Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Monday 12 December 2016

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

7 December 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@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

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 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.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13

C       7.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................. 15

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       Matuku Waterway Widening - Cooks Reserve Landscape Plan................................ 17

C       9.       Edmonds Park - Bells Creek Realignment Landscape Planting.................................. 25

C       10.     Medway Street - Street Renewal................................................................................. 33

C       11.     Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West & Wakefield Avenue 41

C       12.     269 Mt Pleasant Road - Easement.............................................................................. 103

Cc     13.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Meeting Schedule 2017............ 115

C       14.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2016/17........ 117

C       15.     Linwood-Heathcote-Heathcote  Community Board Area Update.......................... 119

B       16.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 126

B       17.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 126 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Christchurch Yacht Club

 

Trevor Kite will speak on behalf of Christchurch Yacht Club regarding the rebuilding a new boat shed which part of the coastal pathway is to pass.  The Club would like to seek the Board's support for approaching Council for funding to build the part of the Coastal pathway near their boat shed. 

 

4.2

Earthquake Commission (EQC)

 

Keith Land, Head of Canterbury Land Settlement, Earthquake Commission (EQC) will present to the Board the latest update as to the settlement of Canterbury Land claims.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 30 November 2016

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

30 November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@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 recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00017

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 14 November 2016 be confirmed.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                               Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

 

4.1       Holy Trinity Church Avonside

Part B

1.         Carol Penfold, Community Development Worker, and Jill Keir, Vicar, spoke on behalf of Holy Trinity Church Avonside Parish, regarding the parish’s community garden and heritage cemetery project.  The Board were updated on the progress of the parish’s rebuild.

2.         The Board thanked Ms Penfold and Reverend Keir for their deputation.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

Brenda Lowe-Johnson left the meeting at 01:24 pm.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson returned to the meeting at 01:26 pm.

6.   Ensors Road, Outside Fulton Hogan Quarries - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ensors Road, commencing at a point 151 metres south of its intersection with Laurence Street and extending in a south direction for a distance of 51 metres.

 

Board Consideration

Community Board members expressed concern about some truck drivers not complying with road rules on Ensors Road near Fulton Hogan Quarries yard and the subsequent damage to the kerb and footpath.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00018

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ensors Road, commencing at a point 151 metres south of its intersection with Laurence Street and extending in a south direction for a distance of 51 metres.

 

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00019

That the Board request staff approach Fulton Hogan for reinstatement of the Council’s kerbing and footpath where damaged by truck drivers using the Fulton Hogan yard. 

 

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00020

That the Board request that staff approach the New Zealand Police about the behaviour of truck drivers doing u-turns on the Sullivan Avenue and Ensors Road intersection.

 

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

7.   33 Hastings Street - Proposed Residents Only Parking permit

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00021 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to vehicles displaying residents permits only at any time outside 33 Hastings Street, this being on the northern side of Hastings Street commencing at a point 84 metres west of its intersection with Cadogan Street and extending in a westerly direction for 10 metres.     

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

8.   Ombersley Terrace - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00022 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the southern side of Ombersley Terrace commencing at a point 142 metres west of its intersection with Hawford Road and extending in a westerly direction around the curve in the road for 13 metres.  

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Ombersley Terrace commencing at a point 142 metres west of its intersection with Hawford Road and extending in a westerly direction around the curve in the road for 13 metres.   

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

9.   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Applications for Funding for the 2016/17 Community Board Projects

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Grant $5,000 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Communication with the Community project from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

2.         Grant $5,500 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Community Recreation for Youth and Older Adults project from Linwood‑Central‑Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

3.         Grant $5,000 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Community Service and Garden Pride Awards projects from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

4.         Grant $5,000 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Light Bulb Moment Fund from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

5.         Grant $8,500 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Youth Development Scheme from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

 

Board Consideration

The Community Board discussed the grant to the Board’s Communication with the Community project.  The Board agreed that the grant lay on the table until the Board has received information on the support that the Council will be giving to the Community Boards in relation to communications.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00023

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Not grant $5,000 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Communication with the Community project from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund, but lay this matter on the table until the Board has received information on the support that the Council are giving to the Community Boards in relation to communications.

2.         Grant $5,500 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Community Recreation for Youth and Older Adults project from Linwood-Central‑Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

3.         Grant $5,000 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Community Service and Garden Pride Awards projects from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

4.         Grant $5,000 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Light Bulb Moment Fund from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

5.         Grant $8,500 to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board towards the Youth Development Scheme from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00024

That Sally Buck and Tim Lindley be delegated to decide on behalf of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board funding applications to the Board’s Light Bulb Moments Fund.

 

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

10. Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund – Caitlin Quinn

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00025 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve a grant of $500 to Caitlin Georgia Quinn towards competing in the World  Salsa Solo in Brisbane, Australia from 1 – 4 December 2016.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                         Carried

 

11. Application to the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Special Fund - Linwood Avenue Community Pool

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00026 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant from the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club Special Fund of $6,000 to Youthtown Inc. towards operating Linwood Community Pool for five weeks during January and February 2017.

Chairperson Sally Buck/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                     Carried

 

12. Linwood-Heathcote-Heathcote  Community Board Area Update

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00027 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the report.

Deputy Chairperson Jake McLellan/Darrell Latham                                                                                      Carried

 

13. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received information from members on the following:

13.1       The Lyttelton Port Company has made a publically notified resource consent for a proposed channel deepening project within Lyttelton Harbour.  The Board were advised that some Sumner residents have raised concerns on possible sediment drift on Sumner area beaches from the proposed dredging spoil dump site outside of the Lyttelton Harbour heads.

13.2       The Board sought the progress on obtaining a Maori name for the Community Board.

13.3       Discussion was held on the updating of the pounamu plaque to reflect the new Board name; the plaque update is being progressed.

13.4       The Board  members were asked their thoughts on a community having a monthly community garage sale being held on the riverbanks. 

13.5       The recent Homeless Hui had 54 attend.  50% want to work.  33% into homes now. 

13.6       The Christchurch Coastal Pathway has opened and concern has been raised about people driving via a private driveway onto the Beachville Road end of the pathway, parking and fishing from it.  Staff were asked to investigate the illegal parking on the Beachville Road end section of the Christchurch Coastal Pathway.

13.7       The Board requested the maintenance schedule for Heathcote River corridor within the ward for mowing, weeding, rubbish collection, and vegetation in particular was requested.

13.8       Discussion was held on the toilets in Linwood Park being locked because of vandalism.  The Board suggested that an Exeloo option for Linwood Park be investigated.

13.9       Discussion was held on the continued frustration of Ryan Street residents in relation to the lack of maintenance of the berms underneath the street trees.

 

14. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.23pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

16/1421915

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Ruth Dyson MP

Removal of playground equipment from Woolston Park

 

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Correspondence Report dated 12 December 2016

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heath Community Board  - 12 December 2016 - Correspondence from  Ruth Dyson MP regarding removal of playground equipment from Woolston Park

14

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

7.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/1402089

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Board Communications

Di Keenan

Head of Public Information and Participation

 

Heritage Earthquake Repairs with Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board Area

 

Richie Moyle & Tania Rohleder

Programme Management - Heritage

Ensors Road/Brougham Street/Opawa Road Intersection Improvement Project

Kirsty Mahoney

Lori Rankin

Project Manager

Engagement Advisor

 

Rebuild of Sumner Community Centre and Library

 

Matt Cummins

Programme Management – Community Facilities Rebuild

Linwood Village Masterplan Update

 

Katie Smith

Urban Regeneration

Sydenham Masterplan Update

 

Katie Smith

Urban Regeneration

Avon River Temporary Stopbanks Project

 

Bob Mohammed

Land Drainage and Stormwater

Land Drainage Recovery Programme Overview

Keith Davidson & Karissa Hyde

 

Land Drainage and Stormwater

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

8.        Matuku Waterway Widening - Cooks Reserve Landscape Plan

Reference:

16/1293397

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve proposed landscape plantings for the Cooks Reserve area affected by widening of the Matuku Waterway as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) flood mitigation works.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report 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 small number of adjacent affected residents and park users, and the fact that the proposed landscape plantings would affect these properties in a positive manner. In addition, the landscape planting species and location have also been designed to make a positive contribution to the park.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the Cooks Reserve landscape plantings proposed to be planted as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works to widen Matuku Waterway.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve landscape plantings (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing (grass the proposed planting areas instead)

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Builds on the character of Cooks Reserve by extending the planted area

·     Reduces difficulties with mowing wet grass areas

·     Allows the widened waterway to blend into the current plantings

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Higher capital cost than grassing

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley are being undertaken by the Land Drainage Recovery Programme to reduce flood risk in the valley. The work areas are shown on Figure 1 and are being undertaken in three stages.

