the cycle lane to the kerb side and add a flush median.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Parking is retained along this section of the north side of Blighs Road.

·     The tree on the kerb build out is not removed.

·     No construction costs

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It does not address the issue of vehicles queuing on Blighs Road and blocking the right turn lane and cycle lane.

4.4       Community Feedback

4.4.1   In response to the Community Board’s request to investigate traffic queuing issues on Blighs Road near the Papanui Road intersection, information was sent to Board Members about proposed traffic improvement changes on 17 March 2016.

4.4.2   The consultation leaflet outlining proposed changes on Blighs Road was then sent to Board Members prior to consultation starting on 14 April 2016. The plans were designed to improve the road layout to limit the impact of queuing vehicles on other road users, including cyclists.

4.4.3   The leaflet was hand delivered or posted to local residents, absentee property owners, the Papanui Medical Centre and adjacent local businesses. Key stakeholders were also invited to comment on the proposed changes on Blighs Road.

4.4.4   Thirteen responses were received during the consultation which closed on 5 May 2016. Six supported the proposals, six were opposed, and one did not indicate a view.  Section 7.4 to 7.12 and attachment B present more detail on the submissions and staff responses.

4.4.5   There was strong local opposition to the loss of car parks and concern that the proposed changes would not address the major issue of queueing due to delays in the left turn from Blighs Road to Papanui Road.

4.4.6   After considering all responses the project team agreed that the 24-hour impacts of the proposed changes outweighed the expected intermittent benefits of the road layout changes.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Blighs Road was upgraded in 2007 as part of a street renewal upgrade. The street renewal upgrade on Blighs Road included new kerb and flat channel, kerb build outs, on road cycle lanes, and traffic signals at the intersection with Papanui Road.

5.2       At the intersection with Papanui Road, Blighs Road has a left hand slip lane into Papanui Road and the right hand turn, including cycle lane, into Papanui Road is controlled by traffic signals. The left turn slip lane is controlled by a give way control.

5.3       Papanui Road is minor arterial road and Blighs Road is a collector road.  This is reflected in the traffic signal phasing, so Blighs Road has less time within the traffic signal phases to clear the traffic on Blighs Road.

5.4       Traffic volume on Blighs Road and Papanui Road has increased since the roading improvements in 2007 and 2009 and changes in traffic movements after the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011.

5.5       At peak times traffic queues on Papanui Road block the traffic turning left out of Blighs Road which creates knock on traffic queuing on Blighs Road. Right turning vehicles are not able to access the right turn lane and so some are crossing the centre line to overtake the left turning traffic queue.

Options considered

5.6       Various options were investigated to address the traffic queuing issues on Blighs Road. 

5.7       One option was the removal of all kerb buildouts on Blighs Road between Papanui Road and Watford Street.  This option was not progressed due to the costs outweighing the benefits. 

5.8       The installation of a clearway on the north side of Blighs Road was also investigated.   Due to road width constraints and cycle safety concerns this option was not progressed.

5.9       The removal of parking and shifting of the cycle lane option met the project objectives and budget. This was the only option consulted on as the previous options were not feasible. 

5.10    Community feedback, as noted in Section 4.4, did not support this which is noted as Option 2 (Remove parking along the north side of Blighs Road from 181 Blighs Road to the intersection with Papanui Road, remove the kerb build out outside 197 Blighs Road, shift the cycle lane to the kerb side and add a flush median). Staff therefore are proposing Do Nothing as our preferred option.

5.11    The overriding issue is the delays due to high traffic volumes along Papanui Road. This project was not intended to address this.  The purpose of this project was to lessen the effects of the long left turning queue by maximising available road space.

6.   Option 1 – Do nothing (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This section of Blighs Road will remain as it is.

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 consistent with the consultation carried out.

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       See sections 4.4 and 7.4 to 7.12.

