Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 12 April 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

7 April 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@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:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor Cotter

Membership

Councillor Davidson (Deputy Chair), Councillor Buck, Councillor Clearwater, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Templeton

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee is the governance of roading and transport, three waters, waste management, and natural hazards protection.

 

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

·         Encourages opportunities for citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·         Works in partnerships with key agencies, groups and organisations

·         Encourages innovative approaches and sustainable solutions

 

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·         Water supply, conservation and quality

·         Stormwater drainage including the Land Drainage Recovery Programme

·         Natural environment, including the waterways, aquifers, ecology and conservation of resources

·         Natural hazards protection, including flood protection and river control

·         Solid waste minimisation and disposals

·         Sewage collection, treatment and disposal

·         Roads, footpaths and streetscapes

·         Transport including road operations, parking, public transport, cycle ways, harbours and marine structures consistent with Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee Terms of Reference.

 

Delegations

 

The Committee delegates to the following working group the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·         Land Drainage Working Group matters relating to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, including opportunities for betterment.

 

Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Programme

 

At the Council meeting of 9 March 2017:

 

It was resolved that the Council:

 

1.         Delegates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee the authority to make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) programme, including final route selections and anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property, subject to:

a.         The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and affected Community Boards being briefed prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

b.         The relevant Community Board Chair(s) will be invited by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to participate in the relevant Major Cycleway Route item discussion and give their Board’s feedback or recommendations.

2.         Notes and reconfirms Councils previous decision to designate the MCR programme a metropolitan project, as set out in the Council’s resolutions on 29 January 2015.

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

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

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

STAFF REPORTS

A       6.       Storm Water Pump Station 205 Upgrade and Repair options.................................. 19

A       7.       Disposal of land acquired under the Flood Intervention Policy............................... 57

A       8.       Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - 42 Hereford Street........................... 65

B       9.       ITE report 3 Waters and Waste - March 2017............................................................. 73

C       10.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 92  

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

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 and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 8 March 2017  be confirmed (refer page 6).

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 30 March 2017  be confirmed (refer page 14).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 8 March 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                           13 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@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

 

Apologies

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00009

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Davidson that the apologies for lateness from Councillors Buck and Galloway be accepted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                      Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

4.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

5.   Land Drainage Working Group - Terms of Reference

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee considered a report on the Land Drainage Working Group Terms of Reference.

2.         The Committee resolved to adopt the Terms of Reference outlined in Attachment A of the report with further additions.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Land Drainage Working Group as set out in Attachment A.

3.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Land Drainage Working Group to carry out its responsibilities and activities as per the Terms of Reference.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00010

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Land Drainage Working Group as set out in Attachment A and includes the following:

a.         “The Land Drainage Working Group is also responsible for working with community representatives and civil defence staff to develop a framework, including purpose, objective and criteria, for a proposed Flood Response Fund, which it will recommend to the Committee.”

b.         Amending bullet point four under section one to read:
“Improve the non-drainage values (six values) of our waterways through sensitive design of remediation works.”

c.         A fourth bullet point added to section two to read:
“Investigating water quality improvement opportunities.”

3.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Land Drainage Working Group to carry out its responsibilities and activities as per the Terms of Reference.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

 

6.   An Accessible City: Hereford Street (Manchester - Madras)

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council to approve the scheme design and resolutions relating to An Accessible City, Hereford Street (Manchester – Madras).

2.         The Committee agreed on the staff recommendations and also requested that staff investigate an option for at least one disability park on this stretch of street and report back to the Council.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council approves the scheme design and resolutions relating to the following An Accessible City Phase 2 network transformation project as detailed in Attachment 1:

 

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

3.1.     Approve that all traffic controls on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

3.2.     Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.3.     Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.4.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

3.5.     Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Latimer Square (west side) be revoked.

3.6.     Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

3.7.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.8.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

3.9.     Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Latimer Square (west side) at its intersection with Hereford Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Liverpool Street: Traffic Control

3.10.   Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Liverpool Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Latimer Square (West Side) to Manchester Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.11.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.12.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

3.13.   Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 27 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.14.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 41 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

3.15.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

3.16.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

3.17.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

3.18.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.19.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 72 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

3.20.   Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 82 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.21.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 96 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to Madras : Special vehicle lanes (Cycle Lanes)

3.22.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for east bound cyclists only, be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square (east side).