5.2       Council approved the works on 10 March 2016.

Figure 1 Matuku Waterway flood mitigation works

5.3       Stage One works involve the diversion of the Heathcote Valley Drain into a new pipeline being constructed along Bridle Path Road. This discharges into the existing Matuku Waterway on Cooks Lane.

5.4       This report is to seek Board approval for the landscape planting associated with the Stage Two works. These works are intended to start and be completed early 2017. The work is required to accommodate the increased flows as a result of the diversion along Bridle Path Road.

5.5       Stage Three works involve the upgrade of Heathcote Valley Drain. Due to the need to construct this during dry summer months and staging of the project this will likely begin late 2017.


 

6.   Option 1 – Approve landscape plantings (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The drain widening to accommodate the increased flows from the diverted Upper Heathcote Drain requires removal of some existing planted and grassed areas.

6.2       It is proposed to replant these areas as shown on Attachment A.

6.3       The stream edge planting retains the existing native grass palette to keep the existing reserve character. Species include Anamanthele (Hunangamoho), Carex spp.(Makura etc) , Astelia (Kakaha), Plagianthus (Oioi)

6.4       New grading to improve flood management and subsequent new planting occurs on the northern side of the stream and the existing vegetation on the southern bank is retained.

6.5       Upper slopes away from the stream banks add small shrubs to the native grass palette to improve biodiversity. Myrsine (Weeping Mapou), Melicytis (Shrubby Mahoe) and Phormium (Harakeke) add ecological complexity but achieve a safe open landscape.

6.6       The planting includes small clusters of trees. Cordyline (Ti Kouka), Plagianthus (Manatu) and Sophora (Kowhai) occur at the southern entrance and at the lawn edge.

6.7       Boundary plantings are retained except where minor removal is required to achieve maintenance access. This also occurs under the pylons where removal is required due to safety concerns.

6.8       The proposed landscape plantings have been reviewed by Council landscape architects, land drainage operations staff, and the Parks Advisor for the area.

6.9       The drainage works also require removal of some of the existing native revegetation planting to allow for the Matuku Waterway widening.

6.10    The draft Tree Policy defines the type of landscape planting within this site as "native revegetation" which is managed by the Parks Unit in a similar way to a "shrub border".   This has been confirmed by the Park Unit (Arborist Team).  The native vegetation was planted within the past 10 years, and there are currently no Resource Consent requirements relating to the removal of the vegetation.  The vegetation is within a drainage easement, and the planned improvements to the function of the waterway are consistent with the existing use of the site. 

6.11    Staff are aware that there is a young Podocarpus totara (Totara) tree that is located in an area that is identified on the plans to be retained. This will not be affected by the works.

6.12    The removal and replacement of the vegetation is considered to be an integral part of the landscape redevelopment submitted for Board approval.

Significance

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

6.14    The community has been kept informed of the works through newsletters and works notices. No specific engagement has been undertaken on the proposed landscape plantings, but they are being kept consistent with the existing planting.

6.15    The Community Board has been informed throughout the wider investigation and design process through a seminar and memos.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.16    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

6.17    Adjacent residents and Cooks Reserve users are specifically affected by this option due to the construction works and the change in landscape.  By maintaining consistency with the existing plantings it is considered that the disruption will be kept to a minimum.

6.18    The works have been designed to ensure that the pathway connecting Cooks Lane and Deavoll Place will remain open throughout the duration of these works.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.20    Cost of Implementation – There is no additional cost of implementation above the budget already approved by Council on 10 March 2016 and currently included in the Annual Plan.

6.21    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There will be no additional maintenance costs above that which are currently incurred in this area.

6.22    Funding source – The funds are approved in the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Legal Implications

6.23    No legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.24    No significant risks or mitigations identified.

Implementation

6.25    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval of the landscape planting.

6.26    Implementation timeframe – Construction works can begin early 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.27    The advantages of this option include:

·   Builds on the character of Cooks Reserve by extending the planted area

·   Reduces difficulties with mowing wet grass areas

·   Allows the widened waterway to blend into the current plantings

6.28    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Higher capital costs than grassing

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing (return the disturbed areas to grass)

Option Description

7.1       This option is the same as for Option 1 except that the area disturbed by the works to widen the waterway will be returned to grass rather than replanted.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium which differs from section 2 of this report due to the likely expectation of residents that this area will be replanted to match the existing landscape planting.

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       Adjacent landowners and users of Cooks Reserve will be more affected by this option due to the loss of amenity.  While their views have not been specifically sought it is expected that they will be disadvantaged by the loss of landscape planting.

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 – Lower capital cost than Option 1

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Higher maintenance costs due to the difficulty of mowing grassed areas

7.8       Funding source - The funds are approved in the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Legal Implications

7.9       No legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.10    A potential risk and outcome of Option 2 being approved, is that residents may engage with the Board and staff, requesting dialogue. This could take up a significant amount of time for both the Board and staff.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board approval

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Early 2017

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Lower capital cost

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of landscape planting

·   Reduced amenity in Cooks Reserve

·   Higher long-term maintenance cost

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Matuku Waterway Upgrade - Stage 2 - Cooks Reserve waterway widening - Landscape Planting Plans for Community Board Approval

23

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

9.        Edmonds Park - Bells Creek Realignment Landscape Planting

Reference:

16/1341752

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve proposed landscape plantings for the Edmonds Park area affected by realignment of Bells Creek as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) flood mitigation works.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report 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 small number of adjacent affected residents and park users, and the fact that the proposed landscape plantings would affect these properties in a positive manner. In addition, the landscape planting species and location have been designed to make a positive contribution to the park.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the Edmonds Park landscape plantings proposed to be planted as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve landscape plantings (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing (grass the affected areas)

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the amenity of the northern end of Edmonds Park by adding landscape planting

·     Provides a formed path connection between Aldwins Road and Ryan Street

·     Provides a natural barrier between Linwood College and the park, removing the need for a fence

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of open grass area to landscaping

·     Higher capital cost than grass

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Bells Creek catchment drains into the Heathcote River. Following the Canterbury Earthquake sequence significant land damage was observed in the area.  Land at the downstream end of Bells Creek experienced uplift, whereas the upstream area typically settled by 200 mm to 300 mm. This has increased flooding in the Bells Creek catchment, and in particular substantially increased the number of floor levels at risk of flooding.

5.2       The Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) investigated options for flood mitigation in Bells Creek and recommended a package of works (Stage 1) to reduce flooding. Council approved the Stage 1 works in November 2015.

5.3       The Stage 1 works include a new detention pond within the northern half of Edmonds Park (where the sports fields are currently located. This will be dual-use, with the park flooding only in large rainfall events, and otherwise still operating as sports fields).

5.4       Works to excavate the basin have begun, and the majority of the works will take place during December and January to minimise disruption to Linwood College.

5.5       Discussions with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Linwood College during the project identified that the current alignment of Bells Creek through the Linwood College site was a major impediment to the redevelopment of the site.

5.6       In order to maximise the use of the Linwood College site and to facilitate discharge into and out of the basin area, Council staff worked with the College and MOE to develop a solution of benefit to both parties. This involves the realignment of Bells Creek around the boundary of Linwood College as shown in Figure 1. The area covered by Board delegation is shown in yellow. A portion of Bells Creek through Linwood College will be abandoned.

5.7       This report concerns the landscape planting associated with the realignment area covered by the yellow rectangle in Figure 1. The landscape planting is intended to start in autumn 2017.