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 – not applicable.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

6.8       Funding source – Transport Corridor Optimisation capital expenditure budget for investigations works carried out to date.

Legal Implications

6.9       None

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

6.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Parking is retained along this section of the north side of Blighs Road.

·   The tree on the kerb build out is not removed.

·   No construction costs.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the issue of vehicles queuing on Blighs Road and blocking the right turn lane and cycle lane.

7.   Option 2 - Remove parking along the north side of Blighs Road from 181 Blighs Road to the intersection with Papanui Road, remove the kerb build out outside 197 Blighs Road, shift the cycle lane to the kerb side and add a flush median.

Option Description

7.1       To remove parking along the north side of Blighs Road from 181 Blighs Road to the intersection with Papanui Road, remove the kerb build out outside 197 Blighs Road, shift the cycle lane to the kerb side and add a flush median, as shown in Attachment A.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with the consultation carried out.

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       Thirteen responses were received during the consultation which closed on 5 May 2016. Six supported the proposals, six were opposed, and one did not indicate a view.

Breakdown of responses

Total

Support

Against

Not indicated

Submissions received from residents

10

40% (4)

60% (6)

0% (0)

Submissions received from stakeholders

3

66% (2)

0% (0)

33% (1)

Submissions received with no contact details

0

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Total

13

46% (6)

46% (6)

8% (1)

 

7.5       The Canterbury District Health Board submission said the Board believed the proposed changes would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety at the intersection, as well as reducing the risk of accidents.

7.6       Another submitter, representing the cycling advocacy group Spokes, thanked the Council for its efforts to improve traffic flow and make cycling safer. He said that parking recommended for removal should not be reinstated. Road safety, support for all transport modes and congestion concerns were paramount.

7.7       Four of the six submitters who opposed the proposal stated that the main causes of queueing on Blighs Road related to peak-hour traffic build-up along Papanui Road.  According to one of them, this congestion, and the resulting queuing, was limited to about three hours a day and was closely related to school and work traffic flows.

7.8       Two submitters were critical of the signal phasing which, they said, compounded problems at the Blighs Road/ Papanui Road intersection.

7.9       In its responses to submissions (see Attachment B), the project team acknowledged that peak hour heavy traffic on Papanui Road, especially in the evening, caused traffic to queue on Blighs Road. As Papanui Road was a major traffic route, signal light phasing at the Papanui Road/Blighs Road intersection gave priority to vehicles on Papanui Road and would continue to do so.

7.10    One submitter said current issues would not be solved by lengthening the existing turning lane on Blighs Road. Moreover, creating two lanes would seriously endanger cyclists and pedestrians, especially schoolchildren on cycles.  He added that there was no congestion on Blighs Road after 7pm and before 8.30am, when car parking was needed by residents, and periods during the day, when parking was used by local businesses.

7.11    Five submitters opposed the proposed permanent loss of on-street parking, some commenting on how this would significantly impact on them and surrounding properties.

7.12    After considering all responses the project team agreed that the 24-hour impacts of the proposed changes outweighed the expected intermittent benefits of the road layout changes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.14    Cost of Implementation – around $92,000.  This funding is only available for the 2015-16 financial year and additional funding would be required if this option was progressed.

7.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the affect will be minimal to the overall asset.

7.16    Funding source - Transport Corridor Optimisation capital expenditure budget.

Legal Implications

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

7.18    Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions and tree removal.

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.20    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.21    Implementation dependencies - none.

7.22    Implementation timeframe – construction could be completed by the end of the calendar year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.23    The advantages of this option include:

·   Allows east bound right turning vehicles to manoeuvre past queued vehicles without crossing into the oncoming west bound traffic lane.

7.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes six parking spaces outside residential properties on the north side of Blighs Road from 181 Blighs Road

·   Removes one tree and some vegetation from the road reserve.

