Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 13 December 2016

Time:                                    4.30pm

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

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

7 December 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew McLintock

Community Governance Manager

941 5008

Matthew.McLintock@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

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 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

C       6.       Notice of Motion........................................................................................................... 13

B       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 15  

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Proposed Road Names - Various Subdivisions 23

C       9.       Lomax Reserve - Proposed Tree Removal and Replacement..................................... 33

C       10.     Halswell Domain - Proposed Carpark.......................................................................... 41

C       11.     Paeroa Reserve - Proposed Easements........................................................................ 47

C       12.     Nga Puna Wai Reserve - Proposed Easement............................................................. 59

C       13.     19 Kirk Road - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation .................................... 69

C       14.     Hornby and Riccarton Wards - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions ....................... 77

C       15.     Nicholls Road/Rearsby Drive Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.... 87

A       16.     Proposed Halswell Area Speed Limit Changes ........................................................... 93

C       17.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Youth Development Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Simon Lancaster, Nathaniel Ataera and Aimee Ataera................... 105

C       18.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2016-17 - Board Applications ..................................................................................................... 109

C       19.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund 2016-17 - Establishment of Fund 113

C       20.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2016-17........... 121

B       21.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - December 2016...... 123

B       22.     Elected Members Information Exchange................................................................... 126

B       23.     Questions Under Standing Orders............................................................................. 126 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 22 November 2016, be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Maria Schmetzer, local resident, has been granted speaking rights to address the Board with a request for parking restrictions on the west side of Waimairi Road from numbers 61 to 73.

 

Agenda Items 6 and 7 also refer.

 

4.2

Proposed Halswell Area Speed Limit Changes - speaking rights have been granted to: 

 

·    Mark Hutchings, resident, Halswell Junction Road

·    Ngaire Bacon, property owner, Sparks Road

 

Agenda item 16 refers.

 

4.3

Central Riccarton Residents’ Association – representatives have been granted speaking rights to address the Board on a number of local issues.

 

Information has been separately circulated to members.

 

4.4

Dave Matheson, local resident, will address the Board with a request to remove and replace the Silver Birch street tree located outside his property in Brigham Drive, Halswell.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

 

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 22 November 2016

Time:                                    4.30pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

22 November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew McLintock

Community Governance Manager

941 5008

Matthew.McLintock@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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00019

That the minutes of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 8 November 2016, be confirmed.

Debbie Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1       Kirstie Wyss, solicitor from Wynn Williams, and Warren Harbidge, addressed the Board on behalf of the property owner of 144 Totara Street regarding a proposal for the removal and replacement of a street tree located in the berm outside the property.

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked the deputation representatives for their presentation.

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00020

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved:

1.         That the submission from the deputation regarding a street tree outside 144 Totara Street, be received.

2.         To approve the removal of the street tree outside 144 Totara Street and notes the developers undertaking to provide at least one suitable replacement street tree, to be approved by the Council’s arborist. 

Vicki Buck/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                           Carried

 


 

 

4.2       Gillian and John Gartly, of Rempstone Drive, addressed the Board on behalf of street residents seeking the removal and replacement of the Silver Birch trees in the street.

 

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr and Mrs Gartly for the presentation.

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00021

Part B

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the deputation from Mr J and Mrs G Gartly regarding the street trees in Rempstone Drive.

2.         Note that the Board is sympathetic to the health concerns of the Rempstone Drive residents who had provided support for the deputation made to the Board.

3.         Note its support of the identified silver birch trees being removed, considering the information provided.

4.         Request a staff report relating to the removal and replacement of the nominated silver birch trees in Rempstone Drive, which shall also contain feedback from the Medical Officer of Health.

   Note:  The report by Ian Spielberg to be provided to the Medical Officer of Health and the                        Council arborists.

 

5.         Note its appreciation of the offer made by the deputation for street residents to assist financially with the replacement of a more suitable street tree in Rempstone Drive. 

Debbie Mora/Ross McFarlane                                                                                                                               Carried

 

4.3       David James, resident of Kirkwood Avenue, addressed the Board requesting parking restrictions be installed at the eastern end of Kirkwood Avenue.

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked David James for his presentation.

             A notice of motion on this matter is detailed in Item 6 (Part B) of these minutes.

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00022

Part B

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the deputation from David James regarding a request for parking restrictions at the eastern end of Kirkwood Avenue.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 


 

 

6.   Notice of Motion

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00023

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Accept for consideration the Notice of Motion from Helen Broughton regarding the matter of parking restrictions in the section of Kirkwood Avenue between Clyde Road and St Nicholas Hospital.

Mike Mora/Catherine Chu                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00024

Part B

1.    That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board supports parking restrictions in the section of Kirkwood Avenue between Clyde Road and the St Nicholas Hospital site.

 

2.    That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board notes that implementation of parking restrictions can be determined by the Community Board.

 

3.    That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that staff report back to the Board in regard to 1. above, by mid February 2017.

 

Explanatory Note

The University of Canterbury received a resource consent to convert the St Nicholas Hospital, a particularly quiet private facility, into a student hostel. The application was strongly opposed by local residents. It is understood that that the hostel will receive 75 students from February 2017. The residents of this low density residential zone are requesting relief from the effects of student parking.

Helen Broughton/Catherine Chu                                                                                                                          Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Correspondence

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00025

Part B

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive and note the information from the Deans Avenue Precinct Society contained in the correspondence report of 22 November 2016.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

8.   Paeroa Reserve - Easement

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00026

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(e) and Section 48(3)(a) and (b) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the “right to convey wastewater” over part of Reserve 5128 and Lot 2 Deposited Plan 79463, and Part Reserve 4457 and Lot 2 Deposited Plan 22313, shown as that parcel hatched in black on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report, subject to:

a.         The consent of the Minister of Conservation, exercised by staff delegation, refer 2 below.

b.         All necessary statutory consents under but not limited to the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act, being obtained.

2.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to Christchurch City Council for the right to convey waste-water as outlined in this report.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.

Mike Mora/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

9.   Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Representation on Outside Organisations for 2016-2019

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00027

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1.         Appoint Board members as representatives/liaison on each of the following organisations for the 2016-2019 term:

Outside Organisations

Christchurch Streets and Garden Awards Committee

Debbie Mora

Halswell Domain Sports Association

Ross McFarlane

Keep Christchurch Beautiful

Debbie Mora, and Catherine Chu (alternate)

Neighbourhood Support Canterbury

Mike Mora, and Ross McFarlane (alternate)

Riccarton Bush Trust

Mike Mora

Note: To be reviewed by the Board in twelve months’ time.

Templeton Holy Chapel Family Trust

Jimmy Chen, and Debbie Mora (alternate)

Residents’ Associations

Awatea Residents’ Association

Ross McFarlane/Mike Mora

Central Riccarton Residents’ Association

Helen Broughton/Catherine Chu

Deans Avenue Precinct Society

Helen Broughton/Catherine Chu

Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association

Natalie Bryden/Mike Mora

Halswell Residents’ Association

Debbie Mora/Ross McFarlane

Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Association

Natalie Bryden/Mike Mora

Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association

Helen Broughton/Catherine Chu

Middleton Matipo Community Association

Helen Broughton/Catherine Chu

Riccarton Bush/Kilmarnock Residents’ Association

Helen Broughton/Catherine Chu

Riccarton Park Residents’ Association

Natalie Bryden/Mike Mora

Steadman Road Area Residents’ Association

Natalie Bryden/Mike Mora

Templeton Residents’ Association

Natalie Bryden/Mike Mora

Westmorland Residents’ Association

Debbie Mora/Ross McFarlane

Yaldhurst Rural Residents’ Association

Mike Mora/Debbie Mora

 

Staff undertook to ask Residents’ Associations to include the Ward Councillor on their respective databases for receiving meeting agendas/minutes to enable attendance at meetings, when available.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

10. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - November 2016

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00028

Part B

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report for November 2016.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2016/00029

Part C

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved:

 

2.         That its December business meeting be held on Tuesday 13 December 2016 at 4.30pm in the Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

11. Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received information from members on the following:

11.1    Elected members roles in Civil Defence declared emergencies – clarification requested.

11.2    Dumfries Drive – no stopping restrictions – staff undertook to check whether completed.

11.3    Central Riccarton Residents’ Association AGM – sought an update on the provision of a mobile library service for Central Riccarton, and a request was made to retain key equipment from the Riccarton Community Centre for use in the new facility.

12.4    Former  Halswell Library site – continuing calls from the local community for the Council to retain the facility for community use.

12.5    Halswell Speed Limit Review – some local unease about the differing speeds proposed on Halswell Junction Road.

12.6    Halswell sports clubs – allocation of local sport grounds to clubs is an urgent priority.

12.7    Rural Rates Rebate – a non standardised approach is seemingly being applied across the city’s              rural areas.

12.8    University of Canterbury (UC), Orientation Week – opportunity for closer collaboration between the Board and UC.

12.9    Interim Riccarton Service Centre – update provided by staff.

 

12. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 6.43pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

6.        Notice of Motion

Reference:

16/1336025

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.10.1 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Helen Broughton:

1.   That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board support the provision of parking restrictions in the section of Waimairi Road requested by local residents.

2.   The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board notes the implementation of parking restrictions can be determined by the Community Board.

3.   That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that staff report back to the Board by mid February 2017.

 

1.   Recommendation to Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decide to:

1.         Accept for consideration the Notice of Motion from Helen Broughton regarding the matter of parking restrictions on Waimairi Road.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

16/1336076

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Maria Schmetzer

Waimairi Road - Parking Restrictions

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report of 13 December 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Maria Schmetzer - Waimairi Road Parking Restrictions

16

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

8         Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Proposed Road Names - Various Subdivisions

Reference:

16/1298710

Contact:

Bob Pritchard

bob.pritchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 8644

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider and approve proposed road names in five local subdivisions.

Origin of Report

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

1.3       This report relates to the Kirkwood subdivision, Wigram Skies subdivision, Shands Road subdivision, Awatea Road subdivision, Wilmers Road subdivision and Owaka Road/Carrs Road subdivision.

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 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

1.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve the following road names:

·        Wigram Skies Subdivision

a.         Laloli Place

·        Shands Road Subdivision

a.         Headquarters Place

b.         Depot Street

·        Awatea Road Subdivision

a.         Dellaca Lane

b.         Dominico Lane

c.         Brusio Drive

d.         Bernina Lane

e.         Rosa Lane

·        Wilmers Road Subdivision

a.         Paree Lane

 

·    Owaka Road/Carrs Road Subdivision

a.       Azara Way

b.       Hosta Lane

2.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board note for information, the name of Saddleback Green for the road extension in the Kirkwood subdivision.

 

4.   Background 

4.1       Kirkwood Subdivision

4.1.1   The Saddleback Green road in the Kirkwood subdivision has been extended to meet up with Burbank Drive. The extension will continue as Saddleback Green.

4.1.2   Saddleback Green was approved by the Board on 30 July 2005.

4.2       Wigram Skies Subdivision

4.2.1   Colin Laloli Place was approved by the Board at its 16 August 2016 meeting (resolution RWCB/2016/00124).

4.2.2   Laloli Place was proposed at that time, however this was changed by the Board to Colin Laloli Place to clarify that the approval was for Colin Laloli and not his son, Peter Laloli, a then Board member.

4.2.3   Arising from that approval, Ngai Tahu Property Limited has sought a review of that decision as its policy is to have only surnames for use as road names.

4.2.4   They have requested that the name be changed to Laloli Place.

4.3       Shands Road Subdivision

4.3.1   This subdivision is being carried out by Calder Stewart Industries.

4.3.2   Two new roads are being created, a cul-de-sac and a road linking Quadrant Drive and Establishment Drive.

4.3.3   The developer proposed Headquarters Place and Depot Street, and Provision Drive and Revolution Place as alternatives. None of these names are in use in Christchurch City.