3.24.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

3.25.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Madras Street: Traffic Control

3.26.   Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at its intersection with Hereford Street.

3.27.   Approve that a pedestrian crossing (Zebra) be installed across the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at a point approximately 7 metres south of its intersection with Hereford Street.

 

 

 

 


 

 

Committee Decided ITEC/2017/00011

Part A

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council approves the scheme design and resolutions relating to the following An Accessible City Phase 2 network transformation project as detailed in Attachment 1:

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

1.         Approve that all traffic controls on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

2.         Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

5.         Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Latimer Square (west side) be revoked.

6.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

9.         Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Latimer Square (west side) at its intersection with Hereford Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Liverpool Street: Traffic Control

10.       Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Liverpool Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Latimer Square (West Side) to Manchester Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

11.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

12.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

13.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 27 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

14.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 41 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

15.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

16.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

17.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

18.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

19.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 72 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

20.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 82 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

21.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 96 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to Madras : Special vehicle lanes (Cycle Lanes)

22.       Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for east bound cyclists only, be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square (east side).

23.       Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

24.       Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Madras Street: Traffic Control

25.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at its intersection with Hereford Street.

26.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing (Zebra) be installed across the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at a point approximately 7 metres south of its intersection with Hereford Street.

Disability Parks

27.       Staff to investigate an option for at least one disability park on this stretch of street and report back to the Council.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                   Carried

Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

 

7.   Transport Unit - Bi-Monthly Report

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Transport Unit report.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00012

Part B

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Transport Unit report.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 2.23pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Chairperson


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Extraordinary Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 30 March 2017

Time:                                    9.02am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

29 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@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.

 

Councillor Buck arrived at 9.09am

3.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

3.1 The following presented deputations to the Committee on the Heathcote Expressway                 Major Cycleway Route and/or Rapanui Shag Rock Major Cycleway Route:

Heathcote Expressway:

1.1       Ray Edwards presented a deputation on behalf of himself and the following Ferry Road Property and Business Owners:

1.1.1   Dave Alexander

1.1.2   Brent Hodder

1.1.3   Craig Newberry

1.1.4   Tony Carey

1.1.5   Doug Pflaum

1.1.6   David Fleming

1.2       David McGregor on behalf of the Grace Vineyard Church

Heathcote Expressway and Rapanui Shag Rock:

1.3       Dirk De Lu on behalf of Spokes

1.4       Robert Fleming

1.5       Connie Christensen on behalf of Go Cycle Christchurch

1.6       Francesca Bradley on behalf of Generation Zero

Rapanui Shag Rock:

1.7       Bill Simpson on behalf of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Trust ‘The Trust’

 

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

5.   Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2 and 3 Recommended Option Report

 

Committee Comment

1.         Jake McKellan Deputy Chair of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board presented feedback from Community Board Members and joined the table for the discussion of this item.

2.         The Committee considered the written submissions and deputations received on the Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2 and 3 Major Cycleway Rote.

3.         The Committee resolved  the staff recommendations with additional requests for staff.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve that the Rapanui Shag Rock Sections 2 and 3 proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in the attachment A - Rapanui Shag Rock Preferred Option Scheme Plans.

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

3.         Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00013

Committee
Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve that the Rapanui Shag Rock Sections 2 and 3 proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in the attachment A - Rapanui Shag Rock Preferred Option Scheme Plans.

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

3.         Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

4.         Recommend that staff investigate the feasibility of the reduction in speed on Humphreys Drive between Dyers Road and Tidal View.

5.         Notes that the Humphreys Road section has significant ecological issues and that staff will keep the Committee informed on the progress, design and stakeholder discussions.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                      Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.16am.

The meeting reconvened at 11.31am.

Councillor Galloway arrived at 11.35am.

 

6.   Heathcote Expressway Recommended Option Report

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee considered the written submissions and deputations received on the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Rote.

2.         The Committee resolved  the staff recommendations with additional requests for staff.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the Heathcote Expressway Route alignment as shown in Attachment A – Heathcote Expressway Preferred Option Plans. 

2.         Approve that the Heathcote Expressway Route between Charles Street and Truscotts Road proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in Attachment A – Heathcote Expressway Preferred Option Plans. 

3.         Recommend that the decision relating to the Heathcote Expressway Cycle Route between the Ferry Road/Fitzgerald Intersection and Charles Street be bought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee at a future date.