·   It is not supported by the majority of directly affected residents

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Blighs Road - From Papanui Road to Watford Street - Consultation Plan

29

b

Blighs Road submissions and project team responses

30

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Megan Reid

Junior Project Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

10.    Shirley Community Facility - 10 Shirley Road

Reference:

16/656417

Contact:

Kent Summerfield

kent.summerfield@ccc.govt.nz

941 8194

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to receive the information contained within and to instruct staff on how to proceed regarding the reinstatement of a Combined Community Facility at 10 Shirley Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided in accordance with earlier Shirley/Papanui Community Board and Council resolutions.

1.3       Specifically, on the 19th of August 2015 the Shirley/Papanui Community recommended that the staff recommendation as set out below be adopted.  That recommendation was:

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommend to the Council that it instruct Council Officers to prepare and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the open market inviting proposals for the development and operation of a Community Centre or similar at 10 Shirley Road.

1.4       Subsequently at the Council meeting of 10 September 2015, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the Council instruct Council Officers to prepare and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the open market inviting proposals for the development and operation of a Community Centre or similar at 10 Shirley Road.

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 assessing the impact of the decision regarding the proposal for a replacement Community Facility Centre at 10 Shirley Road against each criterion as specified in the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy worksheet for significance assessments. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the information contained within this report and instruct staff on how to proceed regarding the reinstatement of a Combined Community Facility at 10 Shirley Road.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1 Provide community facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Reject Crossway Proposal.  Under this option the Board would instruct Council staff to reject (with many thanks for their offer and commitment) the Crossway Proposal received in response to the Request for Proposal document and proceed with the consultation, design and construction of a new facility using available Council funds.

·     Option 2 – Accept Crossway Proposal.  Under this option the Board would recommend to the Council that the Council instruct staff to accept the Crossway Proposal as presented.  Council approval for this option is required due to the grant component of the Crossway Proposal.

·     Option 3 – Neither accept nor reject Crossway Proposal.  Under this option the Board would neither accept nor reject the Crossway Proposal as it stands, and would instead instruct staff to obtain additional detail/negotiate and report back to the Board at a later date.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   Option 1 Reject Crossways Proposal

·     Advantages – Would allow a flexible consultation and design process without burdening a third party.  Entire facility would be useable community space.  Would allow for greater Council direction at all stages.

·     Disadvantages – May take slightly longer to establish a facility, although further consultation and approval would still be required under Option 2.  Given available funds facility would likely be smaller overall.

4.3.2   Option 2 Accept Crossway Proposal

·     Advantages – Would likely deliver a larger overall facility than using available Council funds ($2.57m) alone.  Operational management and majority of costs handled by an experienced community focused organisation who are open to including community on the Management Group for the facility.

·     Disadvantages – A Council grant is required which may not be viewed favourably by some given asset would be Crossway owned.  Priority rights for Crossway may restrict use.  Possible perception by some as a Church facility may lead to individuals/groups excluding themselves.  Council influence may be limited on operation. Uncertainty over level of Council contribution. 

4.3.3   Option 3 Neither accept nor reject Crossway Proposal

·    Advantages – Would permit more time to address any specific concerns with the Crossway proposal to enable a partnership opportunity to proceed that might otherwise fail.

·    Disadvantages – Would lengthen the process to delivery of a new facility.  Would only be useful if specific items existed which could realistically be negotiated.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Shirley Community Centre (10 Shirley Road) was damaged in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and subsequently demolished.

 

5.2       Christchurch City Council owns the land at 10 Shirley Road. It is a total of 9,042m2 and is reserve land held "in trust for local purpose (site for a community centre)".

 

 

5.3       Crossways Church, a combination of three local congregations, expressed an interest in establishing a Community Facility at 10 Shirley Road. 

 

5.4       The Crossways Group first formally met with Christchurch City Council Staff on the 22nd of March 2013 regarding the possibility of leasing Council land to build a facility to replace churches lost in the earthquakes.  At that meeting Council staff outlined site information and requirements, identified key stakeholder groups that would need to be consulted, and recommended Crossways submits a proposal to the City Council.