4.3.4   Warehouse Drive was also submitted, however it was explained to the applicant that confusion could arise with the Warehouse retail stores throughout New Zealand.

4.4       Awatea Road Subdivision

4.4.1   Barbara Joan Road was approved for the spine road running through this subdivision.

4.4.2   Three rights-of-way are being constructed off Barbara Joan Road.

4.4.3   The names proposed for the three rights-of-way are Dellaca Lane, Dominico Lane and Brusio Drive.

4.4.4   The Dellaca Lane name can be traced back to the 15th century and honours many of the Dellaca family who arrived from Switzerland.

4.4.5   Dominico is the Christian name of the first Dellaca to arrive in New Zealand in 1905. It is the current middle name of three generations.

4.4.6   Brusio is a small village in the Swiss Alps in the canton of Graubunden. It is 25 kilometres from the Italian border and the language spoken is Italian or Romanish.

4.4.7   Two other names have been submitted for an access leg to serve a comprehensive development in part of the subdivision. They are Bernina Lane and Rosa Lane.

4.4.8   Bernina - the village of Brusio is in the district of Bernina in the Swiss Alps. The landowners were from the Bernina district.

4.4.9   Rosa is for Rosa Augusta Dellaca, wife of Dominico Dellaca.

4.5       Wilmers Road Subdivision

4.5.1   The landowner submitted six names, however for various reasons none have been found to be suitable.

4.5.2   The name Tippett was also proposed, however this name is already in use in the nearby Awatea Green development.

4.5.3   Paree Lane is now proposed.

4.5.4   The developer likes the Peony flower particularly the Gay Paree variant.

4.5.5   As Gay Paree Lane is considered to be too long for the small right-of-way, it was proposed to name it Paree Lane.

4.6       Owaka Road/Carrs Road Subdivision

4.6.1   This subdivision is situated between Owaka Road and Carrs Road. It is one of a dozen different stages in the subdivisions of this land.

4.6.2   The developers are keen to have plant names for their streets.

4.6.3   Azara Way is from the shrub species Azara microphylla, named after J. N. Azara, Spanish patron of botany.

4.6.4   Hosta Lane is a genus of 40 species of herb plants from Japan and China. 

4.6.5   Ensete Lane is taken from a herb and is an alternative name should any of the above two names not be approved.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Kirkwood Subdivision - Road Name Plan

27

b

Wigram Skies Subdivision - Road Name Plan

28

c

Shands Road Subdivision - Road Names Plan

29

d

Awatea Road Subdivision - Road Names Plan

30

e

Wilmers Road Subdivision - Road Name Plan

31

f

Owaka Road/Carrs Road Subdivision - Road Names Plan

32

 

 

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 - Subdivisions Officer

Lelanie Crous - Personal Assistant / Business Administrator

Approved By

John Gibson - Head of Resource Consents

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

9.        Lomax Reserve - Proposed Tree Removal and Replacement

Reference:

16/1351206

Contact:

Jonathan Hansen

jonathan.hansen@ccc.govt.nz

941 8328

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider approving the proposed landscape plan for Lomax Reserve.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a street meeting held with the residents of Lomax Place.

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 low number of people affected, low cost and low community interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

a.         Approve the submitted landscape plan for the Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.0.1 Neighbourhood Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean,  tidy, safe and functional

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve the submitted tree renewal plan for Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees.

·     Option 2 - Decline the submitted tree renewal plan for Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees.

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The two Oak trees which are proposed for removal have a limited lifespan due to their poor structure.

·     The replacement trees will be offset from the properties and improve the amenity of the area.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There will be short term loss in amenity between the time the two Oak trees are removed and the replanting of the new trees in the winter of 2017.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Previous History

5.1       The Council has been approached by the residents at numbers 1/5 and 2/5 Lomax Place in the past with concerns about the two Oak trees which are located in Lomax Reserve. The main concerns from the residents have been shading of their properties and leaf debris from the trees. The two trees in question are a Red Oak (Quercus rubra) (tree ID 115679) and an English Oak (Quercus robur) (tree ID 115682). The Red Oak is approximately 11 metres in height and the English Oak is approximately 13 metres in height.

5.2       It is estimated that both trees were planted in the 1970’s when the reserve was first established. Both trees have an overall condition rating of poor. This is due to both trees having co-dominant stems, which is a defect found in some trees. The defect in the trees does not mean they are currently a safety hazard, however it is likely that their longevity will be shortened.

5.3       The English Oak is located approximately five metres from the private property boundary and the Red Oak is approximately 11 metres from the private property boundary. Neither of the trees would comply with the current Council park tree planting guidelines which requires large growing trees to be located at least 20 metres from private property boundaries.

5.4       The Council has pruned both trees in the past, but this has had a limited effect on the nuisance value experienced by nearby residents. Given that this pruning has not helped the situation from the resident’s perspective due to the close location of the trees to the property boundary and the overall poor condition of the trees due to the co-dominant stems, the staff recommendation is to remove both of the trees. This is subject to resource consent being granted.

5.5       A letter (refer Attachment A) to the neighbours of Lomax Reserve was distributed to all properties in Lomax Place and to the properties on Foremans Road backing on to the reserve. This letter was distributed arising from a street meeting held on 6 October 2016 where the Council’s arborists and Board Chairperson met with residents to discuss their concerns. The general consensus of the residents was to have the two Oak trees in Lomax Reserve removed and replaced with smaller growing evergreen trees. There has been no feedback received from residents regarding the circulated letter. 

5.6       As a result of the street meeting, a landscape plan (refer Attachment A) was prepared to illustrate the location of the two Oak trees proposed for removal and the three proposed replacement trees. The replacement tree species suggested in the landscape plan are evergreen Magnolias (Magnolia grandiflora). These have been recommended as they should tolerate the site conditions and fit in with the residents request for a smaller growing evergreen tree.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve the Landscape Plan for Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the submitted landscape plan for Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage locally, with affected residents and ratepayers.

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       Residents and ratepayers living close to the reserve are affected by this option due to a potential loss in the amenity value added by the trees. The views of residents were sought at the street meeting on 6 October 2016. The general consensus was the residents sought the removal of the two Oak trees in the Lomax Reserve and their replacement with smaller growing evergreen trees. There has been no feedback from residents regarding the circulated letter.

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 – Approximately $3,500

6.7       Maintenance Ongoing Costs – Approximately $180 per annum for the first three years.

6.8       Funding source - Park Trees Capital Budget

Legal Implications

6.9       A resource consent will be required to remove the two trees.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.10    There would be a minor disruption to reserve users during the removal of the two trees. The replacement trees would need aftercare maintenance including weekly watering over the summer months. This work would be added to the park trees aftercare maintenance programme.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - The removal of the two trees would need to happen when the ground conditions are dry to allow heavy vehicles onto the reserve without causing damage to the grassed areas. The replacement trees would need to be planted in the winter planting season. The removal of the two trees would require resource consent.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – Early 2017 for the removal of the two trees. Winter 2017 for the planting of the replacement trees.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The two Oak trees which are proposed for removal have a limited lifespan due to their poor structure.

·   The replacement trees will be offset from the properties and improve the amenity of the area.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be a short term loss in amenity between the time the two Oak trees are removed and the replanting of the new trees in the winter of 2017.

7.   Option 2 - Decline the Landscape Plan for Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees

Option Description

7.1       Decline the submitted landscape plan for Lomax Reserve which involves the removal of two Oak trees and the replanting of three replacement trees.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage locally, with affected residents and ratepayers.

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       Residents and ratepayers living close to the reserve are affected by this option due to a potential loss in the amenity value added by the trees. The views of residents were sought at the street meeting on 6 October 2016. The general consensus was the residents sought the removal of the two Oak trees in the Lomax Reserve and their replacement with smaller growing evergreen trees. There has been no feedback from residents regarding the circulated letter.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Not applicable

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Not applicable

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       There may be future maintenance issues with trees and resident concerns.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    As in 7.9 above.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No loss of amenity value in the reserve

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There may be future maintenance issues with trees and resident concerns

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lomax Reserve - Letter to Local Residents and Proposed Landscape Plan

38

 

 

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

Jonathan Hansen - Arborist South

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

10.    Halswell Domain - Proposed Carpark

Reference:

16/967865

Contact:

Kevin Williams

kevin.williams@ccc.govt.nz

941 8697

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider approving the proposed new carpark plan for Halswell Domain which requires the removal of some existing trees (refer Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by Halswell Domain being of high local interest but low impact on the majority of the city and the Council’s activities.

 

3.   Staff Recommendation

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.            Approve the submitted Halswell Domain Carpark Plan, including the removal of 24 existing           trees on the old boundary line and the planting of 35 new trees.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

·     Level of Service: 7.1.2 Deliver a high level of customer satisfaction with the range and quality of sports parks 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – The proposed car park plan (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The least impact on the park in terms of additional hard surface utilising green area as the bulk of the new car park sits on the existing old driveway.

·     The car park has been designed to fit in with the new toilet facility already installed.

·     Provides good access and parking to the existing sports facilities for scouts, netball, Model Engineers workshop and the gym for rugby league.

·     Provides a better link between the old park and the extension and removes the visual barrier between the two creating a unified site.

·     Designed to link in with the Quarryman’s Trail cycleway.

·     Provides the greatest setback from adjoining properties.

·     Provides the realignment and enhancement of the old boundary storm water swale.

·     Proposed plan includes the planting of 35 trees to replace the trees removed as part of the plan.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The removal of existing trees on the old park boundary line.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       As part of the long term development of Halswell Domain, there have been several extensions to both the north and south of the original domain. These extensions have allowed for increased use of the Domain which has resulted in the need for additional car parking to accommodate this increase in use.  Lack of parking has always been an issue frequently raised in consultation around the Halswell Domain. The proposed car park has 69 spaces two of which are dedicated disabled spaces adjacent to the new public toilet facility.

5.2       Development concept plans over the many years the development has spanned, have shown three proposed car park locations:

5.2.1   The recently completed car park on the William Brittan Drive frontage adjacent to the playground and Model Engineers facility.

5.2.2   The current option being presented in this report within the Domain adjacent to the scouts, netball and league gym locations. 

5.2.3   A proposed site (2019/20 financial year) on the Edward Stafford Avenue frontage.

5.3       The option being presented has been shown in various concept layouts within plans associated with the Halswell Bowling Club extensions, netball court construction and most recently the new public toilet facility. Over this period, various layouts have been investigated to attempt to work around some of the existing trees. None of the above layouts achieved the safety, flow or spatial connection between the old and new areas of the Domain. Other concepts placed the car park closer to neighbouring housing. The proposed concept has low impact on the park as it is utilising the existing driveway for a significant portion of the area and is located further away from neighbouring properties.

5.4       This current concept was presented to the Halswell Domain Sport User Group and is fully supported by them. This group along with past and present Board members have been actively involved in the development of the extensions to Halswell Domain since the early 2000’s when residential development around the Domain increased.

6.   Option 1 – Proposed Halswell Domain Car Park Plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the car park plan including the removal of some trees.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this assessment.

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 consultation on the Halswell Domain proposed car park was undertaken from Monday 7 November to Monday 21 November 2016.

6.6       Approximately 65 leaflets were delivered to properties on the south side of Parklea Avenue, residents of Hyde Place, Halswell Road between Parklea Avenue and Nicholls Road.  The leaflet was also sent to 17 absentee owners and 27 key stakeholders including all user groups on Halswell Domain.

6.7       During the course of the engagement, the Council received eight submissions, all in support of the proposed carpark.

6.8       The Halswell Scout Group contacted the project manager (and also provided a written submission) requesting improved access for their trailer into the scout den garage. Options will be considered in liaison with the scouts during detailed design and construction that will not impact on the proposed layout.