Figure 1 - Bells Creek realignment in Edmonds Park

 

6.   Option 1 – Approve landscape planting (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Bells Creek is to be realigned along the northern boundary of Edmonds Park as shown in
Figure 1.

6.2       This will result in a portion of the park not currently used for sports to be changed from a grassed area to a dry channel with landscape planting on either sides.

6.3       A sealed footpath will be constructed on the southern side of the landscape planting to provide access from Aldwins Road into the park. Linwood College have agreed to an easement allowing access through their site to the east.

6.4       A small wooden footbridge across the realigned Bells Creek at the eastern side of the park will allow pedestrians to cross from the northern to the southern side of the creek.

6.5       The landscape planting plans are included as Attachment A.

6.6       The proposed planting along the realigned creek will be composed of hardy native planting to allow permeability through the site and from the adjacent areas including the tennis courts, Linwood College and Edmonds Park.

6.7       Dianella nigra and Carex secta have been used for low planting areas with the alternating higher shrub mixes including the species Muehlenbeckia astonii, Griselinia littoralis and Pseudopanax arboreus.  Amongst these higher planted areas will be six Sophora microphylla, South island Kowhai trees, to provide a canopy to these areas while retaining sightlines underneath.

6.8       Along the stream edge Juncus edgariae and Cyperus ustulatus have been used for their suitability to a wet environment. 

6.9       The proposed landscape plantings have been reviewed by Council landscape architects, land drainage operations staff, and the parks advisor for the area.

6.10    An artist’s impression of the view from Edmonds Park through to Linwood College after the planting is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Proposed landscape planting

Significance

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

6.12    The community has been kept informed of the works through newsletters and works notices. No specific engagement has been undertaken on the proposed landscape plantings, but they are being kept consistent with the existing planting.

6.13    Landscape plans for Linwood College areas are being discussed with the MOE. The plans are also being discussed with the neighbours bordering Linwood College at 67 & 67A Aldwins Rd.

6.14    The Community Board has been informed throughout the wider investigation and design process through a seminar and memos.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.15    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

6.16    Adjacent residents and Edmonds Park users are specifically affected by this option due to the construction works and the change in landscape. The landscape planting is considered to be an improvement over the current situation.

6.17    The landscape plantings have been discussed with Linwood College and they have agreed with the proposal, including for access to be granted from Aldwins Road through to the park.  An easement is being arranged to formalise this. MOE has advised that they wish for the fence between the College and the park to be removed and not reinstated, using the landscape planting as an informal barrier instead.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.19    Cost of Implementation - There is no additional cost of implementation above the budget already included in the Annual Plan.

6.20    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There will be a minor increase in the cost of maintenance, particularly during the period of plant establishment.

6.21    Funding source - The funds are approved in the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Legal Implications

6.22    No legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.23    No significant risks or mitigations identified.

Implementation

6.24    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval of the landscape planting.

6.25    Implementation timeframe – Planting is planned for autumn 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.26    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the amenity of the northern end of Edmonds Park by adding landscape planting

·   Provides a formed path connection between Aldwins Road and Ryan Street

·   Provides a natural barrier between Linwood College and the park, removing the need for a fence

6.27    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of open grass area to landscaping

·   Higher capital cost than grass

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing (grass the affected areas)

Option Description

7.1       This option is the same as for Option 1 except that the area disturbed by the works to widen the waterway will be returned to grass rather than replanted.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report as it involves no change to the currently grassed area outside of the channel formation.

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       Adjacent residents and Edmonds Park users are minimally impacted by this option as it represents no change over the existing situation, except for the dry channel constructed.

7.5       The landscape plantings have been discussed with Linwood College and they have expressed a preference for landscape plantings to occur.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, but does not meet objectives for a six values approach to waterway management.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Slightly less expensive than Option 1

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Lower maintenance costs during plant establishment

7.9       Funding source - The funds are approved in the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Legal Implications

7.10    No legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    A potential risk of Option 2 being approved is that the MOE may engage with the Board and staff, requesting landscape planting consistent with the engagement undertaken with them to date and this may hold up the project.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board approval

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Re-grassing will occur at the appropriate stage in the construction programme

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Lower capital cost

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Lower amenity value than Option 1

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Edmonds Park - Draft Landscape Plan for Board Approval

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

Author

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

10.    Medway Street - Street Renewal

Reference:

16/1342725

Contact:

Kirsty Mahoney

kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz

941 5330

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to allow the Medway Street kerb and channel renewal project to proceed to detailed design and construction, following the completion of the land drainage remediation works.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, following the completion of consultation on the project.  A staff briefing, following a deputation by the residents of the street, was provided to the previous Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 1 August 2016, and a report was approved by the ITE Committee on 1 September 2016, which was endorsed by the Council on 22 September 2016.

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 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Medway Street commencing at its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35.5 metres;

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Medway Street commencing at a point 47 metres west of its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres;

3.         Approved that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Medway Street commencing at its intersection with Woodchester Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres;

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Medway Street commencing at a point 39 metres west of its intersection with Woodchester Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for 16 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network 16.0.19 Maintain Road infrastructure

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – The preferred option is to deliver the street renewal project for Medway Street in conjunction with the current land drainage remediation project in the street.  The Medway Street carriageway width will be reduced from 13 metres to 9 metres as a consequence of these works.

·     Option 2 – Do minimum.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     An opportunity to provide timely and efficient delivery of the street renewal portion of this project as the land drainage project will affect at least a 9-metre width of the existing carriageway.  Co-ordination of the two projects will achieve an optimal road profile to residential street standards and remove the existing deep dish channel.

·     Co-ordination of projects across Council.

·     Provide efficiencies in the renewal of storm water and transport assets.

·     Deliver a complete rather than incomplete project for Medway Street.

·     Community benefits because rework and further construction disruption to local residents is not required in future years.

4.3.2   The disadvantage of this option includes:

·     Short consultation opportunity.

4.4       The Council endorsed the inclusion of Medway Street kerb replacement (North Parade to Woodchester Street) in the 2016/2017 Street Renewals Programme as a high priority, due to the land drainage remediation project occurring in the street, at its meeting held on 22 September 2016.

 

5.   Context/Background

Medway Street

5.1       Medway Street is designated in the District Plan as a Local Road, and is shown below in Figure

Figure 5.1 – Aerial photo of Medway Street from North Parade to River Road

Project Objectives

5.2       The objective of the project is:

·   Asset condition based renewals of all transport assets within the road corridor along Medway Street between North Parade and Woodchester Avenue.

6.   Option 1 – Medway Street – Preferred Option

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option is to deliver the street renewal project for Medway Street in conjunction with the current land drainage project in the street.  The Medway Street carriageway width will be reduced from 13 metres to 9 metres as a consequence of these works, between North Parade and Woodchester Avenue. 

6.2       The key features of this option are:

·    Carriageway renewal

·    Replacement of deep dish channels with kerb and flat channels

·    Reduction of the carriageway width from 13 metres to 9 metres

·    Footpath renewal

·    Addition of a kerb build-out at the entrance to Richmond Park, and

·    Landscaping, planting of grass berms, and Red Maple and South Island Kowhai trees along the street.

6.3       It is noted that the carriageway between Woodchester Avenue on the northern side of Medway Street and Flesher Avenue on the southern side of Medway Street, and River Road lies within the Residential Red Zone, for which no decisions have yet been made as to what will happen here.  This section will not be renewed as part of this proposal.

Significance

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

6.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are the distribution of a letter and scheme plan to properties in the area, and absentee landowners; and receipt of feedback.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Community consultation on the Medway Street (North Parade to Woodchester Avenue) street renewal was undertaken from Tuesday 8 November to Tuesday 22 November 2016.

6.8       A total of 80 letters and scheme plans were hand delivered to properties along Medway Street and Woodchester Avenue.  The letter and plan was also sent to all absentee landowners and the Community Board.

6.9       A drop-in session was held on Tuesday 15 November 2016, between 5pm and 7pm, at the corner of Medway Street and Woodchester Avenue with members of the project team available to discuss the street renewal project.  The land drainage project manager and a representative from the land drainage contractor were also present to answer queries about the current land drainage project. Six people attended the drop-in session.