 

5.5       On the 24th of April 2013 the Crossways Group met with representatives of the Delta Trust and Shirley Community Centre Society Incorporated. Crossways outlined their desire to seek a lease of the former Shirley Community Centre site, 10 Shirley Road, from Council to a group of interested organisations who would fund the erection of a building on the site to incorporate Church facilities, a hall, and meeting rooms etc. and this Centre could be managed by representatives from the involved organisations.

 

5.6       Following the meeting of 24 April 2013, the Shirley Community Centre Society Incorporated (SCCSI) sent a letter to the Crossways Group thanking them for the meeting, asking to be kept in contact regarding further developments, but advising that the SCCSI was not prepared to formally commit to the proposal at that point.

 

5.7       On the 17th of July 2013 the Crossways Group made a deputation to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board. In a letter dated 23rd of July 2013, setting out the agreement that the Board reached following the deputation, Crossways were advised that:

 

The board supports in principle the proposal by Crossway Community Church to establish a public-private partnership. They have asked the Council to consider the proposal by recommending to them that they:

 

a)    Grant a long term lease for the former Shirley Community Centre site at 10 Shirley Road to Crossway Community Church.

 

b)    Note that the Crossway Community Church (with the support of its parent bodies, the Methodist Church of New Zealand and the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand) will, through engagement with the local community and stakeholders, propose to design and build a new multipurpose community facility available for both the church and wider community.

 

c)    Note that the Church intends to fund the capital project and manage and operate the facility according to an operational plan agreed under the public-private partnership within available funding.

 

d)    Note the importance of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed site at 10 Shirley Road and requests that the Council undertake an urgent geotechnical investigation.

 

5.8       Following the Community Board's agreement, the Crossways Group proposal was presented via deputation to the Council at the meeting of 15 August 2013.  At that meeting the motion was declared carried, that the Council:

 

a)    Ask Staff to prepare a report on the proposal of Crossway Community Church to establish a public-private partnership, noting the request to grant a long term lease for the former Shirley Community Centre site at 10 Shirley Road to Crossway Community Church.

 

b)    Note that the Crossway Community Church (with the support of its parent bodies, the Methodist Church of New Zealand and the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand) proposes, through engagement with the local community and stakeholders, to design and build a new multipurpose community facility available for both the church and wider community.

 

c)    Note that the Church intends to fund the capital project and manage and operate the facility according to an operational plan agreed under the public-private partnership within available funding.

 

d)   Note the importance of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed site at 10 Shirley Road.

 

5.9       Crossways held a "community consultation" meeting on November 21st 2013 inviting identified community stakeholders.  At this meeting the Crossways Group outlined their proposal and sought feedback both on the general approach and also stakeholder's requirements for a multipurpose facility.

 

5.10    The Crossways Group received a variety of feedback on their proposal at the meeting of 21 November 2013, both for and against.

 

5.11    After refining their proposal as a result of feedback to date, representatives of the Crossways Group again met with Council staff to discuss potential lease arrangements and ground improvements.  Council staff suggested that it would be helpful to have some initial concept plans to review and to provide reassurance that the proposed structure would be a genuine multipurpose facility rather than solely a place of worship with meeting rooms added.

 

5.12    At a meeting on 28 August 2014, the Council resolved to:

 

33.1    Approve the Tranche 1 prioritised programme.

 

33.2    Approve funding as amended in total from the Facilities and Infrastructure Improvement - New Borrowing Allowance comprising:

 

             $29,087,059 for Community Facilities and

             $11,703,596 for Heritage Facilities

 

33.3    Apply proceeds of any insurance claim for these facilities to the Facilities and Infrastructure Improvement - New Borrowing Allowance.