6.9       Following consultation, no changes are required to the proposal and the final plan remains the same for approval.

6.10    A letter has been sent to all submitters advising of the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Board meeting and how they can request speaking rights.  Also included in the letter was a link to the feedback summary with project team responses.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - $600,000 to construct the car park

6.13    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – $6,000 per year

6.14    Funding source – Current Long Term Plan, CPMS Project #354 - Halswell Domain Car Park

Legal Implications

6.15    Nil

Risks and Mitigations 

6.16    There may be some community dissatisfaction with removing the trees. This will be mitigated by having a useable car park and improved landscaping including additional trees.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

6.18    Implementation timeframe – Construction works to be completed by January 2017 with planting to follow in the autumn of 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·     The least impact on the park in terms of additional hard surface utilising green area as the bulk of the new car park sits on the existing old driveway.

·     The car park has been designed to fit in with the new toilet facility already installed.

·     Provides good access and parking to the existing sports facilities for scouts, netball, Model Engineers workshop and the gym for rugby league.

·     Provides a better link between the old park and the extension and removes the visual barrier between the two creating a unified site.

·     Designed to link in with the Quarryman’s Trail cycleway.

·     Provides the greatest setback from adjoining properties.

·     Provides the realignment and enhancement of the old boundary storm water swale.

·     The proposed plan includes the planting of 35 new trees to replace the trees removed as part of the plan.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The removal of existing trees on the old park boundary line.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain status quo with no additional car parking provided.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement was not undertaken for this option.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Refer paragraphs 6.5 to 6.10 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Nil

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:

·   There are no advantages

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Halswell Domain will continue to have a car parking shortage

·   There will be no safe lit access for netball court use at night

·   Retention and ongoing unhealthy trees

·   Halswell Domain will remain disjointed

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell Domain - Proposed Carpark Plan - December 2016

46

 

 

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

Kevin Williams - Team Leader Contract Management

Ann Campbell - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

11.    Paeroa Reserve - Proposed Easements

Reference:

16/1262780

Contact:

Sarah Stuart

sarah.stuart@ccc.govt.nz

941 8191

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the granting of electrical easements and of water supply and wastewater easements over parts of the Paeroa Reserve (refer Attachments A).

1.2       The Board is also requested should it approve the granting of the easements, to recommend to the Chief Executive that she exercise the consent of the Minister of Conservation to the easements acting under the delegated authority of the Minister of Conservation to the Council, subsequently sub-delegated to the Chief Executive.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being submitted to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to facilitate the Paeroa Reserve Pump Station Upgrade project.  Staff do not have a delegation to make a decision in this matter because the land is held as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.  The Board has the delegated authority of the Council to make a decision on the granting of the proposed easement.  The Board does not however have a delegation to consent on behalf of the Minister of Conservation.

1.4       Easements are required over the Paeroa Reserve to allow for:

1.4.1   The above ground structures which include a new Orion power kiosk to supply electricity to the existing pump station, fan chamber to provide ventilation, and bio filter to minimise odour; and the existing water supply electrical building.

1.4.2   The underground infrastructure associated with the pump station including wastewater pipes, manholes, and pump station componentry. 

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 a significance and engagement assessment worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the proposed works shown on the plans at Attachment A to upgrade the Paeroa Reserve pump station.

2.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of easements for the right to convey electricity and for the rights to convey water and drain sewage over the parts of Paeroa Reserve shown on the plans submitted as Attachment A, subject to:

a.         The consent of the Minister of Conservation, exercised by staff delegation, as set out in 3. below.

b.         All necessary statutory consents under but not limited to the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act, being obtained.

c.         No objections being received and upheld in response to the pending public notice for the above ground easements.

3.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easements to Orion and Christchurch City Council for the rights to convey electricity and the rights to convey water and drain sewage as outlined above.

4.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easements be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easements and works proposed.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Wastewater Collection

·     Level of Service: 11.0.1 Provide wastewater collection in a safe, convenient and efficient manner (customer satisfaction)

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant the easements (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Do not grant the easements.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The pump station upgrade will enable the Riccarton main trunk project to proceed.  This will improve waste water services, decrease overflows in wet weather events, and provide greater development opportunities in the city.

·     The easements will protect the infrastructure in perpetuity.

·     The easement instruments will set out the terms and conditions of the easements.

·     Easements are required to comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

·     The registration of the easements on the title will provide notice to all that an easement is in place, and support health and safety by identifying the location of the facilities on the title.

·     The location of the Orion kiosk will be more convenient than its current location.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Minor earthworks and temporary restrictions on the use of the reserve.

·     The title will be encumbered with an easement in perpetuity.

·     Orion structures will be on Council land – considered minor given the new kiosk will replace an existing kiosk.

·     Lack of flexibility to change this area if circumstances change.

·     Larger structures will be on Council land compared to those that currently exist.

 

 

 5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Waste Water Riccarton Main Trunk Project addresses problems with general wastewater overflows and surcharging within the wastewater network due to it being undersized.  Once implemented it will also stop the wastewater overflows that occur at the Westfield Riccarton Mall during wet weather events.  Development in approximately ten per cent of the city (Riccarton, Avonhead and out to the airport) is constrained until this project is implemented.   This constraint is captured in the City Plan overlay called "Riccarton Interceptor Wastewater Catchment".  

5.2       The upgrade of the pump station at the Paeroa Reserve is a critical part of the Wastewater Riccarton Main Trunk Project. The upgrade has been designed and tendering is due to commence shortly with construction expected to start before the end of 2016.

Paeroa Reserve

5.3       The reserve comprises two parcels of land. 

·    The 0.1265 hectare parcel held in Certificate of Title CB2A/1462 (Part Reserve 4457 and Lot 2 Deposited Plan 22313) is held by the Council for municipal purposes. 

·    The 0.5821 hectare parcel held in title CB45C/658 (Reserve 5128 and Lot 2 Deposited Plan 79463) is held by the Council as an unclassified recreation reserve.  This title is subject to various other easements dating back to 1902 and through to 2000.  The proposed easements do not impact on any other registered rights.

Both land parcels are subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

 

Easements

5.4       The pump station upgrade works involve the installation of the following above ground structures:

·     A new Orion power kiosk (5.5m2) to supply electricity to the pump station.  This replaces the existing kiosk which will be demolished. 

·     A new fan chamber (4.4m2) to provide ventilation.  This will be located alongside the existing water supply electrical building (10.5m2).

·     A new biofilter (40m2) to minimise odour.  This will be constructed south of the existing water supply electrical building.  

These new and existing structures comprise the above ground easements.

5.5       Underground easements will be required for the associated infrastructure such as wastewater pipes and manholes that will be laid as part of the upgrade. 

5.6       The existing water supply building suction tank and pump house are no longer required and will be demolished to make room for the bio filter.

5.7       Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 (“the Act”) provides that the Council with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, may grant easements for rights-of-way and other services over reserve land.  In this case sections 48(1)(d to f).

5.8       Under section 48(2), it is necessary for the Council to publically notify its intention to grant an easement except where the reserve is unlikely to be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are unlikely to be permanently affected (section 48(3)). 

5.9       The above ground easements require public notification under the Reserves Act 1977 as they materially alter the reserve.  Notification has been undertaken and there have been no objections or submissions from the public. 

5.10    Public notification is not required for the underground easements proposed as they do not materially alter the reserve.

Consent of the Minister of Conservation

5.11    In exercising the consent of the Minister of Conservation, the Council should be satisfied that due procedure has been followed and in this respect the Council should have regard to the following matters:

·   The land affected by the application is a reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

·   The easements being applied for fall within the purposes specified in section 48(6) of the Act.

·   The provisions of section 48(2) (public notification) have been complied with or that a waiver can be given to this requirement under section 48(3).

·   Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 (this Act shall be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) meaning that in consenting to transactions under the Reserves Act 1977, consideration is to be given to the requirement or otherwise to consult with iwi.

5.12    It is confirmed that the subject land is reserve land held in titles CB2A/1462 and CB45C/658 for municipal and recreation purposes respectively.  Section 48(1) of the Act allows the Council to grant easements for the right to convey electricity, convey water, and drain sewage.    The consent of the Minister is subject to no objections being received and upheld. No submissions or objections were received from the public following notification of the above ground easements.

5.13    Specific consultation with iwi is not considered necessary as the site affected does not feature in the City Plan as having any significance to tangata whenua and the proposal is believed to be consistent with the framework of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (MIMP) as the proposed earthworks will be minimal.

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Staff Recommendation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Adopt the Staff Recommendation (grant the easements on the conditions stipulated).

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate.

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       A statutory notification process is being undertaken to determine if there are any views in opposition to this proposal.  The response to this notification after the closing date will be the formal indication to the community of the intended above ground easements.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is considered to be consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – costs of advertising, staff time, and hearings costs (if required).  The pump station upgrade is part of line item 874 WW Riccarton trunk Main Project in the Long Term Plan for which $10 million is budgeted.

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – part of ongoing operational expenses, existing Three Waters and Waste budgets.

6.9       Funding source – 522/000592.  It is confirmed that this is budgeted for and funding is available.

Legal Implications

6.10    Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 enables the Council, with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to grant easements over public reserves. In this case the easements are for the rights to convey electricity, convey water, and drain sewage.  Before doing so the Council is required to publically notify the proposal for the above ground easements and to hold a public hearing to consider submissions, if requested.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    The proposal is a permitted activity under the City Plan rules, current and proposed.

6.12    Risk public opposition to granting easements through the Reserves Act submission and hearing process.

6.13    Risk project delay caused by Reserves Act submission and hearing process and/or legal challenges. 

6.14    Risk additional costs to the Council arising from the submissions and hearings process.

6.15    Risk project delay caused by the easements not be granted once the Reserves Act and hearing process is completed. This will result in under-provision of waste-water services in the city, continued overflows during wet weather events, and continued development constraint to ten per cent of the city.

6.16    Risk that a new pump station will have to be built on an alternative site if the easements are not being granted. 

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - dependant on successfully completing the Reserves Act 1977 processes.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – three to six months, dependent on outcome of public notification process.  Works are scheduled to commence in January 2017 and will be completed within three months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The pump station upgrade will enable the Riccarton main trunk project to proceed.  This will improve waste water services, decrease overflows in wet weather events, and provide greater development opportunities in the city.

·   The easements will protect the infrastructure in perpetuity.

·   The easement instruments will set out the terms and conditions of the easements.

·   Easements are required to comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

·   The registration of the easements on the title will provide notice to all that easements are in place, and support health and safety by identifying the location of the facilities on the title.

·   The location of the Orion kiosk will be more convenient than its current location.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor earthworks and temporary restrictions on the use of the reserve.

·   The title will be encumbered with an easement in perpetuity.

·   Orion structures will be on Council land – considered minor given the new kiosk will replace an existing kiosk.

·   Larger structures will be on Council land compared to those that currently exist.

·   Lack of flexibility to change this area if circumstances change.

7.   Option 2 – Decline application

Option Description

7.1       Decline the application, namely, do not approve the grant of the various easements as requested.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The residents of the surrounding area will be specifically affected by this option due to the non-provision of increased and improved waste-water provision.  Development will continue to be constrained for ten per cent of the city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – the pump station upgrade is a critical part of the Waste Water Riccarton Trunk Main Project in the Long Term Plan. 

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – the Riccarton Trunk main project cannot proceed without the pump station upgrade.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – the Riccarton Trunk main project will need to be removed from the Long Term Plan.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – not applicable

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Maintenance costs for Paeroa Reserve are unchanged.

7.9       Funding source – Riccarton Trunk Main Project 522/000592.  It is confirmed this is budgeted for and funding is available.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    As the easement is not approved there are no known risks.