6.10    One email was also received in relation to the street renewal project.

6.11    There was general support for the street renewal project.  As a result of the public consultation, the following summarises the key concerns and queries raised, along with project team responses:

·    Availability of on-street parking with the reduction of carriageway width

On-street parking is still available on both side of the street with a 9 metre carriageway width.  The existing parking bay outside 6 Medway Street will remain and will be reinstated following the land drainage works to allow for three vehicles to be parked there.

·    Ability to access properties during construction, particularly for the elderly or those who run their business from home

This was of particular concern during the land drainage construction works.  The representative from Downer, which is carrying out the land drainage construction work currently along Medway Street, advised that where possible access to individual properties will be maintained during construction.  Otherwise residents would have to park at the edge of the construction zone and walk in.  Downer will work with individual residents to work out how to maintain access, particularly for those residents who run their business from their property.  The construction works for the land drainage works are anticipated to be completed in February 2017 along Medway Street.

·    Replacement of landscaping, street trees, and use of hydro seeding for grass berm areas

The footpaths and grass berms in conjunction with the kerb and channel as part of the street renewal works.  The grass berms will be hydroseeded to enable quick growth of grass, and thereby minimise dust nuisance and weeds.  Red maple trees are proposed to be planted along the northern side of Medway Street, and South Island kowhai trees are proposed to be planted along the southern side of Medway Street, as shown at Attachment A.  Landscaping is proposed outside 12 Medway Street, at the kerb build-out entrance to Richmond Park, and at the intersections with Woodchester Avenue and Flesher Ave.

·    Queries regarding what will happen with residential red zone land and access to River Road, as residents would like to maintain access through to River Road and then through to Gayhurst Road.  Noted that Medway Street is used as a thoroughfare for school children and residents alike.

A temporary seal will be put in place following the completion of the land drainage works between Woodchester Avenue and River Road, which lies within the residential red zone.  The final decision for the residential red zone lies with the Crown as landowner and the Council. Further consultation will be held in relation to what happens with the residential red zone, including access.

·    Undergrounding of overhead wires.

The undergrounding of overhead wires is not included as part of this project.

6.12    There are no changes proposed to the scheme plan as a result of the consultation undertaken.

6.13    A letter has been sent to all those who attended the drop in session or emailed advising the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Board meeting and how they can request speaking rights. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – all street renewal budgets are based on full carriageway renewal being required.  The preliminary estimate for this project is for a budget of $1 million.

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there are no additional maintenance costs.

6.17    Funding source – This project will be subsidised by NZTA through the maintenance and operations programme, which includes street renewal projects.  There is an approved budget with NZTA for this programme of work.

Legal Implications

6.18    There are no legal implications beyond Christchurch City Council’s rights as the Road Controlling Authority.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.19    Risk is caused by the street renewal project being ready to proceed when the land drainage works are completed along Medway Street.

6.19.1 Treatment: acceleration of the process and looking at the most appropriate procurement method to meet time and budget constraints.

6.19.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies - the street renewal project is dependent upon the completion of the land drainage works, which form part of the Dudley Creek flood remediation project.  This is expected to be completed along Medway Street in February 2017.  Implementation should be in conjunction with, or immediately following the land drainage construction.

6.21    Implementation timeframe – construction of the street renewal is planned to start in the first half of 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Replacement of the deep dish channels with kerb and flat channels

·   Renewed carriageway

·   Renewal of footpaths and new berms

·   Landscaping enhancements

·   Safer pedestrian crossing point at the entrance to Richmond Park

·   Co-ordination of projects across Council, including delivery of a complete rather than incomplete project for Medway Street

·   Community benefits because rework and further construction disruption to local residents is not required in future years.

·   Provision of efficiencies in the renewal of storm water and transport assets.

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of some on-street parking near the intersection of Medway Street and Woodchester Avenue, and Medway Street and Flesher Avenue, as well as at the kerb build-out at the entrance to Richmond Park.

·   Short consultation opportunity.

7.   Option 2 – Do Minimum

Option Description

7.1       This option would result in no changes being made to the existing street, following the completion of the land drainage works. The land drainage construction will re-instate the trench and retain the existing street profile.

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 to advise residents and submitters on the preferred scheme, that the project is not proceeding.

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       Community views were not obtained on this option.  They were only obtained for the preferred option.  There is general support from the community on the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Long Term Plan, which now includes Medway Street as part of the street renewal programme for 2015-20

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – These would be expected to increase over time.

7.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.10    There are understood to be no legal implications for this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    There is a risk of adverse public reaction, and damage to the Council’s reputation, if the project did not proceed after consulting with the public on the preferred scheme option for the road.  The residents had lobbied the Council to include the street renewal of Medway Street following the land drainage works.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Initial cost savings

·   Retention of existing on-street parking near the intersection of Medway Street and Woodchester Avenue, and Medway Street and Flesher Avenue, as well as at the kerb build-out at the entrance to Richmond Park.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No renewal of the carriageway, berms and footpaths following the land drainage works

·   None of the other advantages of the preferred option.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation Plan -  TP349201 Medway Street

40

 

 

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

Kirsty Mahoney - Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

11.    Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West & Wakefield Avenue

Reference:

16/1410032

Contact:

Kelly Griffiths

Kelly.griffiths@ccc.govt.nz

941 8767

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to rescind the existing resolutions that relate to the bus stop on the southeast side of Wakefield Avenue outside 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue, and approve the new resolutions for the bus stop outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue. Refer attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the Sumner Village Centre Master Plan, and from the 28th November Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board seminar where staff were requested to generate a report to discuss the rescinding of the existing resolutions for the bus stop on the southeast side of Wakefield Avenue outside 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue, and approve the new resolutions for the bus stop outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix. Staff have considered the significance of the decision to be made by the Community Board.  Their assessment is that the matter is of medium significance for the following reasons:

2.1.2   This project involves the suburb of Sumner, but Sumner is a popular destination accessed by the wider community of Christchurch.

2.1.3   The plan involves a significant loss of on street car parking, which can be a sensitive topic across the city. These two reasons contribute to the level of significance for this project being determined as a medium.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its power under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Community Board resolutions on the Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Enhancements Report at the Council Meeting of 12 December 2016.

Rescind the following resolutions made on the 17th February 2016 for the 'Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Avenue Enhancements' report:

53.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with Nayland Street and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 61.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A.

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12.5 metres.

61.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 12.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 26.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 57 metres.

63.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 83.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street , and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

Resolve the following in replacement:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with The Esplanade and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 66.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A.

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15.5 metres.

61.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 15.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street , and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 32.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 43 metres.

63.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 75.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.37 Promote modal shift: Contribute to increasing the percentage share of public transport trips

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

·     Level of Service: 10.0.34 Reduce risk to cyclists using the network via a targeted programme of safety improvements at high risk locations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.35 Promote modal shift: Increase the percentage share of walking trips

·     Level of Service: 10.0.36 Promote modal shift: Increase the percentage share of cycling trips

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Bus Stop Location Option B (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Bus Stop Location Option C

·     Option 3 - Bus Stop Location Option D

·     Option 4 - Bus Stop Location Option E

·     Option 5 - Bus Stop Location Option F

·     Option 6 - Bus Stop Location Option G

·     Option A outside 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue has previously been considered and approved by the Community Board, but is not part of this report.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of Option B (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Has good visibility north of the pedestrian crossing

·     Both bus stops are located diagonally opposite each other

·     The bus stop is centrally located in Sumner Village adjacent to the shops and Library

·     The bus stop will bring people into the centre of the village

·     Existing kerb enables provision of full access for bus travel

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Buses will create noise outside businesses

·     Removal of three on-street carparks outside Beachside Convenience, Stoked Surf Shop, IndiMex Restaurant and Retreat Apartments

 

5.   Context/Background

Sumner Village Centre Master Plan

5.1       In 2013, the Council adopted the Sumner Village Centre Master Plan to improve the function, safety, connectivity, quality, and amenity of Sumner.  The Master Plan forms part of the Council’s Suburban Centres Programme and was prepared in response to the damage caused to the centre in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. The Master Plan was prepared under the guidance and support of the Joint Advisory Group for Sumner as a community-led plan. The Joint Advisory Group was made up of representatives from the Sumner community and representatives from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board, who met regularly to progress the Master Plan and provide a link between the community and the Council throughout its preparation. 