 

5.13    $2,520,000 was allocated for construction of a new Shirley Community Facility as part of Tranche 1 of the Community Facilities Rebuild.  This figure has been inflation adjusted to a current value of $2,570,400.

 

5.14    Council staff held a community meeting on 30 April 2015 regarding Shirley Community Facilities.  This included a discussion regarding the Crossways concept as well as a wider feedback discussion on community requirements for facility/ies in Shirley.

 

5.15    Some of the consistent key points raised in the meeting were a need to act as soon as possible to reinstatement community facilities in the area, and a desire for wider communication and consultation rather than working directly with any particular party.  A full summary of feedback from the meeting is found in Attachment 1.

 

5.16    Acknowledging the key feedback from the community meeting and to provide all interested parties with an opportunity to present their options, Council staff recommended:

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommend to the Council that it instruct Council Officers to prepare and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the open market inviting proposals for the development and operation of a Community Centre or similar at 10 Shirley Road.

5.17    At a meeting on the 19th of August 2015 the Shirley/Papanui Community recommended that the staff recommendation as set out in 5.16 be adopted.

5.18    Subsequently at the Council meeting of 10 September 2015, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the Council instruct Council Officers to prepare and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the open market inviting proposals for the development and operation of a Community Centre or similar at 10 Shirley Road.

5.19    Staff actioned the Council resolution as set out in 5.18 and released a Request for Proposal document to the open market.

5.20    A single proposal was received in response to the Request for Proposal.  That Proposal was submitted by the Methodist Church of New Zealand – Board of Administration (National Body of Crossway Group).

5.21    The Crossway submission proposes indicative facility size of circa 800m2 featuring three Meeting Rooms, a Community Room, a Kitchen, a Café, two Offices, a Chapel and an extended Church/Hall space as well as supporting amenities/spaces.  It appears from the proposal that a portion of the building would be a demountable structure.  The full proposal is included as Attachment 2.

5.22    The proposed budget for the facility shown in the Crossway submission is roughly $4.7m plus unquantified land improvements/protection.

5.23    To achieve the identified budget requirements Crossway are seeking a $1.5m grant from the Council plus full coverage of as yet unspecified or quantified ground works.

5.24    The submission proposes that Crossway’s would fully own and operate the facility but would include members of the community on the Management Group for the facility.

5.25    Advice from legal services is that Council approval would be required to approve the grant component of the Crossway submission should the Board recommend accepting that proposal.

5.26    In accordance with the terms of the Request for Proposal, the Shirley/Papanui Community Board is able to consider the options outlined in Sections 4 and 6 of this report.


 

6.   Option 1 - Reject Crossways Proposal

Option Description

6.1       This option would see the Shirley/Papanui Community not accept the Crossway proposal and instead instruct Council staff to utilise available funds ($2.57m) to establish a new Community Facility in Shirley.

6.2       Staff would then proceed with the consultation, design, consenting, procurement and construction of new facility subject to any additional direction provided by the Community Board.  Direction from the Board could include how they may wish to see consultation undertaken and how a Concept Design was to be approved.

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Some community engagement has been undertaken to date but under this option further consultation would be required to inform the design of the new facility.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community feedback as earlier gathered in a Community meeting are shown in Attachment 1.  Mixed feedback was received on the Crossway Proposal and it should be noted that discussion at that point was not based on the specific detail provided in the proposal as per Attachment 2.  The community have expressed a desire for the reestablishment of a community facility to occur as soon as possible and this option may take a slightly longer duration to reach that point than Option 2.  Additional community consultation would be undertaken under this option to help inform the Concept Design and ensure the facility met stakeholder needs.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – Operational costs of undertaking initial consultation and preparing a Concept Design would be dependent on the process direct.  There is $2.57m available for the Capital costs of establishing a new Community Facility via Tranche of the Community Facilities Rebuild.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – These would be dependent upon the final design and operating model but every effort would be made to utilise materials/equipment that were energy efficient and required minimal maintenance.