7.11.1 An alternative site will need to be identified and secured.

7.11.2 A new pump station will need to be constructed.

7.11.3 Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

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:

·   There will not be minor earthworks and temporary restrictions to the reserve.

·   The titles will not be further encumbered.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An alternative route will need to be secured.

·   The existing pump station structures cannot be upgraded and a new pump station will have to be built.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Paeroa Reserve - Proposed Easements

55

 

 

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

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

12.    Nga Puna Wai Reserve - Proposed Easement

Reference:

16/1315125

Contact:

 Sarah Stuart

sarah.stuart@ccc.govt.nz

941 8191

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve an easement for the right to drain wastewater over part of Nga Puna Wai Reserve/Canterbury Agricultural Park, a Council owned reserve (refer Attachment A).

1.2       The Board is also requested that should it approve the granting of the easement, to recommend to the Chief Executive that she exercise her authority as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the easement.  The Minister has delegated her authority to the Council, who have subsequently sub-delegated the authority to the Chief Executive.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being submitted to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board in order to provide a pressure sewer main to upgrade wastewater disposal in the area.  As the area is a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, the Board has the delegated authority as the administering body to make a decision on the granting of the proposed easement. 

1.4       Under the Reserves Act, the administering bodies consent is subject to the consent of the Minister of Conservation.  The Minister has delegated this power to the Council.   The delegation from the Minister raised an expectation that the roles of administering body will be kept separate from the role as Minister's delegate.  The Council has addressed this through making the community board's the administering body and the Chief Executive the Minister's delegate.

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 a significance and engagement assessment worksheet. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(a) and Section 48(3)(a) and (b) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to drain wastewater over the parts of Nga Puna Wai Reserve shown on the submitted plan as Attachment A, subject to:

a.         The consent of the Minister of Conservation or her delegate.

b.         All necessary statutory consents under but not limited to the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act, being obtained.

2.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to the Christchurch City Council for the right to convey wastewater as outlined in the staff report.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Wastewater Collection

·     Level of Service: 11.0.1 Provide wastewater collection in a safe, convenient and efficient manner (customer satisfaction)

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Grant an easement (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do not grant an easement

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        The easement will protect the infrastructure in perpetuity.

·        The easement will identify the existence of the pipeline on the title.

·        An easement is required to comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

·        Supports Health and Safety by identifying the location of the facility on the title.

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Minor earthworks and temporary restrictions on the use of the reserve.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

 

5.1       The South East Halswell Wastewater Scheme provides wastewater servicing to a large area of land in and around Halswell (refer Attachment B).  Most of these blocks of land have been identified as priority green field residential development areas in the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP). The Council has obligations under the LURP to make these areas available for residential development.  Development of these areas is constrained until this project is completed because there is no wastewater servicing available.

5.2       The wastewater scheme will also take all the wastewater from the pump station at the base of Westmorland, and redirect it in a different route across the city. This redirection will save millions of dollars' worth of downstream upgrades that would otherwise be required.  Without the redirection, overflows to the Heathcote River and capacity issues will continue to be a major issue. 

5.3       The South East Halswell Wastewater Scheme is dependent on the easement through the Nga Puna Wai Reserve, with no alternative route identified.  A duct has been installed under the Southern Motorway to cater for the new pipeline and a new pump station PS105 has been constructed on the other side of the motorway in Wigram Road.  This is where the pipeline will terminate.

5.4       The scheme has been designed and co-ordinated with the Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub development.

Nga Puna Wai Reserve

5.5       The area of reserve land affected by the proposed easement comprises a 34.9810 hectare parcel held in title CB42C/1204 (Lot 3 Deposited Plan 73928).  This is held by the Council as a classified recreation reserve which is subject to the Reserves Act 1977. 

5.6       The proposed easement also runs through a 40.1568 hectare parcel held by the Council in Certificate of Title CB42C/1203 (Pt Lot 2 Deposited Plan 73928).  This parcel is not reserve land and the easement proposed over this area will be addressed under staff delegation.

5.7       The application alignment is within the Nga Puna Wai Reserve and is proposed to traverse from Augustine Drive through to the Christchurch Southern Motorway SH76. Augustine Drive is now a formed road although does not show as such on the aerial used in the GHD plan attached as Appendix 1. The proposed alignment does not impact on any other registered rights over the Council’s title CB42C/1204.

 

Easement

5.8       Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) provides that the Council with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, may grant easements for rights-of-way and other services over reserve land. In this case Section 48(1)(a) “any public purpose”.

5.9       Under Section 48(2) of the Act, it is necessary for the Council to publically notify its intention to grant an easement except where the reserve is unlikely to be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are unlikely to be permanently affected (section 48(3) of the Act). As all the infrastructure will be underground Section 48(3) will apply, and public notification is not required.

5.10    The easement area required is shown as a red line on the plan in Attachment A.   The easement is circa three metres wide and 1400 metres long, with a total area of approximately 4,200m2.  It will house a single 400mm diameter pipeline, with one chamber and a valve at the Southern motorway end of the pipeline. All infrastructure will be underground.

5.11    It is the normal policy of the Council that a one-off compensation fee, as determined by an independent valuation, is payable to the Council for the privilege of gaining an encumbrance on the Council’s title. (Council 27 September 2001.) In this case, the Council is making an application to the Council and accordingly it would be illogical for a fee to apply.

5.12    The works will be undertaken by a suitably qualified contractor who will comply with all Health and Safety regulations in accordance with best practice. The contractor will be determined by a tender process.

5.13    The effects on the reserve are less than minor; whilst there will be some level of disturbance during the construction period, post construction the reserve will be returned to its current state. It is unlikely that anyone would be aware that there was in-ground infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

 

Consent of the Minister of Conservation

5.14    In exercising the consent of the Minister of Conservation, the Council should be satisfied that due procedure has been followed and in this respect the Council should have regard to the following matters:

5.14.1 The land affected by the application is a reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

5.14.2 The easement being applied for falls within the purposes specified in Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act.

5.14.3 The provisions of Section 48(2) (public notification) have been complied with or that a waiver can be given to this requirement under Section 48(3).

5.14.4 Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 (this Act shall be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) meaning that in consenting to transactions under the Reserves Act 1977, consideration is to be given to the requirement or otherwise to consult with iwi.

5.15    It is confirmed that the subject land is a reserve, held in title CB42C/1204 for recreation reserve purposes.  Section 48(1) of the Act allows the Council to grant rights-of-way and other easements over any part of the reserve for any public purpose (section 48(1) (a)).  The public notification of the proposed easement is not required by virtue of Section 48(3) of the Act.

5.16    Specific consultation with iwi is not considered necessary as the site affected does not feature in the City Plan as having any significance to tangata whenua and the proposal is believed to be consistent with the framework of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (MIMP) as the proposed earthworks activities will be minimal.

6.   Option 1 - Staff Recommendation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Adopt the staff recommendation (grant the easement on the conditions stipulated).

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does 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       No one is specifically affected by this option due to there being no adverse impacts on the reserve.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – negligible, staff time

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Existing Three Waters and Waste budgets.

6.9       Funding source – 522/001457. It is confirmed this is budgeted for and funding is available.

Legal Implications

6.10    Section 48(1)(e) of the Reserves Act 1977 enables the Council, with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to grant easements over public reserves, in this case for the provision of a wastewater pipe.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    The proposal is a permitted activity under the City Plan rules, current and proposed.

6.12    Risk project delay caused by easement not being granted.  This will result in under provision of wastewater services in the city.

6.12.1 Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - no known dependencies

6.14    Implementation timeframe - three to four months. The works are scheduled to commence mid to late 2017, and to be completed within four months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·        The easement will protect the infrastructure in perpetuity.

·        The easement will identify the existence of the pipeline on the title.

·         An easement is required to comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

·        Supports Health and Safety by identifying the location of the facility on the title.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor earthworks and temporary restrictions on the use of the reserve.

7.   Option 2 - Decline application

Option Description

7.1       Decline the application, namely, do not approve the grant of a wastewater easement as requested.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The residents of the surrounding area may be specifically affected by this option due to the non-provision of increased and improved wastewater services.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - the proposed easement is a critical part of the South East Halswell Waste Water Scheme in the Long Term Plan. 

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – the South East Halswell Waste Water Scheme cannot proceed without the easement.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – the South East Halswell Waste Water Scheme project will need to be removed from the Long Term Plan.

 

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - not applicable

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs for Nga Puna Wai Reserve are unchanged.

7.9       Funding source - South East Halswell Waste Water Scheme project 522/001457.  It is confirmed this is budgeted for and funding is available.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations 

7.11    As the easement is not approved, there are no known risks.

7.11.1 An alternative site will need to be identified and secured.

7.11.2 Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

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:

·   There will not be minor earthworks and temporary restrictions to the reserve.

·   The titles will not be further encumbered.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An alternative route will need to be secured.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - South East Halswell Wastewater Drawing 51-33204-SK500 Rev B

66

b

Attachment B - South East Halswell Wastewater Scheme Pressure Scheme Arrangement Drawing SK03

67

 

 

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

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

13.    19 Kirk Road - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Reference:

16/1303363

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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located at 19 Kirk Road in Templeton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  The proposed shelter was originally objected to by the property owner living adjacent to the existing bus stop at 19 Kirk Road.  In such cases where an objection has been made, the resolution requires a separate decision of a Council Hearings Panel that will hear the objections of the immediate owner(s) and occupier(s) of bordering properties.  However, the objection was verbally withdrawn the day prior to the sitting (Friday 9 September 2016) of the Hearings Panel.  The Hearings Panel noted a verbal withdrawal of the objection to the proposed shelter.  It was also noted that the objection referred to and opposed the marking of an existing and authorised bus stop at 19 Kirk Road, to which the Hearings Panel does not have delegated authority to make a decision on.

1.3       The Hearings Panel resolved to dismiss the objection in accordance with Section 339(5) of the Local Government Act, and referred the decision on the installation of the bus shelter to the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (now the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board). 

1.4       Where no objection to a shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, as is now the situation at 19 Kirk Road, the relevant community board 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 Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 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.         19 Kirk 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 19 Kirk Road, adjacent to an existing bus stop, as described in section 6 of this report.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing

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.

 

5.   Context/Background

Existing bus stop

5.1       The bus stop adjacent to 19 Kirk Road is an unmarked bus stop that has been in operation since 2001, when it was approved by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.  The length of the bus stop that was approved in 2001 measures 12 metres in length, as such it does not adhere to the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).  A separate bus stop parking restrictions report was submitted to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (meeting 13 September 2016) to approve the installation of the bus stop road markings to the recommended minimum bus stop length as outlined in the Bus Stop Guidelines.  An adjacent property owner objected to the marking of the bus stop, and that objection was presented as part of the bus stop parking restrictions report.  The objector was informed via the consultation letter and subsequent communication about requesting speaking rights, to make a deputation to the Community Board concerning the bus stop.  No deputation was made, and the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board accepted without change, the staff recommendation to mark the existing bus stop.  The approved road markings are awaiting installation.

5.2       As indicated in section 1.2, the proposed shelter was originally objected to.  However, the objection was verbally withdrawn the day prior to the sitting of the Hearings Panel.

Proposed bus passenger shelter

5.3       A bus passenger shelter is proposed for the bus stop presented in this report due to the average weekday passenger boardings (ave. pax/day) of March 2016, as indicated in the following list:

·   30 ave. pax/day = 19 Kirk Road

5.4       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.

5.5       The Christchurch City Council has received three requests by bus passengers for a shelter to be installed at the existing bus stop at 19 Kirk Road, since December 2015.

5.6       In March 2015, staff received a request by the then Riccarton/Wigram Community Board that a bus shelter be provided in Kirk Road, Templeton, in response to the request from the Templeton Residents’ Association.