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

5.         Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00014

Committee

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the Heathcote Expressway Route alignment as shown in Attachment A – Heathcote Expressway Preferred Option Plans. 

2.         Approve that the Heathcote Expressway Route between Charles Street and Truscotts Road proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in Attachment A – Heathcote Expressway Preferred Option Plans. 

3.         Recommend that the decision relating to the Heathcote Expressway Cycle Route between the Ferry Road/Fitzgerald Intersection and Charles Street be bought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee at a future date.

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

5.         Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

6.         Recommends that options for increasing the width of the cycleway on Cumnor Terrace are explored (including Cumnor Terrace being a one-way street).

7.         Notes that the capital cost for the bridge replacement at Richardson Terrace/Clarendon Terrace is to be considered during the LTP process.

8.         Asks for staff to prepare a report within the next six months to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee considering the need for secure cycle parking at trip generators and connections  with public transport.

9.         Requests staff extend the scope to Martindales Road, Truscotts Road and Station Road as part of the detailed design

10.       Request staff feedback on communication strategy and “how to use” information at each ITE Committee meeting.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                   Carried

Councillor Keown and Davidson requested that their votes against this decision be recorded.

 

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 12.35pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 12th DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Chairperson

   


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

6.        Storm Water Pump Station 205 Upgrade and Repair options

Reference:

17/144473

Contact:

Stephen Bensberg

Stephen.bensberg@ccc.govt.nz

0272499328

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to enable a recommendation to the Council to approve an investment in storm water Pump Station 205 (PS205) to restore and increase the stations capacity which will simultaneously address a number of issues regarding the reliability and operation of the station.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to enable the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to make the recommendation described above. It follows from an LDRP- condition assessment of the pump station which identified loss of capacity due to the 2010/2011 earthquakes.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by an internal assessment of the effects of the proposed upgrade to the pump station. The level was determined as ‘High’ because the works involve a strategic Council Asset (it is the Council’s largest storm water pump station) and controls flood risk for a wide community. Not carrying out these works could negatively impact on Council’s reputation as the pump station is currently difficult to effectively operate and maintain, affecting its reliability to control flood risk.

2.1.2   No community engagement and consultation has been carried out to date to reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Recommend to Council to progress the preferred PS205 option (option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction as this option will:

a.         Extend the life of the Pump Station by 25 years, allowing for the effects of climate change (storm increase, sea level rise) over this lifetime.

b.         significantly increase the reliability of operating the pump station under current conditions

c.         Provided for an opportunity to enhance the Ecology value in the 6-Value framework by providing fish passage, in particular for Inanga spawning.

 

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 – Maximise Station Life by extending Pump Station lift to maximum possible (0.6m) within the existing structure (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Improve Reliability and Extend Pump Station lift by 0.15m

·     Option 3 - Earthquake Recovery Only (restore 0.15m of lift)

·     Option 4 – Station Replacement

·     Option 5 – Do Nothing

The following chart shows a comparison between the options described in this report. The graph compares the hydraulic performance provided by each option in terms of year, plotted against the cost of the option.

Chart One: Options Comparison

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Extends the station life to the maximum possible within the constraints of the existing structure, thus getting the highest return on past investment and proposed expenditure

·     Improves the operational reliability of the station

·     Provides the maximum lift and effective capacity

·     Provides an extended life against future sea level rise (SLR) for 25 years

·     Protects the most number of dwellings and properties

·     Keeps long term options (incl. replacement) open pending plans for the regeneration of this area

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Highest Capital Cost (aside from option 4 – full station replacement)

 

 

5.   Context/Background

A condition assessment of Horseshoe Lake and Pump Station 205 carried out in 2015 under the Land Drainage Recovery Programme identified:

5.1       Loss of pump capacity (lift level) due to settlement of the pump station in the 2010/2011 earthquake sequence. Pre-EQ discharge capacity needs to be restored by extending or moving flights on the 3 Archimedes screws. The capacity of the Archimedes screw design is more sensitive to SLR than other types of storm water pumping stations. As SLR eventuates the capacity of the station will progressively reduce.

5.2       Urgent health and safety issues (currently being addressed).

5.3       Reliability issues in operating the pump station due to age of equipment, unavailability of spare parts and accessibility to operate the station under storm condition (ie. flooding of the only access road to the station).