6.9       Funding source - $2,570,000 (originally $2,520,000) was allocated to the capital cost of establishing of a new facility under Tranche 1. 

Legal Implications

6.10    This option is consistent with the conditions of the Request for Proposal.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    The key risks with the option relate to time and cost.  The time uncertainty would be mitigated by identifying a clear process from this Board meeting through to construction completion as soon as possible, in particular relating to reaching a decision on a Concept Design.  The cost uncertainty is whether stakeholder needs can be met with the available capital budget.  Clear communication and expectation management will assist in addressing this risk.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - At a high level the sequential (with some overlap) steps to implement this option would be: Consultation, completion of Concept Design, procurement of Lead Consultant, completion of remaining design phases, consenting, procurement of Main Contractor, construction, Public Opening.

6.13    Implementation timeframe – The exact timeframe would be dependent upon the prescribed process but from selection of this option through to Public Opening would likely be two to three years.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Advantages – Would allow a flexible consultation and design process without burdening a third party.  Entire facility would be useable community space.  Would allow for greater Council direction at all stages.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   May take slightly longer to establish a facility, although additional consultation would still be required under Option 2.  Given available funds facility would likely be smaller overall.

7.   Option 2 - Accept Crossway Proposal

Option Description

7.1       Under this option the Board would recommend to the Council that the Council instruct staff to accept the Crossway Proposal as presented.  Council approval for this option is required due to the grant component of the Crossway Proposal.

7.2       Full details of the Proposal are found in Attachment 2 but some of the key terms are that Crossway are seeking a lease term of not less than 49 years 364 days at $1 per annum.  In respect of the possibility of offering a lease of this term the legal services team provided the following advice:

Following a query regarding the maximum lease term available, it has been confirmed that it may be possible to include, in addition to an initial lease term of 33 years, a further right of renewal of the lease term up to 16 years and 364 days. 

To avoid the need to obtain a subdivision consent under the Resource Management Act 1991, this would require respondents to lease the entire area of 9,042 square metres contained in the land title, part of which is currently leased to the Playcentre.  However, this arrangement would be subject and conditional upon the Playcentre agreeing to surrender their existing lease and then re-entering a new sub-lease with the successful respondent for the same area of the site that the Playcentre currently occupies (refer page 7 of the Request for Proposal document) and the Council consenting to such sublease.  Due to the effort involved this process will not be embarked upon unless signalled as a critical preference by the successful respondent.

7.3       In accordance with legal advice agreement would be required by the Playcentre and Council to facilitate the lease term required by Crossway.

7.4       In addition the Crossway proposal requires $1.5m of capital plus an unquantified sum to address site remediation items which were listed as full funding of ground improvements, capping of spring located on site and any stormwater attenuation and treatment required as part of the consenting process.

Significance

The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  As set out in the Request for Proposal document Crossway would be expected to underImpact on Mana Whenua

7.6       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

7.7       Community feedback as earlier gathered in a Community meeting are shown in Attachment 1.  Mixed feedback was received on the Crossway Proposal and it should be noted that discussion at that point was not based on the specific detail provided in the proposal as per Attachment 2.  The community have expressed a desire for the reestablishment of a community facility to occur as soon as possible and this option may take a shorter duration to reach that point than Option 1. Under this option Crossway would be required undertake further consultation prior to finalising their design.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.8       This option is broadly consistent with Council’s policy regarding providing Community Facilities.  Council sign off would be required for the grant component of the proposal.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – Crossway proposal requires $1.5m from Council to deliver the facility as depicted plus unquantified contributions towards remedial ground works.  The Crossway Group would contribute approximately $3.2m towards the capital costs of the facility.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Crossway would cover the operating and maintenance cost of the facility while Council would cover the rates and ground maintenance costs.

7.11    Funding source - Crossway proposal requires $1.5m from Council to deliver the facility as depicted plus unquantified contributions towards remedial ground works.  The Crossway Group would contribute approximately $3.2m towards the capital costs of the facility.