5.7       Council staff propose to install a shelter in the location outlined in the attached bus passenger shelter plan (refer Attachment A). 

5.8       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.

5.9       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 installation.

5.10    Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties of 19 and 21 Kirk Road.  The consultation period occurred from Thursday 4 August 2016 to Thursday 18 August 2016.  During the consultation period feedback was received from the property owner of 19 Kirk Road. The reason for the objection is provided in section 6.4.  No objection has been received from the owner and/or occupier of 21 Kirk Road.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at 19 Kirk 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 the 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 owner/occupier of 19 Kirk Road, objected to the bus passenger shelter for the following reason:

·   “I would like the bus stop to be moved further from the Riwai Street Corner.  When drivers turn left from Riwai into Kirk Road, they have difficulty if the bus is parked at the bus stop.  Could it please be moved to outside the RSA.  I loose car parks in the present situation.”

6.5       It is possible that the potential issue of a bus parking too close to Riwai Street might be due to the bus stop currently being unmarked.  Currently, the bus drivers are provided with little guidance on exactly where to stop.  Installing road markings would provide guidance to the bus driver on where to stop.

6.6       With the proposed road markings (refer to section 5.2), the separation between the rear of a bus that has stopped and the intersection would measure about 13 metres.  In addition to the traffic engineering preference that bus stops are located to the left of an intersection, the 13 metre separation provides sufficient space for a vehicle turning left from Riwai Street, to safely manoeuvre around the bus.

6.7       The location of the bus stop adjacent to 19 Kirk Road does not negatively impact driver sightlines at the nearby street, Riwai Street.  A 10 year crash analysis study was undertaken of the intersection of Kirk Road with Riwai Street, using the New Zealand Transport Agency’s, Crash Analysis System.  No crashes were reported during the 10 year crash analysis period.  The existing bus stop is located on the left hand side of the intersection, which is the preferred location to site a bus stop.  Drivers approaching Kirk Road from Riwai Street, have a clear line of site to firstly observe if a vehicle is approaching from the right.  The geometry of the Kirk Road/ Riwai Street intersection allows for wide traffic lanes and large corning radii.  Such road geometry provides sufficient space for a vehicle to negotiate around a bus that has stopped, and sufficient space for a vehicle to safely judge if there is a gap in traffic approaching from the left.

6.8       The absence of crash records and the suitable road geometry does not indicate that this is an unsafe location to continue to operate as a bus stop.

6.9       The objector’s issue with the bus stop is not however an applicable reason for an objection to a bus passenger shelter.  The occupant of 19 Kirk Road will not be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter, and the shelter will not unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road.

6.10    As indicated in section 1.2, the objection was verbally withdrawn the day prior to the sitting of the Hearings Panel.

6.11    No objection has been received from the owner and/or occupier of 21 Kirk Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost to supply and install the one bus passenger shelter, plus additional bus stop upgrade work, will cost about $9,000. 

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

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

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

6.18    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

6.19    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Community Board.

6.20    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

6.21    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.

6.22    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 nothing

Option Description

7.1       No bus passenger shelter is installed at the location identified in section 3 of this report.

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       It does not assist the bus passengers and Templeton Residents’ Association, who have requested that a bus shelter be installed within this area of Kirk Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with the 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 - not applicable

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable

7.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The existing passenger waiting facilities remain, leading to no improvement in the level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

7.11    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

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages to this option.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is inconsistent with the Council's Plans and Policies.

·   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

19 Kirk Road - Bus Shelter Plan - For Approval

76

 

 

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  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

14.    Hornby and Riccarton Wards - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/1254690

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping Restrictions at five narrow road locations in the Hornby and Riccarton wards in accordance with Attachments A to E.

Origin of Report

1.2       These reports are staff generated in response to requests from residents.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles currently prohibited at any time on the south east side of Greenhurst Street commencing at its intersection with Epsom Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres, be revoked.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Greenhurst Street commencing at its intersection with Epsom Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 53 metres (refer Attachment A).

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Tensing Place commencing at a point 40 metres west of its intersection with Vicki Street and extending in a westerly then in a north westerly direction for a distance of 60 metres (refer Attachment B).

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Auburn Avenue commencing at its intersection with Tiora Place and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres (refer Attachment C).

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Tiora Place commencing at its intersection with Auburn Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres (refer Attachment C).

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Seton Street commencing at a point 24 metres north of its intersection with Kyle Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres (refer Attachment D).

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern and eastern sides of Brockworth Place commencing at a point 175 metres west of  its northern most intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly and then southerly direction for a distance of 34 metres (refer Attachment E).

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern and western sides of Brockworth Place commencing at a point 178 metres west of its northern most intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly and then southerly direction for a distance of 45 metres (refer Attachment E).

9.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern and eastern sides of Brockworth Place commencing at a point 135 metres west of its southern most intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly and then northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. (refer insert Attachment E).

10.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern and western sides of Brockworth Place commencing at a point 49 metres east of the no exit end of Brockworth Place adjacent to the railway line and extending in an easterly and then northerly direction for a distance of 25 metres. (refer insert Attachment E).

11.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles currently prohibited at any time on the south side of Brockworth Place commencing at a point 133 metres west of its southern most intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, be revoked.

12.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Brockworth Place commencing at a point 133 metres west of its southern most intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 29 metres (refer insert Attachment E).

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving  access and sightlines

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes car parking spaces

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       All of the following five locations (refer Attachments A to E) are either narrow roads or road narrowings which cannot accommodate parking on both sides of the particular section of road without severely affecting property access or vehicular through movements on the street. In some instances the design never intended for parking but no stopping restrictions were never installed because at the time there was not a demand for kerbside parking within these streets.

5.2       The Council traffic operations staff have been contacted by individual residents from all of the locations (refer Attachments A to E) asking that no stopping restrictions be installed to rectify their present situations by preventing parking in these locations to improve access along the street and to their properties.

5.3       Greenhurst Street (Attachment A) is 8.5 metres wide with old style dish channel, which brings the usable carriageway down to four metres if vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. Every day, staff from the Ford dealership park in this street restricting property access particularly to number 2/20 who have had several minor accidents exiting their property.

5.4       Tensing Place (Attachment B) is a longer cul-de-sac with a width of 7.5 metres. The resident at number 19 has requested that a no stopping restriction be installed on the bend on the northern side of the road to improve sight lines when negotiating the bend and improve access to the properties on the south side of the road. He has stated that the ambulance will not enter his property when attending to his elderly mother because it cannot easily turn in when vehicles are parked on both sides of the bend.

5.5       Tiora Place (Attachment C) is a short cul-de-sac only six metres wide and with dish channel. When vehicles park on both sides of the road, it leaves less than two metres of usable carriageway and prevents the through movement of vehicles. The resident at numbers 39 and 41 have contacted the Council requesting no stopping restrictions to maintain access to the end of the cul-de-sac at all times.

5.6       Seton Street (Attachment D) is a short seven metre wide cul-de-sac with dish channel. Recently the property located at number 3 Seton Street was redeveloped and six town houses were built. Occupiers of the units cannot turn right out of their vehicular entrance when vehicles are parked opposite without dropping off the bridge into the dish channel which damages their motor vehicles.

5.7       Brockworth Place (Attachment E) is a ‘C’ shaped crescent which has a cul-de-sac appendage off the bottom end of the ‘C’. Both the northern most and southern most bends are narrowed to nine metres and eight metres respectively. When people park on these bends access to properties and the sight lines to oncoming traffic are obstructed.

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

Option Description

6.1       Installing no stopping restrictions at the locations indicated in this report will prevent parking on sections of roadway and provide carriageway space for the safe movement of residential traffic, traffic servicing the residential areas and improve access to residential properties.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of these options is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3       These options do not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore these decisions do not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Affected property owners and residents were advised by letter of the recommended option. Only one response was received from the owner of number 2/20 Epsom Road, whose entrance is off Greenhurst Street. He supports the proposal.

6.5       Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation is approximately $300.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reducing the risk of a crash by improving sightlines and access to residential properties at locations indicated in Attachments A to E.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Maintain the status quo at locations indicated in Attachments A to E.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       These options do not involve significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore these decisions do not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The options are inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       The options are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the restricted sightlines at the locations indicated in Attachments A to E and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hornby and Riccarton Wards - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

82

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

15.    Nicholls Road/Rearsby Drive Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/1244253

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping Restrictions at the Nicholls Road and Rearsby Drive intersection (refer Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from a motorist concerned with the lack of visibility for drivers exiting from Rearsby Road onto Nicholls Road. 

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Rearsby Drive commencing at its intersection with Nicholls Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Rearsby Drive commencing at its intersection with Nicholls Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Nicholls Road commencing at its intersection with Rearsby Drive and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Nicholls Road commencing at its intersection with Rearsby Drive and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

 

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There has been a concern raised by a member of the public regarding the operation of the Rearsby Drive and Nicholls Road intersection.  The intersection is a priority controlled T intersection, with Nicholls Road forming the through route.

5.2       From the Rearsby Drive limit position, for motorists wanting to turn onto Nicholls Road, the visibility can be limited by parked vehicles on Nicholls Road near the intersection.  

5.3       Some long term parking demands in this location may be generated by commuter parking associated with the Halswell Shopping Centre.  There are occasional high parking demands in this location for short to medium term parking associated with the Judo school opposite and the church to the west. 

 


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Install No Stopping Restrictions on the Nicholls Road and Rearsby Drive intersection approaches, as shown on Attachment A.  6.2          The option would theoretically remove space for five parking spaces.  Parking demands are such that the displaced parking can be accommodated on-street within a small distance from the intersection. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       This option was initiated by a member of the community. 

6.6       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by letter.  One response was received and did not raise any concerns with the proposal. The submitter commented on the short term parking created by parents picking up students from the Judo school.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $300

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

6.10    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

6.11    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.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduces on-street car parking

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the restricted sight lines at the intersection and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Nicholls Road/Rearsby Drive Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Layout Plan

92

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

16.    Proposed Halswell Area Speed Limit Changes

Reference:

16/1370137

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s recommendation to the Council that it approve the proposed speed limit changes in the Halswell Ward.

Origin of Report

1.2       At its meeting on 8 September 2016, the Council approved a number of speed limit changes in the Riccarton/Wigram Ward.  Following advice from staff and recommendations from the Community Board, the Council resolved:

That staff undertake additional consultation on a further reduced speed limit for Halswell Junction Road, Quaifes Road, Marshs Road and Whincops Road (west of Marshs Road) and Sparks Road, and report back to the Community Board by the end of December 2016.

1.3       This report makes a recommendation on changes to speed limits following consultation on changes to proposed speed limits as directed above. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the scale of the impacts and the number of people affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.1 to 1.18 and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

1.1       Revoke that the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in an north westerly direction to a point 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76). 

1.2       Approve that the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in a north westerly direction to its intersection with Denali Street. 

1.3       Approve that the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Denali Street and extending in an north westerly direction to a point 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76). 

 

1.4       Revoke that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

1.5       Revoke that the speed limit on Marshs Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of Main South Road (SH1) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres north of Whincops Road.

1.6       Approve that the speed limit on Marshs Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of the Main South Road (SH1) and extending in a south easterly direction to its intersection with Springs Road.

1.7       Approve that the speed limit on Marshs Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Springs Road and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres north of Whincops Road.

1.8       Revoke that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sabys Road and extending in a north westerly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Whincops Road.

1.9       Approve that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sabys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 770 metres.

1.10    Approve that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 770 metres north west of its intersection with Sabys Road and extending in a north westerly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Whincops Road.

1.11    Revoke that the speed limit on Milns Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sparks Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres. 

1.12    Revoke that the speed limit on Sutherlands Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour.

1.13    Approve that the speed limit on Sutherlands Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sparks Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 170 metres. 