5.4       Fallen trees in HSL need to be removed to reinstate unimpeded flow to PS205 to effectively maintain Horseshoe Lake levels (currently being addressed).

5.5       Siltation in Pump Station inlet and tail water channels and culverts under New Brighton Road needs to be removed to optimize/reinstate discharge capacity of PS205 and effectively maintain Horseshoe Lake water levels (currently being addressed).

5.6       The station’s operation includes five timber tide gates which allow storm flows to discharge via gravity during low tides. These gates have deteriorated and need replacement due to wood rot.

5.7       Improvements can be made to PS operations re data recording, compliance with (H&S)-regulations and building codes, reliability of equipment supply and optimisation of operation and maintenance of the PS.

5.8       The PS is sensitive to Sea Level Rise (SLR) and changes in the design flood level in the Avon. The council’s 50yr flood level for the Avon has increased from RL10.8 in 1979 to RL11.2m in 2016. The change in design flood level is due to improvements in computer modelling, additional development in the Avon catchment, past Sea Level Rise and allowances for future SLR and Climate Changes in rainfall. The PS has therefore effectively ‘lost’ 0.4m of design lift since its construction in 1979. 

5.9       Hydraulic modelling to date has estimated the number of at risk households that would experience overfloor flooding in a 1/50 year event, ranges 8 to 23, with additional properties experiencing surface flooding. This analysis is based on the existing flood storage within the RRZ adjacent to Horseshoe Lake being maintained.

5.10    Should the existing flood storage in the RRZ be lost due to future regeneration development in the RRZ, the flood levels within Horseshoe Lake would increase by at least 200mm with corresponding increases in flooding of the surrounding green zone residential land.

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Maximise Station Life (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Maximise Station Life by extending Pump Station lift to the maximum possible (0.6m) within the existing structure (preferred option).

This option will maximise the active life of the station before the station will need to be fully replaced. The current super structure limits the extent to which the station can be modified. The lift of 0.6m will restore the stations effective design capacity of 13m3/s during the peak river levels that occur during a 50 year event (2%AEP) and allow for a SLR of 0.27m which will extends the station life to 2041.   

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil as this option involves the continuation of an existing level of service and community consultation is not required. There will be no changes to the appearance on the outside of the station, with exception of replacing the tidal gates.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Providing a fish friendly passage will improve Inanga migration into Horseshoe Lake which is a site of ecological significance. Horseshoe Lake is culturally significant and is considered to be wāhi taonga (treasured area).

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       No community groups are specifically affected by this option as the upgrade will be within the pump station and consists of replacement of existing equipment. Visible changes to the outside of the station are limited to the replacement of the 5 wooden flap gates, which are to include fish friendly passage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $1,900,000

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – TBC. Currently, the yearly operational maintenance budget (approx. $10k/year) is insufficient to maintain the station for reliable operation. The proposed operational expenditure is to be confirmed but will need to be increased from its current level.

6.9       Funding source – This project will deliver increased flood protection beyond pre-earthquake flood levels, enhanced operation and reliability of the Pump Station. Funding for this project will be made available within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme. There is sufficient budget available within the Programme as proposed in the Annual Plan 2017-2018 in the next financial year (FY17/18) to deliver this project. Any savings identified at the end of the project will be returned to the Programme for application to other projects.

Legal Implications

6.10    This option is the continuation of the existing operational regime of the land drainage network. There are no legal implications from this option. 

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    The extension of the PS lift seeks to restore and maintain the PS capacity at a 50 year capacity including an allowance for SLR to 2041. If the works are not undertaken the risk of flooding to adjacent land including RRZ & green zone will progressively increase.

6.12    No new risks result from the completion of these works. However the risk of flooding increases should the works not be undertaken.  This will result in social disruption and costs to the community.

6.12.1 Treatment: Undertake the proposed works.

6.12.2 Residual risk rating: Following the completion of the works the rating of the residual risk is low.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies. The PS’s existing drive chain cannot cope with a reinstated lift of more than 0.15m. In order to achieve the maximum lift proposed in this option the existing motors and drive equipment need to be replaced. The cost of these replacement drives and motors has been included in the total cost. Modelling and investigative work to date has proven that with the recommended equipment upgrades a 0.45m lift is achievable. It is anticipated that a maximum lift of 0.6m is hydraulically achievable, further modelling is underway to confirm this.  