Legal Implications

7.12    Council sign off required for grant component of proposal.  Playcentre required to surrender their lease and then re-enter a sublease to facilitate the lease required by Crossway. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    Some stakeholders may not view aspects of the proposal favourably including a significant Council grant funding a third party asset and the possible perception by some as a Church facility.  This could be addressed via clear communication around the rationale for the decision and vision for the facility as well as involving stakeholders where possible in planning and management.  Council influence may be limited on operation, this, and the issue of priority rights for Crossway may be mitigated by having community members on the management group representing their interests. There is uncertainty over level of Council contribution. 

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - This would follow roughly the same implementation sequence as Option 1 as outlined in 6.12 but would be lead by the Crossway Group with support from Council staff.  Prior to commencing that sequence Council approval would be required for the grant, and Playcentre sign off required to facilitate the lease.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – This option would also take approximately two to three years from Board sign off to delivery of a new facility.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Would likely deliver a larger overall facility than using available Council funds ($2.57m) alone.  Operational management and majority of costs handled by an experienced community focused organisation who are open to including community on the Management Group for the facility.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A Council grant is required which may not be viewed favourably by some given asset would be Crossway owned.  Priority rights for Crossway may restrict use.  Possible perception by some as a Church facility may lead to individuals/groups excluding themselves.  Council influence may be limited on operation. Uncertainty over level of Council contribution. 

8.   Option 3 - Neither accept nor reject Crossway Proposal

Option Description

8.1       Under this option the Board would neither accept nor reject the Crossway Proposal as it stands, and would instead instruct staff to obtain additional detail/negotiate and report back to the Board at a later date.

8.2       This option is only considered advantageous if there are specific items which could realistically be negotiated which may make the difference between accepting and rejecting the Crossway proposal.

Significance

8.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  No immediate community engagement would result from this option but ultimately there would be additional consultation as per Options 1 and 2.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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

8.5       This option does not directly link to community views as it effectively an interim measure but the delay would be viewed unfavourably unless clearly of potential benefit.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in so much as the end result will be the establishment of replacement community facility.

Financial Implications

8.7       This is an interim measure only and final costs will be dependent on which item is ultimately selected.

Legal Implications

8.8       This is an interim measure only and final legal implications will be dependent on which item is ultimately selected. 

Risks and Mitigations

8.9       This option would delay the project while additional negotiations are conducted which would be viewed unfavourably by stakeholders.  To mitigate this the points of negotiation would need to be clearly articulated, justified and communicated.

Implementation

8.10    Implementation dependencies - This is an interim measure only and final implementation dependencies will be dependent on which item is ultimately selected.

8.11    Implementation timeframe - This is an interim measure only and final implementation timeframe will be dependent on which item is ultimately selected.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Would permit more time to address any specific concerns with the Crossway proposal to enable a partnership opportunity to proceed that might otherwise fail.

8.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Would lengthen the process to delivery of a new facility.  Would only be useful if specific items existed which could realistically be negotiated.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - Community Meeting Feedback

49

b

Attachment 2 - Crossway RFP Proposal Part 1

53

c

Attachment 2 - Crossway RFP Proposal Part 2

99

 

 

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

Kent Summerfield

Senior Project Manager

Approved By

David Bailey

David Adamson

Recreation Services Manager

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

11.    Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Neighbourhood Trust

Reference:

16/654603

Contact:

Helen Miles

Helen.miles@ccc.govt.nz

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00054619

Neighbourhood Trust

Inclusive Holiday programmes

$4800

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from Neighbourhood trust.