P1.1 - Marriner Street-west and Wakefield Ave Enhancements

5.2       The first action in the Master Plan (‘P1’) contains several sub-projects with the intended aim of “improving the movement network and streetscape amenity”.  The first sub-project is to make changes to the design and layout of Marriner Street and Wakefield Avenue to improve safety and enjoyment by different users (pg 37 of the Master Plan and “P1.1: Marriner Street-west and Wakefield Ave Enhancements”).

Bus Stop Location

5.3       Project P1.1 Marriner Street west/Wakefield Avenue enhancements was approved by the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board on 17th February 2016 and Council on 10th March 2016. The approved bus stop location in this plan is outside the Pharmacy and Fish and Chip shop on Wakefield Avenue, at 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue (Option A).

5.4       Following the Community Board and Council decision, there were concerns raised from some business owners along Wakefield Avenue in relation to the location of the bus stop on Wakefield Avenue outside the Pharmacy.

5.5       The Community Board requested staff investigate the alternative bus stop location outside 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue, and to present it to the affected business owners, along with Option A, to get an indication of which option was preferred. At this meeting on 28th July, the business owners generally rejected both Option A and B, and requested that a third option of maintaining the bus stop in its existing location on the bend of Marriner Street and Wakefield Ave be investigated (Option C).

5.6       The findings of the meeting and Option C were then presented to the Community Board on 5th August, who upon discussions with staff, agreed not to proceed with Option C. At this meeting, staff were asked to investigate whether three car parks are able to be provided outside 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue if the bus stop were to remain as originally proposed outside the Pharmacy, to which the project team have confirmed is possible.

5.7       A meeting with the business owners to inform them that the Community Board had decided not to further investigate Option C was held on 20th September. Several Community Board members also attended this meeting, and advised the business owners that a decision on the location of the bus stop would not be made until later in the year, and that the existing resolution for Option A was not being revoked at this time, to which the affected business owners seemed generally happy.

5.8       After this meeting, the Council project team engaged Aurecon New Zealand Limited, an independent transport consultant to undertake an assessment of the three proposed bus stop locations, Options A, B and C, along with two further options, and also to advise if there were any other locations within Sumner village that could be suitable for the bus stop.

5.9       Aurecon used a multi-criteria assessment to assess the bus stop locations, the criteria used for this assessment are safety, connectivity, amenity, accessibility, rebalancing of space, impact on parking and value for investment. Each bus stop location was given a score for each criteria.

5.10    Based on the assessment, Option B outside 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue is technically the best option from a public transport perspective. The Community Board were presented with this information at its 28th November meeting, and informed staff to generate a report to rescind the existing resolutions for the bus stop on the southeast side of Wakefield Avenue outside 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue, and approve the new resolutions for the bus stop outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue.

5.11    A letter is being sent to all submitters on the original consultation, and those on the key stakeholder list informing them that the report to discuss approving the resolutions for the bus stop outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue will be at the 12th December meeting, and that they are welcome to make a deputation to speak at this meeting. The owners of the businesses at 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue will also be informed of this by telephone.

6.   Option 1 – Bus Stop Location outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue (Option B)  (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The southbound bus stop is located outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue. Refer attachment A

6.2       The opposing northbound bus stop is located outside the Sumner Centre (Library and Community Centre), opposite the southbound stop.

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is medium, which is discussed in Section 2 - Community Views and Preferences of this report, where the engagement actions taken are also discussed.

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The local businesses along Wakefield Avenue situated at 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue are specifically affected by this option due to the loss of parking outside their businesses.  Their views were captured at a meeting with local businesses on 28th July 2016 at the Corner Street Bistro in Sumner, in the notes taken at this meeting.  All businesses located on each side of Wakefield Avenue between Nayland Street and Marriner Street-west were invited to attend this meeting, along with the local Business Association.

6.6       Business owners were then also provided with plans of the existing bus stop (outside 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue) and the alternative bus stop location (outside 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue). A paper feedback form was also provided for business owners to complete and return to the project team.  The feedback form asked that views were shared by indicating which plan is preferred.  Option A – the currently approved bus stop location (outside 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue) or Option B – the alternative location of bus stop (outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue.  Space on the form was also provided for any additional comments to be provided on the location of the bus stop along Wakefield Avenue.  Refer attachment B and attachment C.

6.7       The notes recorded from the meeting with the business association were as follows

Eight attendees representing:  Sumner Pharmacy, Red Snapper Fish and Chip shop, Sumner Re Treat, Stoked Surf, Headless Mexican, Cornershop Bistro and Indian Sumner.

 

Meeting notes:  Sumner Bus Stop Review

·    Why are we moving the bus stop in the first place?

·    Did the safety audit consider the corner & obstructed view for people & cyclists crossing the road & the number of people

·    Loss of car parks unacceptable

·    Blind spot – children crossing road on either side of crossing to/from library

·    Current space in slow zone so bus will be pulling in slowly anyway-pedestrian friendly

·    Is the relocated bus stop safer? A lot of noise & pollution

·    Other villages with bus stops on main street

·    Keep bus stop in current location on the bend of Marriner Street and Wakefield Avenue & maintain car parks – loss of seating area

·    Does the plan prioritise on-street parking for mobility users – impaired users

·    Delivery trucks – spaces to park

·    In the 1960s & 70s car parks were almost removed – concerns then for impact on business

·    Show of hands on who would like bus stop to remain in its current location

·    Will definitely be more attractive, but will it be safer – request for safety audit

·    Concerns about people shopping at Ferrymead due to better parking

·    Impact

·    Indian take-away – both plans take away parking

·    Sunday evening congestion

·    Concerns re cyclists getting hit

·    Current bus stop feels like a safe zone for people using bus stop

6.8       During the meeting with the businesses there was verbal support for a third option of leaving the bus stop in its current location on the bend of Marriner Street and Wakefield Avenue – Option C.

 

6.9       Those who were unable to attend the business meeting were contacted separately and provided with the plans and feedback form.

6.10    There were 13 submissions received with ten in support of Option C, one in support of Option A, one in support of Option B or Option C and one submitter who did not indicate an option.

6.11    Feedback received from the submission forms are as follows.

Option A – currently approved location outside Sumner Pharmacy and Red Snapper at 17 and 25 Wakefield Avenue

Option B – alternative location outside Indimex Restaurant, Beachside Convenience Store and Stoked Surf at 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue

Option C – business owners suggested option to leave the bus stop in its current location on the bend of Marriner Street and Wakefield Avenue

 

Submitter ID #

Option chosen

Comments

1

C

I strongly urge the Council to leave the bus stop heading east where it is currently located at the reserve on Wakefield Avenue.  My reasons are as follows:

1.    For safety – the bus driver currently has very clear vision both ways forward and back, where as if the stop is moved further along the vision will be very limited of and for traffic coming from behind from town/Redcliffs.

2.    There is currently ample safe space to disembark passengers, wheelchairs, prams etc as opposed to the suggested alternatives.

By retaining the stop in its current location Sumner will not lose even more much needed parking space for visitors, locals, and most importantly businesses.  I understand that Sumner already stands to lose parking spaces in the current plan.

2

C

I do NOT agree with either of these proposals.  Every good reason (eg. Safety especially) would dictate that this bus stop be left where it is.  We must not lose any more of the existing car park spots.

3

C

I have an issue with moving the bus stop from its current location.  Relocating the bus (plan 1) to outside the pharmacy will a. reduce shopper access for short term shoppers.  b. will make traffic unsafe around the pharmacy.  Safety issues - volume of people is higher outside the pharmacy due to the number of customers (approx. 250 people daily).  Historical veranda close to road, will the bus hit it?  There is concern for noise and air pollution from the bus stops close proximity to the front door of the pharmacy (a health care provider).  Dangers of turning bus to pedestrians, cyclist and motorists.  Concerns for mobility impaired reaching our shop.