6.14    Implementation timeframe – 2017/2018 Financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Maximises the hydraulic lift and effective capacity of the station

·   Maximises the effective lift of the station

·   Provides time to plan for the station’s eventual replacement

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The option has the second highest cost (after full replacement)


 

7.   Option 2 - Improve Reliability and Extend Pump Station lift by 0.15m

Option Description

7.1       This option will only restore the lift capacity lost in the earthquakes and increase the reliability of the pump station through the replacement of obsolete equipment. This option will cost approx. $1.7M. This provides for a pump station that operates with new motors, drives and gearboxes. It does not provide the maximum lift extension possible but will restore the hydraulic performance of the station back to pre-EQ level. The pre-EQ performance level is equivalent to a 1979 flood level and below the current 2017, 50 year design level.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil. As this option involves the restoration of an earlier level of service, community consultation is not required.

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. Providing a fish friendly passage will improve Inanga migration into Horseshoe Lake which is a site of ecological significance. Horseshoe Lake is culturally significant and is considered to be wāhi taonga (treasured area).

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       No community groups are specifically affected by this option as the upgrade will be within the pump station and consists of replacement of existing equipment. Visible changes to the outside of the station are limited to the replacement of the 5 wooden flap gates, which are to include fish friendly passage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $1,700,000

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – TBC. Currently, the yearly operational maintenance budget (approx. $10k/year) is insufficient to maintain the station for reliable operation. The proposed operational expenditure is to be confirmed but will need to be increased from its current level.

7.9       Funding source - Land Drainage Recovery Program

Legal Implications

7.10    This option is the continuation of the existing operational regime of the land drainage network. There are no legal implications from this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The extension of the PS lift seeks to restore the station capacity back to pre-earthquake levels. However the prequake level is below the 2017, 50 year capacity and does not include any allowance for future. The work also includes the replacement of obsolete parts to improves the station operational reliability. If the works are not undertaken, the risk of flooding to adjacent land including RRZ & green zone will progressively increase.

7.12    No new risks result from the completion of these works. However as the station lift is only being restored to prequake levels, the risk of flooding will progressively increase due to future SLR. Should the reliability works not be undertaken the station may not operate during a major storm event potentially resulting in flooding. This will result in social disruption and costs to the community.

7.12.1 Treatment: Undertake the proposed works.

7.12.2 Residual risk rating: Following the completion of the works the rating of the residual risk is medium-low.

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - None

7.14    Implementation timeframe - 2017/2018 Financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the reliability of the pump station

·   Restore the pre-earthquake capacity

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not fully restore the design capacity of the station

·   Does not allow for future SLR

·   Does not make optimal use of the opportunity to maximise benefits. For a marginal additional spend ($0.2M), maximum lift and service level can be obtained.


 

8.   Option 3 – Restore lift capacity lost in the earthquakes

Option Description

8.1       Restore only the lift capacity lost in the earthquakes. This does not address issues with the reliability of operating the pump station. This option would involve relocating the flights on the lower end of the Archimedes screws to the top of the screws. This avoids replacement of the electrical and mechanical equipment inside the station. Cost estimate of restoring capacity lost in the EQ is approx. $0.2M

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is high consistent with section 2 of this report.

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil as the work involves earthquake recovery within an existing council structure.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       The local community is affected by this option due to the lower level of protection it provides.  Their views have not yet been sought as this is not a preferred option.

8.6       Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.7.1   Inconsistency – Residential households will progressively be at a higher level of flood risk.

8.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – This option does not restore the station design capacity nor provides for future SLR making it difficult for the council to comply with existing levels of services.

Financial Implications

8.8       Cost of Implementation - $200,000

8.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – TBC. Currently, the yearly operational maintenance budget (approx. $10k/year) is insufficient to maintain the station for reliable operation. The proposed operational expenditure is to be confirmed but will need to be increased from its current level.

8.10    Funding source – Land Drainage Recovery Program

Legal Implications

8.11    There are no legal implications from this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.12    This option only restores the station’s prequake lift capacity. However this capacity is equivalent to a 1979 flood level and below the current 2017, 50 year design level. The existing reliability issues remain and there is no allowance for future SLR. 