1.14    Approve that the speed limit on Sutherlands Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Cashmere Road and extending in a northerly direction to a point 170 metres south of Sparks Road. 

1.15    Revoke that the speed limit on Sparks Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) to a point measured 45 metres east of MacArtney Avenue. 

1.16    Revoke that the speed limit on Sparks Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 45 metres east of MacArtney Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to a point 50 metres south west of Hendersons Road. 

1.17    Approve that the speed limit on Sparks Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 980 metres. 

1.18    Approve that the speed limit on Sparks Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 980 metres north east of its intersection with Halswell Road and extending in a north easterly direction to a point 50 metres southwest of Hendersons Road. 

2.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.1 to 1.18 come into force on 1 April 2017. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Set Speeds in Accordance with the Consultation Proposal

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supported by the community

·     Speed limits are set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the roads

·     Reduced potential for crashes and the high severity injuries

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Longer travel times

 

5.   Context/Background

Review Overview

5.1       Earlier in the year, staff reviewed speed limits on a number of roads city-wide.  The last review of speed limits occurred in 2014.  There has been substantial residential and commercial green field growth since the previous review, which in turn has altered travel patterns.  A total of 31 proposed speed limit changes were consulted on from 31 May to 21 June 2016, of which a number were in the former Riccarton/Wigram ward area. 

5.2       The Council subsequently approved all proposed speed limit changes in the Riccarton/Wigram ward.  However, a number of affected parties sought further reductions than those that were proposed and approved.  This resulted in the Board making a recommendation to the Council to further reduce speed limits on a number of roads. The Council resolved that staff undertake further consultation on lower speed limits in the Halswell area before a decision is made. 

5.3       Following the Council’s resolution, staff initially consulted with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Selwyn District Council (SDC) on the speed limit reductions sought by the Board.  SDC opposed speed limit changes in Marshs Road and Whincops Road, of which portions are on the boundary between SDC and Christchurch City Council.  CCC is not in a position to change a speed limit on a boundary road without the consent of the adjoining road controlling authority. This requires a decision from both authorities to have legal effect. 

5.4       Attachment A shows the streets that were part of the subsequent Proposed Speed Limit Changes Halswell Consultation, which are discussed in further detail below. 

Marshs Road

5.5       Marshs Road is a relatively narrow rural road that provides a connection between Templeton and Halswell.  It is anticipated that traffic will grow on this route with ongoing development within the Longhurst and Knights Stream subdivisions and development of the Southern Motorway Stage 2 extension (SME Stage 2). 

5.6       The speed limit on the road was reduced from 100 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour in 2015.  This was part of a wider set of speed limit reductions within the general area.  SDC made similar changes at the time that created a cohesive 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on the rural periphery roads generally between Halswell and Prebbleton.   

5.7       The consultation proposal reduces the speed limit on Marshs Road from 80 kilometres per hour to 70 kilometres per hour on the section between Springs Road and Whincops Road.  This is the only section of Marshs Road that does not have a shared boundary with SDC.  There have been no recent changes to land use on this section of the road.  However, there are several bends centrally within this road section that make the operating speed lower than the present speed limit for much of this road section. 

Halswell Junction Road

5.8       To the north west of Halswell, Halswell Junction Road historically formed the rural/urban boundary of the city.   The Longhurst subdivision has now introduced residential development on the south western side of the previously rural section of Halswell Junction Road. 

5.9       In 2015, the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road within Halswell, was extended northwest as far as Wigram Road to encompass the section of road that was reconstructed as part of the Longhurst subdivision. 

5.10    A further section of Halswell Junction Road, north west of Wigram Road, has now been reconstructed as part of the subdivision.  Accordingly, as part of the 2016 speed limit review the Council approved a further extension of the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit as far as the Southern Motorway. 

5.11    Several affected parties sought to lower the speed limit of Halswell Junction Road to 50 kilometres per hour as part of their submission on the proposed 60 kilometres per hour speed limit extension. 

5.12    The section of Halswell Junction Road from Halswell Road (SH75) to Murphys Road is within an established residential area and historically had a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour.  The speed limit was increased to 60 kilometres per hour in 1999, as part of a wider rationalisation of speed limits in the area.  One of the reasons for increasing the speed limit of the Halswell Junction Road at the time was because motorists were generally travelling faster than the speed limit, noting that the road is unusually wide and unconstrained for an urban arterial road. 

5.13    Under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule (the Rule), the calculated speed on Halswell Junction Road from Murphys Road to the Southern Motorway remains at 80 kilometres per hour, including allowance for planned but incomplete development. 

5.14    There is essentially no roadside development on the section of Halswell Junction Road between Denali Street and the Southern Motorway.  There have been no subdivision works on this section of the road and hence it retains its rural character.  There is no justification for setting the speed limit of this section at 50 kilometres per hour.  This section will be significantly impacted by the construction of the SME Stage 2, which will involve reconstruction of Halswell Junction Road from the existing Southern Motorway to near McTeigue Road. 

5.15    The section of Halswell Junction Road between McTeigue Road and Murphys Road is more consistent with the established residential section than the rural section toward the Southern Motorway.  Consequently, if the speed limit for the urban section of the road becomes 50 kilometres per hour, then this speed limit should be applied consistently across the full urban section of the road from Denali Street to Halswell Road. 

Quaifes Road

5.16    Quaifes Road forms the southern frontage to the Longhurst subdivision at the Whincops Road end. Much of the frontage to the subdivision is used for stormwater retention, so the road itself is separated from the actual development.  There is an area of established low density residential properties at the Sabys Road end of the road.  The mid-section and southern side of the road provides access to rural residential properties.  There has been a noticeable increase in use of the road by recreational cyclists and pedestrians following the development of the Longhurst Subdivision.  The road has a narrow carriageway, just sufficient to cater for two lanes of traffic. 

5.17    Prior to 2015, the speed limit of the road was predominantly 100 kilometres per hour, with the Sabys Road end having a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.  In 2015 the speed limit of the 100 kilometres per hour section of the road was reduced to 80 kilometres per hour. 

5.18    Observations with a speed radar gun in July 2016 indicated that average travel speeds on the least developed section of the road were 73 kilometres per hour.  This supports a 70 kilometres per hour speed limit. 

5.19    As part of the 2016 speed limit review, the Board sought that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be reduced to 70 kilometres per hour. On review, staff considered that it would be more appropriate to extend the 50 kilometres per hour speed limit of Sabys Road through the low density residential area at the south eastern end of the street rather than propose a 70 kilometres per hour speed limit along the entire length of the road.  Consequently, a combination of a 70 kilometres per hour and 50 kilometres per hour speed limit was consulted on for the road. 

Sparks Road/Sutherlands Road/Milns Road

5.20    Presently, the speed limit on Sparks Road is 60 kilometres per hour from Halswell Road to MacArtney Avenue, a distance of around 500 metres.  From here the speed limit increases to 80 kilometres per hour.  The intersection of Sparks Road and Sutherlands Road and Milns Road is some 300 metres inside the 80 kilometres per hour section of Sparks Road.  It is desirable to include the Sparks Road/Milns Road/Sutherlands Road within the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit area for the following reasons:

5.20.1 Houses within the Halswell on the Park subdivision back onto Sparks Road as far as the Milns Road intersection.  The Milns Road/Sutherlands Road intersection hence more accurately represents the urban/rural boundary which is reflected by the 60/80 kilometres per hour change point.

5.20.2 It would be desirable to locate a strong speed threshold on this section of Sparks Road due the transition of a high volume of traffic entering a suburban area at high speed.  It would be significantly more practical to construct a threshold on Sparks Road north east of Milns Road due to the lack of intersection markings, overhanging trees and other constraints present southwest of Milns Road. 

5.20.3 There is a limited sight distance for traffic turning from Milns Road onto Sparks Road, due to  the Milns Road approach being on the inside of a bend.  Due to the present location of the speed limit, vehicles city bound on Sparks Road tend to be accelerating on the approach to and through the Milns Road intersection.  This makes it difficult for drivers on Milns Road to perceive suitable gaps in the traffic before turning onto Sparks Road.  Whilst accelerating, drivers may also be slow to react to a potential vehicle conflict at the intersection. 

5.21    The above matters support the relocation of the 60/80 kilometres per hour speed limit change point on Sparks Road to the northeast of Milns Road/Sutherlands Road.  By making this change it would be logical to extend the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit a short distance on Sutherlands Road to encompass the pocket of low density residential properties near the intersection. 

6.   Option 1 – Set Speed Limits in Accordance with Consultation Proposal

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option involves changing speed limits in accordance with the consultation proposal, as described above and indicated in Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

General

6.4       The Council consulted on six proposed speed limit changes in the Halswell area as a result of concerns about speed limits on some roads in the area.  A consultation leaflet was posted or hand delivered to 910 property and business owners, residents and other key stakeholders.  It was also emailed to residents and community groups, and posted on the Council’s Have Your Say website.

6.5       In total, 162 individuals or organisations sent feedback on the six proposals. These indicated 77 to 91 per cent support for the proposed speed limit reductions at the six locations, as shown in the table below. Some respondents suggested further adjustments to the speed limits.

6.6       Responses to proposed speed limit changes in Halswell area. 

Road

Location

Current Speed

Proposed Speed

Generally support

Do not generally support

Halswell Junction Road

Halswell Road NW to Denali Street

60km/h

50km/h

119 (77%)

36 (23%)

Quaifes Road

Sabys Road NW for 770m

80km/h

50km/h

128 (87%)

19 (13%)

Quaifes Road

770m NW of Sabys Road to 100m SE of Whincops Road

80kmh

70km/h

134 (91%)

14 (9%)

Marshs Road

Springs Road to 100m NW of Whincops Road

80km/h

70km/h

125 (86%)

21 (14%)

Sparks Road

MacArtney Avenue to 150m NE of Milns Road

80km/h

60km/h

127 (84%)

24 (16%)

Sutherlands Road

Sparks Road south for 170m

80km/h

60km/h

124 (88%)

17 (12%)

 

6.7       The NZTA has indicated its general support for the proposal. 

6.8       The Halswell Residents’ Association supported all six proposals but expressed disappointment that the proposed 50 kilometres per hour change on Halswell Junction Road had not continued beyond Denali Street, and no change had been proposed for Nicholls Road. It requested that the Council implement further speed limit reductions at sites the Residents’ Association had already identified on Halswell Junction Road, Nicholls Road, Cashmere Road, Kennedys Bush Road and Halswell Road.

6.9       The New Zealand Automobile Association’s Canterbury West Coast District said it generally supported the Council’s speed limit proposals in Halswell but queried the three varying speeds in the area. Six other respondents called for more consistency in speed limits in Halswell.

6.10    Three submitters opposed any changes to the six proposed speed limits saying these would hinder traffic flow in the area.

Halswell Junction Road from Halswell Road northwest to Denali Street

 

6.11    Of the 155 respondents who provided feedback on reducing the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour, 77 per cent generally supported the proposal. Some commented that many vehicles currently travel at 70 kilometres per hour and a 50 kilometres per hour speed limit would increase safety on the increasingly busy road.

6.12    Some of those who opposed reducing the existing speed limit said Halswell Junction Road functioned as a ring road and provided quick easy and efficient travel for people coming off the motorway and travelling to Halswell. 

6.13    Four submitters commented that the proposed 50 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road should be extended from Denali Street to the Southern Motorway.  The Council’s project team says there is essentially no roadside development in this location and it retains its rural character.  It does not consider that a 50 kilometres per hour speed limit in this section is justified.  Further, the requests to extend the proposed 50 kilometres per hour zone are offset by the 36 respondents seeking the retention of the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road. 