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $4000 to the Neighbourhood Trust towards wages for Inclusive Holiday programmes.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Interim Budget 2016/17

Unused Allocation Carried Forward from 2015/16 Year

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$5,000

$17,919

$22,919

$10,919

 

4.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed 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

Application to Shirley Papanui Community Board 2016/ 17 Descretionary Response fund  Decision Matrix - 00054619 Neighbourhood Trust

119

 

 

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

Helen Miles,            Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson,          Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

12.    Shirley/Papanui Community Board Area Update

Reference:

16/689016

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

Judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Nil to report.

2.   Upcoming Community Events

2.1       Papanui Village Business Association AGM – 5.30-7.30pm, Thursday 21 July, West Coast Bar and Grill, cnr Langdons and Main North Road, RSVP to davef@sbapapanui.co.nz

2.2       Belfast Community Network AGM –  10.30am, Wednesday 27 July, Sheldon Park, Belfast

2.3       Shirley Inter-Agency Community Network Meeting – 10.30am, Friday 5 August, Avon Baptist Church, 103 North Avon Road

2.4       Papanui Inter-Agency Community Network Meeting – 10.30am, Tuesday 16 August, Board Room, Papanui Service Centre

3.   Community Board Advisor's Update

3.1       Information sent to the Board recently included:

·     Shirley/Papanui Ward Graffiti Incidents for April/May

·     An Accessible City – St Asaph Street, Ferry Road to Antigua Street

·     Breton Close proposed no stopping

·     Marshland Road/Hercules Street Pedestrian Refuge Island Start Work Notice

·     Warrington Street/Barbadoes Street Pedestrian Refuge Island Start Work Notice

·     Cranford Street/Edgeware Road Improvements Start Work Notice

·     Shenley Drive Pedestrian Crossing Facility Start Work Notice

·     Memo re Start of Kerbside Wheelie Bin Stocktake

·     Hills Road/Dudley Street Intersection Risk Mapping Link

·     St James Avenue Proposed parking changes

·     Flooding Assistance Policy – Flockton update

·     Submitters information on proposed traffic improvements on Blighs Road

·     Memo re staff changes in the Neighbourhood and Sports Parks Team

3.2       Speed Limit Review Submission

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board submission was signed by the Chairperson and submitted on Tuesday 21 June 2016 (refer Attachment A).

3.3       Christchurch Multicultural Strategy

The Board has the opportunity to make a submission on this draft strategy (circulated separately). Submissions close on Sunday 31 July 2016.

 

3.4       Stapletons Road

As requested by the Board at their 3 February meeting traffic counts have been done on Stapletons Road. The results are detailed in the attached memo (refer Attachment B) and show that 6% of the traffic is heavy vehicles and that the mean traffic speed is 45.0km/h.

3.5       Manchester Street Camera

The Police have commissioned a new crime camera on Manchester Street opposite the one installed on a temporary basis by the Board. This new camera will be operational in around two weeks, at about the same time that the lease finishes on the Board camera.

3.6       Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy

17 submissions were received to this policy. A report will be presented to the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday 12 July 2016. The Board has the opportunity to speak at this meeting. Further information is attached (refer Attachment C). A summary of the submissions received has been separately circulated.

3.7       Request for Trees Edgeware Road

A request has been received (through Cr Cotter) for trees to be planted on Edgeware Road between Barbadoes and Hills Road. An investigation will be made into the feasibility of this request and the person making the request has been contacted regarding this.

4.   Funding Update

4.1       Refer Attachment D.

 

 

5.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Shirley Papanui Community Board - 15 June 2016 - Submission on Review of Speed Limits June 2016

123

b

Shirley Papanui Community Board - 6 July 2016 - Stapletons Road Traffic Counts Memorandum (Area Report)

124

c

Shirley Papanui Community Board - 6 July 2016 - BID Policy - Feedback letter to submitters (Area Report)

126

d

Shirley Papanui Community Board DRF and PYDS Tracker 2015-16.XLS as at 30 June 2016

127

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Jenny Hughey

Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 


 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 


 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 July 2016

 

 

13.  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.

 

 

 

14.  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.