 

4

C

Why move it from its current location?  If you move it you will destroy local business.  If my customers can’t park they won’t shop.  It’s also a massive safety concern (plan 1 and 2).  I will have stock damage from fumes and I will most likely look at relocating my business.  I am aware you are trying to “improve” the village feel by transport cyclists etc but this is no improvement.  You will be left with a beautiful street with no local businesses.  DON’T MOVE IT!!  Plan 3 – don’t move it.  At least on plan one they have mall parking, where will my customers park???

5

C

Both plan 1 and 2 are unacceptable.  The bus stop should remain in its current location, where it is most suitable and effective to all businesses.  Car parking is imperitive not only to my business but everyones.  Removal of any car parks would hugely effect turnover/sales of all businesses.

6

Not indicated

According to me both the plans are taking away a lot of car parks which will affect the small businesses like us.  We have a small restaurant and we got 60% of business from take aways in which most of the people orders while leaving from their work, pull up near the restaurant in car parks, pick-ups their food and leave.  And the new pedestrian is not safe as well while new bus stop blocking the way coming in on Wakefield Avenue from Nayland Street making it a blind spot.

7

C

I would like the Board to reconsider the moving of current bus stop – to keep it where it is.  On the new Master Plan there is a pedestrian area created in the bus stop space – this would be ideal for people to gather awaiting buses, to sit and socialise and wait safely.  Please keep it where it is, to also lessen the impact on the businesses on our main street.  They really rely on this customer access.

8

C

Both locations are wrong.  The bus stop is safer where it is as it is visual as cars and bikes enter Sumner.  The bus transports pedestrians and now stays in the pedestrian area which is much safer.  Shifting the bus stop to your suggested positions removes more car parks – car parks are essential for local businesses – every park you remove will decrease business – on of your directives is to create a more village feeling – if more businesses close – there will be NO VILLAGE.

9

C

It is important to keep the bus stop where it is.  When people get off they can see around the area.  The bus stop needs to be pushed back into the area behind where it is now, so vehicles can pass easily.  Make a “Bus bay” and re-design the footpath to go around the back past under-ground – Urban surf, then across to the road to Sumner Re Treat.  Do not change it to outside the pharmacy or Fish-n-chip shop!

10

C

We are unsure why the bus stop would need to be moved?  The proposed venues would take up valuable car parks and would seemingly be more disruptive when the bus pulls back out into traffic.

11

B and C

The bus stop should not move from its present position.  The bus stop should never be moved to outside the fish/chemist shop.  The business access of trucks and suppliers and customers is missing. Please.

12

A

After much delay we took the brave move back to Sumner, following the Ch Ch earthquakes.  We opened in Autumn and have yet to experience summer in Sumner!  I strongly object as a business owner to have the “stop” moved to outside our door.  We simply need the “2 car parks” at the door so we may survive!  We are a “convenience” store and our customers stop and shop very briefly.

The plan 1 (approved location outside 17 Wakefield Ave) I accept is outside “small business Sumner” also but these businesses have a car park for their customers right next to them.  Thank you.

13

C

Would prefer the bus stop was left in its current location.  He believes it works well here and the bus driver has good visibility. 

 

He does not support the works in Marriner St-west and Wakefield Avenue at all and is concerned that this plan will ruin Sumner.  He did own a business in New Brighton that was ruined by the village feel/pedestrian friendly area out there and he believes that City Mall is suffering with the same issue.  He believes Sumner should be left as it is and does not need any improvement.  He is also concerned that there will be more road works to disrupt the businesses, they struggled enough with the SCIRT works.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Cost of Implementation – There are no additional cost implications of implementing Option B instead of the already approved Option A.

Legal Implications

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

6.15    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 included the resolution of parking and stopping restrictions, traffic restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

Risks and Mitigations    

6.17    There is the risk that the business owners of 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue object to the bus stop being approved outside their businesses.

6.18    The action taken to mitigate this is a letter is being sent to all submitters on the original consultation, and those on the key stakeholder list informing them that the report to discuss approving the resolutions for the bus stop outside 1, 5, and 7 Wakefield Avenue will be at the 12th December meeting, and that they are welcome to make a deputation to speak at this meeting. The owners of the businesses at 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue will also be informed of this by telephone.

6.19    Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is high.

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies - Requires Community Board approval of kerb alignment changes, traffic controls and parking restrictions, and bus stop locations.

6.21    Implementation timeframe - Construction is proposed to commence in March 2017 and last for approximately five months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·     Has good visibility north of the pedestrian crossing

·     Both bus stops are located diagonally opposite each other

·     The bus stop is centrally located in Sumner Village adjacent to the shops and Library

·     The bus stop will bring people into the centre of the village

·     Existing kerb enables provision of full access for bus travel

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Buses will create noise outside businesses

·     Removal of three on-street carparks outside Beachside Convenience, Stoked Surf Shop, IndiMex Restaurant and Retreat Apartments

7.   Options 2 – 6 Various Bus Stop Locations (Options C – G)

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 - Bus Stop Location Option C – The southbound bus stop is the existing bus stop location on the bend of Marriner Street and Wakefield Ave, the northbound bus stop is the currently approved bus stop location outside the Sumner Centre (Library and Community Centre). Refer attachment A.

7.2       Option 3 - Bus Stop Location Option D – Both bus stops are located on Nayland Street. Refer attachment A.

7.3       Option 4 - Bus Stop Location Option E – The southbound bus stop is located adjacent to 23 Marriner Street, the northbound bus stop is located adjacent to 30 Marriner Street, outside the Hollywood Theatre. Refer attachment A.

7.4       Option 5 - Bus Stop Location Option F – The southbound bus stop is located on Nayland Street adjacent to Sumner Mall, the northbound bus stop is the currently approved bus stop location outside the Sumner Centre (Library and Community Centre). Refer attachment A.

7.5       Option 6 - Bus Stop Location Option G – The southbound bus stop is located adjacent to 23 Marriner Street, the northbound bus stop is the currently approved bus stop location outside the Sumner Centre (Library and Community Centre). Refer attachment A.

Significance

7.6       The level of significance of these options is medium, which is discussed in Section 2 - Community Views and Preferences of this report, where the engagement actions taken are also discussed.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.8       All businesses located on each side of Wakefield Avenue between Nayland Street and Marriner Street-west were invited to attend this meeting on 28th July, along with the local Business Association, where Options A and B were presented, and Option C suggested by business owners.

7.9       There were ten submissions received in support of Option C. Options D – G have not been publicly consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.10    Options C – G are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.11    The implementation costs for options C – G have not been costed.

Legal Implications

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

7.13    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 included the resolution of parking and stopping restrictions, traffic restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

Risks and Mitigations    

7.15    With any option from Options C – G, there is the risk that the business owners adjacent to the bus stop object to the bus stop being approved outside their business.

7.16    No public consultation has taken place for Options C – G.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies - Requires Community Board approval of kerb alignment changes, traffic controls and parking restrictions, and bus stop locations.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

·   Aurecon’s multi-criteria assessment, and full report which details the advantages and disadvantages of Options A – G is attached. Refer attachment D.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Options A - G plans

53

b

Plans for options discussed with Sumner Business Association

61

c

Feedback form bus stop locations Wakefield Avenue

63

d

Aurecon Sumner Bus Stop Location Report

65

 

 

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

Kelly Griffiths - Project Manager

Tara King - Senior Engagement Advisor

William Homewood - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 


 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

12.    269 Mt Pleasant Road - Easement

Reference:

16/1388543

Contact:

Angus Smith

Angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

941 8502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve, under delegated authority, an easement for a right to convey water over a reserve at 269/R Mt Pleasant Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and arises as a result of storm water management system from a small subdivision at 269 Mt Pleasant Road.

1.3       The Council has granted a subdivision consent for the property at 269 Mt Pleasant Road. A portion of the storm water management system runs into a Council owned reserve administered under the Reserves Act and therefore requires the approval of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to grant the easement. This is somewhat procedural due to the governing legislation as the storm water management system in entirety and a portion of it has already been consented to through other Council processes.

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 utilising the 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve as administering body pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to convey water over 269/R Mt Pleasant Road (Lot 2 DP 384979), shown as the areas marked “C & G” on Land transfer Plan numbered 482976 attached to this report.