Quaifes Road

6.14    Eighty seven per cent of the 147 respondents who commented on the section of Quaifes Road, from Sabys Road northwest for 770 metres, generally supported the proposed reduction in the speed limit from 80 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour. Of the 148 submitters who commented on reducing the speed limit from 80 kilometres per hour to 70 kilometres per hour on Quaifes Road from 770 metres northwest of Sabys Road to 100 metres southwest of Whincops Road, 91 per cent generally supported the proposal.

6.15    Submitters noted that the volume of traffic, including trucks, had significantly increased on Quaifes Road which was narrow and often damaged at the edges. Further suggestions included a painted centre line, footpath and better maintenance to ensure signage is not obscured by vegetation.

6.16    With plans for a school on the corner of Murphys and Quaifes Roads and the current condition of the road, one submitter commented that the whole of Quaifes Road should be 50 kilometres per hour, or no more than 60 kilometres per hour. One particular hazard was a bend towards the Port Hills that many drivers approached in the centre of the road.

Marshs Road from Springs Road to 100 metres northwest of Whincops Road

6.17    Of the 146 submitters who commented on the proposed reduction in the speed limit from 80 kilometres per hour to 70 kilometres per hour on this section of Marshs Road, 86 per cent indicated their support. One submitter commented that the road between Whincops Road and Springs Road was very dangerous at both bends.

Sparks Road/Sutherlands Road/Milns Road intersection and approaches

6.18    A number of the 151 submitters on the Sparks Road proposal, from MacArtney Avenue to 150 metres northeast of Milns Road, said they had significant safety concerns about the current speed limit. Eight one per cent supported the proposed speed reduction to 60 kilometres per hour.

6.19    Feedback relating to a similar 20 kilometres per hour reduction in the speed limit on Sutherlands Road from Sparks Road south for 170 metres, to 60 kilometres per hour, reflected safety concerns relating to the Sparks Road/Milns Road/Sutherlands Road intersection generally.  Of the 141 who commented on this proposal, 88 per cent generally supported the lower speed limit.

6.20    According to drivers, those attempting to pull out from Milns Road onto Sparks Road had to look right 100 degrees and simultaneously 120 degrees left as they start to move and were unable to see speeding drivers around the bend, or even on the bend. The speed limit reduction would make the intersection safer. 

6.21    Several cyclists pointed out that lower speed limits would also make it safer for cyclists to travel on these roads to local facilities and shops.  One submitter commented that a 60 kilometres per hour speed limit along Sparks Road should be extended to the Hendersons Road roundabout. Another commented that many cyclists used this road and the existing 80 kilometres per hour was dangerous.  It is noted that the Quarrymans Trail (consultation closed on 10 November 2016) will provide a high quality cycle connection along this section of Sparks Road. 

Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.23    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $1,000 to revise speed limit signage

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

6.25    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

6.26    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 and subsequent amendments. 

6.27    Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 provides the Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.28    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits. 

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.30    None identified

Implementation

6.31    Implementation dependencies – Council approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.33    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supported by the community

·   Reduced potential for crashes and high severity injuries

·   Proposed speed limits supported by community

6.34    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Longer travel times

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing speed limits.  

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community feedback on proposed changes. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    None identified

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies – Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains existing travel times

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not have the potential to improve road safety

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Halswell - Consultation Plan

103

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Jennie Hamilton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

17.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Youth Development Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Simon Lancaster, Nathaniel Ataera and Aimee Ataera

Reference:

16/1390248

Contact:

Emily Toase

emily.toase@ccc.govt.nz

941 5216

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton to consider three applications received for funding from the Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $2008 remaining in this fund. If the staff recommendations are adopted a balance of $708 would remain. 

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Board consider applications for funding from Simon Lancaster, Nathaniel Ataera and Aimee Ataera.

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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $300 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Simon Lancaster towards competing in the National Secondary Schools Mixed Touch Tournament in Auckland from 8 to 11 December 2016. 

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Nathaniel Ataera towards his participation in The Hub tour team travelling to Germany from 17 January to 14 March 2017.

3.         Approve the making of a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Aimee Ataera towards her participation in The Hub tour team travelling to Germany from 17 January to 14 March 2017.

 

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Simon Lancaster

4.1       Simon Lancaster is a 17 year old Lincoln High School student from Hornby.

4.2       Simon has been selected to compete in the National Secondary Schools Tournament in Auckland in December 2016, representing the Lincoln High School Mixed Touch team.

4.3       Simon trialled for the team at the start of the year and has been training with them since. He has also been selected for Lincoln High School’s First 15 for Rugby Union for the last two years, competing in the University of Canterbury Championship. 

4.4       Simon trains three times a week with his Lincoln High School Mixed Touch team as well as playing for his club team Turtles on Wednesdays in the Prebbleton Touch Module run by Touch Canterbury. He also enjoys playing tennis at representative level and referees Touch Rugby in his spare time.

4.5       In going to the National Secondary Schools Tournament, Simon hopes to be seen by selectors for New Zealand Touch and aspires to be selected for the Canterbury Open Mixed Touch Team.

4.6       To fundraise for the tour, Simon has helped to organise and run two quiz nights on 2 and 28 November 2016.

4.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Simon:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return Airfare to Auckland

$320

Accommodation (including breakfast and dinner)

$320

Transport (to and from the touch venue)

$110

Food (lunches)

$50

Tournament Entry Fee

$30

Clothing

$140

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$970

 

4.8    This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

5.   Applicant 2 – Nathaniel Ataera

5.1       Nathaniel is a 21 year old who lives in Halswell.  He has been selected to be part of a team of 14 dancers aged 18 to 23 year old from New Zealand, to tour Germany as part of The Hub.   They will be in Germany from 17 January to 14 March 2017 as part of their eight week tour, and performing in schools, youth venues and churches.  The show includes music and song, dance and Maori and Polynesian cultural items. 

5.2       The concert is called “Far From Home” and the theme is focussed on the refugee situation and the challenge it presents communities to reach out with compassion to those who have been forced from their homeland.  The team’s aim is to go over and reassure them that a multicultural society is not something to fear and to encourage them to be generous in their outlook and continue to help.  The tour team will also be promoting a new performing arts school, The Hub Akademie, which will be opening in Hamburg in 2018.

5.3       The group practice regularly via Skype because the group is around the country and Aimee and Nathaniel are based in Christchurch.   Aimee and Nathaniel also fly to Auckland once a month to practice.

5.4       Nathaniel finished high school and then graduated from the Excel School of Performing Arts in 2014 in Auckland and went on to tour New Zealand with The Hub.  He is currently doing a building apprenticeship in Christchurch.  Nathaniel and Aimee were recently married.

5.5       His long term goals are to become a builder and a policeman, open up a studio and teach dance and to travel the world.  Nathaniel enjoys keeping fit, building, dancing and doing art.

5.6       Each member is required to raise $5,500 to cover their costs.  The team are being billeted out by churches and other organisations within Germany to help keep the costs down.  Nathaniel has been selling chocolate bars, doing quiz nights, sausage sizzles and selling roses at the Riccarton Market to raise funds.  He has raised $2,000 so far.

5.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Nathaniel:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

$2,800

Travel Insurance

$300

Accommodation between billeting

$1,000

Travel in Germany

$1,000

Gear hire contribution

$400

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$5,500

 

5.8       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

6.   Applicant 3 – Aimee Ataera

6.1       Aimee is a 22 year old who lives in Halswell.  She has been selected to be part of a team of 14 dancers aged 18 to 23 years old from New Zealand, to tour Germany as part of The Hub, along with Nathaniel. 

6.2       Aimee graduated from the Excel School of Performing Arts in Auckland in 2014, where she met The Hub team.  She then toured around New Zealand performing with them.  Aimee and Nathaniel were recently married.

6.3       Aimee hopes to be a positive influence on German people living in a changing environment and to make a difference to the lives of Syrians.  She is also hoping to develop her skills and talents in dance.  Aimee is currently training to be a nurse in Christchurch.  She also wants to teach dance to young people in Christchurch to help them express emotions and tell a story.

6.4       Aimee has been teaching Zumba classes, selling chocolate bars, sausage sizzles, selling roses at the Riccarton Market and has opened a Givealittle page for donations.  She has raised $2,000 so far. 

6.5       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Aimee:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

$2,800

Travel Insurance

$300

Accommodation between billeting

$1,000

Travel in Germany

$1,000

Gear hire contribution

$400

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$5,500

 

6.6       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

18.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2016-17 - Board Applications

Reference:

16/1224690

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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider  applications for the allocation of funding from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund as below:

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00055453

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

2017 ANZAC Day Expenses

$1,200

00055454

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Engaging with the Community

$2,500

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Board to consider applications for funding from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for its two remaining Board projects for 2016/17.

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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to :

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $1,200 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2016-17 towards 2017 ANZAC Day expenses.

2.         Approves the making of a grant of $2,500 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2016-17 towards engaging with the community.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2016-17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$35,997

$0

$35,997

$32,297

 

4.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the applications listed above are eligible for funding.

4.3       The Decision Matrix (refer Attachment A) provides detailed information on the applications  including organisational and project details, financial information, and a staff assessment.

4.4       The two projects are among those t identified by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board for funding at its meeting on 19 April 2016.  Due to the nature and timing of the two projects it is appropriate that these applications now be considered by the current Board.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Discretionary Response Fund 2016-17 Board Applications - Decision Matrix

111

 

 

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

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

19     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund 2016-17 - Establishment of Fund

Reference:

16/1224509

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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider approving the establishment of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund 2016-17.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is generated to enable the Board to consider the criteria and decision making process for the Off the Ground Fund that was established by the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.

1.3       A budget of $1,600 remains available to support applications received over the remainder of the 2016-17 financial year. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the fact that funding allocations from the Board's Off the Ground Fund are derived from an allocation made from its Discretionary Response Fund for which it has the delegated authority.  Input into funding allocations are not sought from the community.

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve:               

1.         To establish the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund 2016/17 and its associated criteria.

2.         To delegate authority to a minimum of four (4) Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members to consider and make decisions (via email) on applications received according to the fund criteria and approve grants up to a maximum of $400 per application. (the majority vote of members replying (by email) within two (2) working days shall form the basis of the decision).

3.         Staff will advise the Board for information and record purposes on all application decisions.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Grants

·     Level of Service: 2.3.4 Effectively manage and administer all other grant funds under management.

4.2       The following options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Establish the 2016/17 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do not establish an Off The Ground Fund

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of Option 1 include:

·     This is the preferred option because it enables the Board to fund small initiatives and projects within its community on a timely basis. Individuals will be able to apply for funding for small local projects that they cannot apply for under the Discretionary Response Fund.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of Option 1 include:

·     Successful grant recipients will be required to fund the costs of the project before the grant is paid out.  This financial burden may preclude some individuals and/or groups from applying if they do not have the financial resources to outlay the required funds to make the project happen.

 

5.   Context/Background

Intent of the Fund

5.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the criteria for the Off the Ground Fund that provides the community with access to small grants as seed funding for small community projects. This has been a previous Board’s initiative, based on similar funds established by the former Spreydon/Heathcote and Hagley/Ferrymead Community Boards. Funding for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund has been sourced from the Board's Discretionary Response Fund. 

5.2       The Off the Ground Fund acts as a quick response fund in allocating grants for small community projects.  The grant purpose is to benefit people living in the ward and may include such things as planting vacant land, tidying up vacant areas, constructing small local commemorations, community building events, skip days, displays and activities which aim to bring communities together, inform communities and strengthen communities.

Criteria and Processes

5.3       The following criteria and processes for the Riccarton/Wigram Off the Ground Fund were approved by the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board in November 2015, as follows:

5.3.1   The Fund is designed to provide the community with access to small grants for small community projects.

5.3.2   The project must benefit people living in the Riccarton/Wigram Ward.

5.3.3   Applications are to be made on a Riccarton/Wigram Off The Ground Fund Application Form.  An information sheet will be designed to publicise the Fund.