2.         Endorse that the Chief Executive, acting under sub delegation from the Council,  exercises the Minister of Conservations consent to the easement, as delegated to the Council from the Minister under the Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12th June 2013.

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: Stormwater Drainage

·     Level of Service: 14.0.2 Resource consent compliance for consents held by Land Drainage Operations for discharge from stormwater system

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Granting the easement (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not grant the 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.

·     Provides a storm water treatment facility that meets Councils values and strategies in terms of storm water management.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None

 

5.   Context/Background

Easement and Subdivision

5.1       The owner of the property at 269 Mt Pleasant Road has been granted a consent to subdivide the property into 4 lots as shown on the Title plan – LT 482976 attached.

5.2       There are easements in respect of storm water services for this subdivision in favour of the new lots 1, 2 & 3 DP 482976 that run through:

5.2.1   The newly subdivided privately owned property;

5.2.2   A piece of reserve land that is to vest in council on subdivision (lot 4);

5.2.3   The adjoining existing Council reserve (lot 2 DP 384979).

5.3       A mocked up aerial plan is attached to show this in general.

5.4       Due to the nature of this subdivision and the land involved the granting of easements for the storm water facility spans a few Council processes:

5.4.1   The easements through the privately owned newly subdivided lots 1–3 DP 482976 have been approved and will vest on subdivision.

5.4.2   The Reserves Officer Subcommittee under delegated authority has signed off on easement “B” which is over Lot 4 that will vest as a Recreation Reserve in Council on subdivision.

5.4.3   The balance of the easement is the areas recorded as C & G on LT 482976. These sit on Lot 2 DP 384979, the existing council reserve. These have not been approved. The delegated authority to approve easements over existing reserves is held by the Community Board.

5.5       The infrastructure is already physically in place. In entirety the storm water facility has been approved through the subdivision consent i.e. council acting in its capacity as a regulatory authority. It has the approval of our Senior Network Planner Parks and implicitly by those on the Reserves Officer subcommittee that signed off on the above mentioned easement (“B”) registered over a reserve that is to vest on subdivision. The conditions in this easement instrument are similar and consistent with the other easement instruments.

 

 

 

 

Minister of Conservation consent

5.6       Section 48 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 provides that in the case of reserves vested in an administering body, the administering body, with the consent of the Minister of Conservation and on such conditions as the Minister thinks fit, may grant rights of way and other easements over any part of the reserve for rights of way and other easements.  The Minister’s power to consent or refuse consent to the administering body to grant easements under this section has been delegated without limitation to the Council which in turn has been delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.

5.7       In exercising this consent the Council should be satisfied that due procedure has been followed and in this respect I confirm the following matters have been considered:

5.7.1   It is confirmed the land is held by the Council as a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

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

5.7.3   There are sufficient grounds to waive the public notification requirements of Section 48(2) of the Reserves Act as the works comply with Section 48(3).

5.7.4   Iwi have not been consulted as this site is not a site of significance to Tangata Whenua in the City Plan and the nature of the reserve allows for local body infrastructure.

5.8       Determination of matters of this nature are covered within the authorities delegated to the Chief Executive Officer by the Council within the delegations register Part A, Sub-part 1, section 45 as follows:  

5.8.1   "To exercise all of the Ministerial powers that have been delegated to the Council under the Reserves Act 1977".

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Grant the easement over 269/R Mt Pleasant Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       That the Council grants the easement under the Reserves Act 1977.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – Paid for by the applicant.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

6.8       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

6.9       The easement instrument covers off the legal issues and has terms and conditions similar and consistent with the other easement instruments. Councils Legal Services Unit is engaged to represent council on the registration of the easement.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    There is no risk or issues in respect of the Community Board making this decision under their delegated authority due to the fact that granting this portion of the easement is only part of something Council has already approved in entirety and in part under a couple of other processes.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - none

6.12    Implementation timeframe – Immediate upon this decision.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    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.

·   Provides a storm water treatment facility that meets Councils values and strategies in terms of storm water management.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None

7.   Option 2 – Do Not Grant the Easement

Option Description

7.1       The Council does not approve the grant of an easement to convey water.

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 required.

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 Council’s Plans and Policies

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Not applicable

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not applicable

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

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 would quite likely be issues with the applicant if the Community Board declined the granting of this easement, given that it has already granted a consent for the storm water management facility to occur through different processes i.e. the subdivision consent and Reserves Officer Subcommittee.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    It is likely that there would be reputational and litigation risk if this easement was not granted.

7.10.1 Treatment: Approve the easement

7.10.2 Residual risk rating: Low/nil if the easement is granted. High if it isn’t.

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:

·   Nil

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Dissatisfied applicant.

·   Litigation and reputational risk.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Land Transfer Plan

109

b

Aerial Plan Mock Up

113

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 


 


 


 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

13.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Meeting Schedule 2017

Reference:

16/1370089

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.beaven@xtra.co.nz

03 941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the meeting schedule from January to 31 March 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to allow the Board to set in place its governance arrangements, including the establishment of any committees, subcommittees and working parties it may wish to create and the adoption of a meeting schedule until 31 March 2017.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report 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 against the Significance and Engagement Policy criteria.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Adopt the following meeting schedule until 31 March 2017

Monday 30 January 2017                                       10am

Wednesday 15 February 2017                             3pm

Monday 13 March 2017                                         10am

Wednesday 29 March 2017                                  3pm

2.         Review its ordinary meeting schedule and arrangements in early 2017 for the remainder of the 2016/19 term.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The staff recommendation in this report, for the Board to adopt a meeting schedule through to March 2017, has been developed based on a number of factors:

·     The holding of two ordinary Board meetings in each calendar month.

·     Consideration of other commitments on the Council calendar, e.g. Council meetings.

·     A desire to avoid day/time clashes with other Community Board meetings.

 

1.    It is intended that both meetings each month be business meeting followed by a seminar/workshop. Seminars provide an opportunity for Board members and staff to have informal discussion on issues where no decisions are required at that time.

It is intended that the Board reassess its meeting arrangements in early 2017, to take into account any changes made by the Council at that time.

4.2       It is noted that during its previous term, the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board in common with some of the other Community Boards held two ordinary meetings in each calendar month.  This allowed for all items of business to be progressed on a regular basis.  The minutes/report of the Board meeting were confirmed at the following fortnightly Board meeting and then referred on to the next appropriate Council meeting.

4.3       It is proposed that the venues for Board meetings will be the Linwood Boardroom for one meeting per month; the other meeting to be held at community facilities within the Community Board area.

4.4       It is suggested that Board meetings be held at 4.30pm on the first Monday and 9.00am on the third Monday of each calendar month with both meetings being full business meetings.  In addition to the decision making Board meetings, seminars or workshops will be scheduled at the conclusion or prior to the commencement of meetings or at other times as required to provide an opportunity for Board members and staff to receive information and have an informal discussion on issues where no decision is required at the time.

4.5       The Board’s meeting schedule will be reassessed in early 2017 to allow for any necessary changes that may come about as a result of the review of delegations to community boards. 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

14.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2016/17

Reference:

16/1343304

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

039416601

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 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 12 December 2016 until its next ordinary meeting 30 January 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Appoint a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson and at least two Board members, to be authorised to exercise the delegated powers of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for the period following its ordinary meeting on 12 December 2016 up until the Board resumes normal business in 2017.

2.         Reports back to the Board, the application of any such delegation, for record purposes.

3.         Notes that any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicised and details forwarded to all Board members.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       In previous years it has been the practice of the previous Board to resolve 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 to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

15.    Linwood-Heathcote-Heathcote  Community Board Area Update

Reference:

16/1388030

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Outstanding Matters from Board Seminars and 30 November Board meeting

1.1       Woolston Community Facility - An update was given to the Board on the next steps for the Woolston Community Facility at the seminar held on 28th November.  Consultation on the concept design will take place from 23 January to 27 February 2017.

1.2       A project work group will be formed and will include staff from the Community Governance Team.  Staff would appreciate having a Community Board member on the project work group and leave it to the Board to select their representative. The first meeting will be in January 2017.

1.3       Transport/Movement Plan for the Central City - Staff are working on an update to be shared with the Board before the year ends.

1.4       Street Calming through use of Art - At the seminar held on 28th November, the Board requested that where possible staff consider use of street art as a way of slowing traffic.  The Board chair and Councillor Johanson have been invited to a meeting with staff to discuss this.

1.5       Avonside Holy Trinity Church - Staff have provided the Community Development Worker with information on how to apply for a grant with the Council, and other funding streams that are available for the work they would like to do.

1.6       Communication with the Community - at the last Board meeting, the Board asked for a break down on the $5,000 that was spent last year on this fund. This money was not actually spent on Board activities, but was transferred to the 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund on 28 April 2015, following a decision by the Board on 20 April to transfer the funds. At the time that the decision was made the balance of the DRF was $119,882 of $130,000. At the end of the financial year, only $2,318 of the new balance of $135,000 was left over.

1.7       Toilets on Linwood Park - As reported the toilets on the park are not open to the public due to the high levels of vandalism.  This is ongoing.  Staff are found out that to place a toilet block on Linwood Park close to Linwood Ave would cost approximately $140,000.

1.8       New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) Speed Management Guidelines - The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board requested an update on the NZTA Speed Management Guidelines.   Staff have provided the following information.

 

The official guide was released by NZTA very recently.  The document can be found at

https://www.pikb.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Speed-management-guide-first-edition-Nov2016a.pdf.

 

The guide itself doesn't give immediate direction to Councils as to how to treat and respond to emerging speed issues, in particular the guide states "the Transport Agency will provide for each Council (or where appropriate, a region) a draft Speed Management Map of their network, which will: (a) show where the existing speed limits differ most from the Framework's safe and appropriate speeds (b) identify where the greatest benefits from applying speed management will be achieved.

 

Therefore the Council is not actively looking to change its approach to speed limits until after the NZTA has provide the promised map.   There is a workshop organised by NZTA at the end of January which will hopefully shed some additional light on the process and likely timeframes. 

2.   Board and Community Activities

2.1       Upcoming Events/Meetings

·        Heathcote Expressway Drop-in Session for Ferry Road Businesses - to be held Wednesday 14 December, 12pm at Grace Vineyard Church, 150 Ferry Road.

·        Heathcote Community Centre Opening – to be held Wednesday 14 December 2016, 5.30pm at the Community Centre, 45 Bridle Path Road.

·        Linwood Village Christmas Market/Carols in the Park -  to be held on Friday 16 December 2016 from 7pm at Doris Lusk Reserve, 388 Worcester Street.

·        Board Area Bus Trip –to be held on Friday 20 January 2017, 9.30am – 4.30pm. It is being organised by the Community Governance Team.  The Mayor and Councillors have been invited to attend. 

2.2       Rapanui-Shag Rock, Puari ki Rapanui Cycleway – a focus group was held with five local residents, users and workers who are have a high interest in and high use of the Linwood Avenue route and surrounding roads. This included the principal of Linwood Avenue School and a representative of the Linwood Rugby League Club. The focus group was held to support the consultation process and ensure that the local voice was captured in the process.

2.3       Sumner Emergency Preparedness Community Meeting- staff are supporting the Sumner Community Residents Association with plans for a community meeting to support readiness in the event of a disaster. This is in liaison with Civil Defence and to address any misinformation in the community on evacuation procedures.

3.   Consultation Calendar

3.1       As at 29 November 2016 the following consultation is in progress:

Consultation page

Consultation dates

Armagh Street - Proposed parking restrictions

25/11/2016 - 19/12/2016 5:00p.m.

Heathcote Expressway — Puari ki Kahukura

18/11/2016 - 23/12/2016 4:00p.m.

Rapanui-Shag Rock Cycleway, Puari ki Rapanui

15/11/2016 - 15/12/2016 5:00p.m.

The Groynes, Roto Kohatu Master Plan

28/11/2016 - 12/12/2016 5:00p.m.

4.   Funding Update

4.1       The unallocated balance of the community funds are as follows:

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - $11,397.

Youth Development Scheme – $8,000.

Light Bulb Moment Fund – $5,000.

 

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

5.   Council Activities and Decisions

5.1       St Andrews Hill/Bridle Path Intersection - Two options for the intersection have been developed further with the aim of presenting these, together with the do-nothing option, to the community for consultation starting in mid-January 2017.  The consultation document will also include details of the options that were considered but rejected, with reasons for rejecting those options.  The intersection affects road users from a large area. Specifically residents in Mount Pleasant, Heathcote and towards Sumner will be targeted for consultation.

5.2       North Avon Road Renewal – At the joint Boards Meeting of 4 October 2016 on the North Avon Road Scheme Renewal the Boards sought further information.  Staff Advice in reply to the requests are attached. (Attachment B).

5.3       Woolston Borough Monument – Staff have given the following update on the progress of the Woolston Borough Monument on Ferry Road:

·    Resource Consent was granted May 2016

·    Graffiti removal has been undertaken and has been very successful. There is still a wee bit of dye showing on the stone, however once the panels are in place, this is likely to sun bleach out over time.

·    The foundations for the anti-graffiti polyglass panels has been poured.

·    The panels and frame have been fabricated. A final inspection by the project team will be undertaken prior to installation. Note: there was a few months delay in sourcing the panels from overseas.

·    Installation is due for completion prior to Christmas.

 

5.4       Barnett Park “Back Paddock” Update - The 2016 Dog Control Policy include the following about Barnett Park; 'Dogs must be on a leash to protect grazing stock up the hill at the back of the park. The grassed, flat area near the Bay View Road carpark, and near the sports ground, is an under effective control / off-leash area.'

When dogs are under effective control, owners need to:

-     Be aware of where the dog is and what it is doing

-     Ensure the dog is responsive to commands; and

-     Ensure its not creating a nuisance.

 

This was changed from the 2008 Dog Control Policy where it was a leashed area due to grazing stock. There is no longer grazing stock in the lower paddock therefore the space works effectively as an area for local dog owners, and this is reflected in the changes in the dog policy. There was consideration around this space as an official dog exercise area (or a dog park), however there was concern if it were to be promoted as a dog exercise area, there would potentially be greater/wider demand for its use, which would not be practical without increased investment in car parks and other infrastructure. Long Term Planning budgets would be required as well as changes to the current Dog Control Policy.

 

The Regional Parks team will look at getting the fence repaired when they have budget available. Staff will also monitor whether a “doggie doo bin” is required, Council need to consider not only the cost to install the bin, but also the cost to empty the bin. There is no mowing contract in place for this space, however the informal paths do get mown every so often (due to be mown in the next month). The entire space is difficult to mow due to humps and hollows.

 

Some signage has been ordered to be placed at the entrance to the area from Bay View Avenue and at the entrance from the end of the Sports Park around dogs being under effective control. Following the change in the Dog Control Policy there was over 200 areas that needed signage changes, and these are being rolled out over time based on priority.

 

There is a large dog park under construction at Bexley Park, and this space will have fencing for small and large dogs, agility equipment, car parking, doggie doo bins, seating, mounds/hills and also has good separation from neighbours. The plan for the space is approved by the former Burwood/Pegasus Community Board and has been included in the 2016 Dog Control Policy. It is expected that this dog park will be open in the middle of next year. Some mounding and planting has been completed, however Council want to ensure that the turf and plants are well established prior to opening the space to the public.

6.   Community Governance Team update

6.1       Linwood Development Aspirations - Staff have since March 2016 been going through an engagement process to find out what the social, recreational and infrastructural development aspirations of people who live, work and learn in the Linwood area.  The area of focus is 1.5km radius around Linwood Park.

6.2       Services Directory - Staff have been working on a directory of services available within the community board area.  A draft will be tabled at the next meeting.

6.3       Inner City East and Linwood Village Pre-Engagement - At the meeting staff will give an update on the Inner City East and Linwood Village pre-engagement on the Revitalisation Plan.

 

 

7.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

2.         That the Board nominate a Board member to be on the Woolston Community Facility Project Work Group.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund 2016/17

123

b

North Avon Road Renewal Scheme - Further Information

124

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Louise McLean - Governance Support Officer

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

12 December 2016

 

 

16.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

17.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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