5.3.4   Applications must be applied for by one resident, group or organisation, providing contact details, location of the project and a short description of what the project will involve.  Funding will not be considered for projects already undertaken.

5.3.5   Funding may be granted up to a maximum of $400 per application.

5.3.6   Grant requests will be administered through the Council’s Riccarton/Wigram Community Governance Team.  Staff recommendations and a copy of the application will be circulated by email to Community Board members for consideration and decision making.

5.3.7   The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will delegate authority for making the decision on the allocation of the grants to at least three (3) Riccarton/Wigram Community Board members by way of email.  The majority view of Board members responding within two working days.

5.3.8   Successful projects will be funded after receipts of expenditure have been submitted.  Expenditure must be made after the application for funding is made. 

5.3.9   All applications will still have to meet the criteria requirements of the Discretionary  Response Fund.

5.4       There is a need to approve the criteria due to a change in membership of the current Community Board.  Additionally, the Community Board may wish to change one or more of the criteria listed above.

5.5       One criteria that has been identified by staff that is listed as 5.3.8 above – "Successful projects will be funded after receipts of expenditure have been submitted.  Expenditure must be made after the application for funding is made."  This has been identified by community feedback as making access to the fund prohibitive for individuals and organisations that do not have up to $400 available to spend on the project until reimbursement is made.

Previous Funding

5.6       The former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board allocated $5,000 to the 2015/16 Off The Ground Fund. Established in November 2015, the Board made seven grants totalling $2,490.

5.7       The previous Board allocated $1,600 to the 2016 Off the Ground Fund in August 2016.  This allocation was made to cover the period for any applications that may have been made up to the installation of the new Board.  There were no applications received during this period and accordingly, the $1,600 balance has been assigned to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund 2016/17.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Establishment of the 2016/17 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will establish the 2016/17 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund to provide the community with access to small grants as seed funding for small community projects derived from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

The criteria for funding and the decision making process will be as follows:

6.1.1   The Board intends to establish the 2016/17 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund.

6.1.2   The purpose of the Fund is to provide the community with access to small grants for small community projects.

6.1.3   The project must benefit people living in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards.

6.1.4   Applications are to be made on a Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund Application Form.  An information sheet will be designed to publicise the Fund.

6.1.5   Applications must be applied for by one resident, group or organisation, providing contact details, location of the project and a short description of what the project will involve.  Funding will not be considered for projects already undertaken.

6.1.6   Funding may be granted for each application up to a maximum of $400.

6.1.7   Grant requests will be administered through the Council’s Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Team.  Staff recommendations and a copy of the application will be circulated (by email) to Board members for consideration and decision making.

6.1.8   The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will delegate authority for making the decision on the allocation of the grants to at least four (4) Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members by way of email responses with the majority view being actioned from Board members responding within two working days.

6.1.9   Successful projects will be funded after receipts of expenditure have been submitted.  Expenditure must be made after the application for funding is made.  However, if an applicant wishes to have the granted amount made available, after the decision, but prior to expenditure, this request should be made at the time of application.

6.1.10 All applications will still have to meet the criteria requirements of the Discretionary   Response Fund.

6.2       Details of grant allocations made will be provided to the Board for information and record  purposes.

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

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       Not Applicable

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6.1   Cost of Implementation - $1,600 from the previous 2016 Off The Ground Fund allocation to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund.

6.6.2   Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Nil

6.6.3   Funding source – $1,600 already allocated.

Legal Implications

6.7       The decision-making authority will be as follows:

6.8       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will delegate authority for making the decision on the allocation of a grant(s) to at least four (4) Board members by way of email.  The majority view being actioned from the Board members responding within two working days.

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       No risks have been identified arising from this option.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies - All applications granted funding will need to meet the Discretionary Response Fund criteria which was resolved by the Council.  The items that a local Discretionary Response Fund does not cover are:

6.10.1 Activities or initiatives where the primary purpose is to promote religious ministry, political objectives or commercial profit orientated interests

6.10.2 Projects or initiatives that will lead to ongoing operational costs to the Christchurch City Council

6.10.3 Debt servicing or re-financing costs

6.10.4 Stock or capital market investment

6.10.5 Gambling or prize money

6.10.6 Payment of fines or court costs

6.10.7 Payment for IRD penalties or retrospective tax payments 

6.11    Implementation timeframe - This will apply for any applications for funding that are received within the 2016/17 financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    This is the preferred option because it enables the Board to fund small initiatives and projects within the community on a timelier basis. All applications will still have to meet the criteria requirements of the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund.

6.13    Individuals will be able to apply for funding for small local projects that they cannot apply as individuals for under the Discretionary Response Fund.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is dependent on the ability of four Board members being able to respond within a two business day time frame.

7.   Option 2 - Do not establish a 2016/17 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund

Option Description

7.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board may choose not to establish a 2016/17 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund.

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 not applicable.

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 consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.8       Funding source - Nil

Legal Implications

7.9       No legal implications have been identified arising from this option.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    No risks have been identified arising from this option.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    This is not the preferred option because the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board had previously indicated a desire to have such a fund.

7.14    The disadvantage in selecting this option is that individuals who wish to organise an initiative that is of benefit to the community cannot do so unless they find an organisation to make a Discretionary Response Fund application on their behalf.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

20     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2016-17

Reference:

16/1335979

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve delegation arrangements for the making of any required decisions (including applications for funding) that would otherwise be dealt with by the Board, covering the period following its final scheduled meeting for the year on 13 December 2016 until its next ordinary meeting on 14 February 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected 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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Appoint a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson and any two Board members available, to be authorised to exercise the delegated powers of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for the period following its ordinary meeting on 13 December 2016 up until the Board resumes normal business on 14 February 2017.

2.         That the any such delegation exercised by the Board’s Recess Committee be reported to the Board for record purposes.

3.         Note that any meeting convened of the Recess Committee will be publically notified and details forwarded to all Board members.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       In previous years, it has been the practice of the Board  to provide delegated authority to a Recess Committee comprising the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and one other member available (or their nominees from the Board), to make any needed decisions on the Board’s behalf during the Christmas/New Year holiday period.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

21.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - December 2016

Reference:

16/1373337

Contact:

Matthew McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5008

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Update from Peter Dow – Community Board Adviser

1.1.1   Board Meetings – February 2017

The Board is asked to make a decision on the dates and time for its meetings in February 2017.

The dates proposed are Tuesday 14 February 2017 and Tuesday 28 February 2017,
at 4.30pm in the Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.

A schedule of proposed Board meeting dates for the remainder of 2017 will be presented for a Board decision in due course. 

1.2       Update from Karla Gunby - Community Development Adviser

1.2.1   On Saturday 26 November 2016, the Te Hapua: Halswell Centre first year anniversary went well with 2052 customers through the library gates, which does not include the pool entry.  The activities were well attended.  The tours were a successful part of the day with 14 attending the Filipino tour.

1.2.2   I attended a planning meeting with the Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust.  After working with 180 Degrees Consultancy, they plan to release its new 126 On The Corner branding next year, with an up-to-date brochure.  A community mural is planned to put on the side of the wall facing the street.   They also have new chairs.  The funding for the chairs and mural was from the Rata Foundation.

1.2.3   At the recent 126 On The Corner Friday Monthly Luncheon, 99 people attended for the end of year free community meal.   For the past three months the number of people attending has been over 60.

1.2.4   Hei Hei Broomfield Community Trust are meeting with the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) to assist them with labour on their upcoming earthquake strengthening and building expansion.  They hope to complete the project this year with minimal disruption to the community groups.

1.2.5   I met with a sign company to upgrade the Harvard Lounge noticeboard with combination locks instead of keys as part of the Community Board’s ward enhancement projects.  By changing the locks, groups can have regular access to put up their community notices.  It will also be painted and upgraded with Council signage.

1.2.6   I met with the team from Can Do Catering, based at the Laura Ferguson Trust (Ilam Road, Burnside).  This is an emerging social enterprise that does a wide range of catering, employing people with a brain-injury.   I am seeing how we can use them for a wider range of Council events as a preferred provider. 

1.2.7   Results from the Halswell Doorknock – September and October 2016:

·     4,711 homes visited in the area, with a total of 1,551 people spoken to. Areas covered were Oaklands, Westlake, Aidanfield, Halswell on the Park, Halswell (older Halswell by the school).

·     Of those spoken to, there were 24 households requiring follow-ups, 20 of these were earthquake related; residents were still living in houses that are going to be demolished due to damage.  Not all of these people required support as they were just continuing on through the process.  A number of these houses are in the Sabys Road and Halswell Junction Road areas. 

·     Of the houses visited it was clearly visible 58 houses were empty or getting earthquake repairs. 

·     The Door Knocker volunteers came across many lonely people, two people with recent bereavements and families still dealing with earthquake stresses. 

·     There was a large number of older non-english speaking residents at home during the day, especially in the newer areas of Aidanfield and the new homes off Templeton Road. 

·     Residents who identified themselves as new to the area will be revisited by a person from the Halswell Community Project with a welcome bag.  Along with the Christchurch Community Response pamphlet, the Halswell Community Project pamphlet was delivered to all houses.  This had specific local information and links to the Halswell Facebook page, website and newsletter.

1.3       Update from Marie Byrne - Community Development Adviser

1.3.1   I attended the 20th Birthday luncheon for Community Development Network (CDN) Trust.  It was uplifting to see young people who had been recipients of the programme over the years, giving back by volunteering and helping the youth of today.

1.3.2   Along with other Community Support and Governance staff, I have been involved in undertaking Emergency Operations Centre shifts providing support for the Kaikoura and North Canterbury communities. 

1.3.3   I have met with Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library trustees and committee members along with social researcher Sarah Wylie to discuss the generation of a feasibility study.  This is following through from an earlier on-site meeting that was held with the library and some Board members.

1.4       Update from Emily Toase - Community Recreation Adviser

1.4.1   I worked with the Te Hāpua team to deliver Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre One Year Anniversary Day on 26 November 2016. I organised a group of Hip Hop dancers from the Halswell School to perform on the day and gave out free pool passes to promote the facility.

1.4.2   I am working with the Community Recreation Advisors team to develop a plan for the Activating Parks project. The project is aimed at getting more people using the Council’s open spaces and making it easier to run community events and activities.

1.4.3   I have been involved with helping at the Emergency Operation Centres providing support to staff on duty and assisting with the people evacuated from Kaikoura.

1.4.4   The Get Set Go workshop was developed with Wellington City Council in 2000, for community groups running recreation programmes and events. I have been working with other Community Recreation Advisors to review the workshop and update the resources. I have developed a Powerpoint presentation which will support the delivery of the workshop. 

1.4.5   I continue to work on planning for the Global Football Festival. I am currently confirming the partners to be involved and work on the marketing and promotions plan for the event.

1.4.6   I am assisting the Hei Hei Broomfield Development Project in recruiting an instructor in order to establish a fitness programme for older adults.

1.4.7   I have met with the Community Development Network Trust and Sport Canterbury to discuss plans for an annual programme of sports provision for young people in the Riccarton and Hornby wards.

2.   Outside Organisation – Board Appointment

2.1       In accordance with its constitution, a request has been received from the Hornby Community Care Trust for the Board to consider the appointment of a Board representative to its Trust Board. Natalie Bryden fulfilled this role in the 2013-16 term.    

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report for December 2016.

2.         Resolve to hold its February 2017 meetings on Tuesday 14 and 28 February 2017 at 4.30pm in the Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner of Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.

3.         Resolve to appoint a Board member representative on the following organisation for the 2016/2019 term:

a.         Hornby Community Care Trust

  

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

   


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13 December 2016

 

 

22.  Elected Members 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.

 

 

 

23.  Questions 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.