8.13    The flood risk caused by the lack of adequate lift will result in increased flood risk to adjacent green zone properties and also the RRZ. Should the RRZ be filled as part of future the regenerate Christchurch plans the flood level in Horse Shoe Lake will rise further increasing the flood risk.

8.13.1 Treatment: Implement the recommended option (option 1)

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

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies  - None

8.15    Implementation timeframe – 2017/18

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   This option is the cheapest and can be delivered relatively quickly.

·   The recommended reliability improvements can still be undertaken in the future.

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not fully restore the design capacity of the station

·   There is no allowance for future SLR

·   Pump station may not be able to start during a major flood due to inaccessibility or equipment failure, resulting in flooding of RRZ and green zone.

 


 

9.   Option 4 – New Pump Station

Option Description

9.1       This option consists of the design and construction of a new pump station and abandonment of the existing pump station. A new pump station will be designed for hydraulic conditions, inclusive of the effects of climate change, for a design life of 100 years. The cost of a new pump station are expected to cost at least $10M to $20M.

Significance

9.2       The level of significance of this option is High consistent with section 2 of this report.

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are: consultation required with multiple stakeholders within and outside of Council, including but not limited to local residential community, Runanga, Regional Council and Regenerate Christchurch.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Their views have not yet been investigated at this stage as this is not a preferred option.

Community Views and Preferences

9.5       The community in the vicinity of the pump station are specifically affected by this option due to construction and operation of a new pump station with different characteristics compared to the current situation.  Their views have not yet been investigated at this stage as this is not a preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – minimum of $10-20M

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – TBC. Currently, the yearly operational maintenance budget (approx. $10k/year) is insufficient to maintain the station for reliable operation. The proposed operational expenditure is to be confirmed but will need to be increased from its current level.

9.9       Funding source – Land Drainage Recovery Programme

Legal Implications

9.10    There are currently no legal implications foreseen from this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

9.11    This option will consider the long term impact of SLR on the design of the station including sea level rise and increased rainfall intensities expected with climate change. The required design life of the station would be 100 years.

9.12    This option effectively manages the flood risk for the HSL catchment.  

9.12.1 Treatment: nil

9.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies - implementing a new pump station would need to involve wider consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, both within and outside of Christchurch City Council.

9.14    Implementation timeframe – implementation of a new pump station would take approximately 3 years.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   A new pump station will provide for a design life of 100 years

·   It will allow use of the most modern technologies available

·   It will provide high reliability of operation in comparison to options 3 & 5.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Very high cost compared to the other options

·   Uncertainty over the future use of the RRZ and ongoing research into the effects of climate change provide a level of uncertainty about long term hydraulic requirements and use of this option.


 

10. Option 5 – Do nothing

Option Description

10.1    Do not undertake any remedial activity at all.

Significance

10.2    The level of significance of this option is high consistent with section 2 of this report.

10.3    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil. However this option would represent a significant drop in the level of service provided and community consultation would need to be undertaken to re-set community expectations.

Impact on Mana Whenua

10.4    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

10.5    The local community are affected by this option due to the lower level of protection provided and increased flood risk.  Their views have not yet been sought as this is not a preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

10.6.1 Inconsistency – this option does not increase or restore flood protection but will allow flood risk to increase over time.

10.6.2 Reason for inconsistency – Council aims to restore flood risk to at least pre-earthquake levels. This will not be achieved by this option.

Financial Implications

10.7    Cost of Implementation - $0

10.8    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – TBC. Currently, the yearly operational maintenance budget (approx. $10k/year) is insufficient to maintain the station for reliable operation. The proposed operational expenditure is to be confirmed but will need to be increased from its current level, even in the ‘do nothing’ option.

10.9    Funding source – Land Drainage Maintenance Budget

Legal Implications

10.10  There are no legal implications from this option. Council is able to set land drainage levels of service. However this option would represent a significant drop in the level of service provided and community consultation would need to be undertaken to re-set community expectations.

Risks and Mitigations    

10.11  The current post quake flood risk is higher than that envisaged by the Council when the station was constructed. The flood risk to the community will progressively increase over time to sea level rise and climate change.

10.12  The flood risk caused by the lack of adequate lift will result in increased flood risk to adjacent green zone properties and also the RRZ. Should the RRZ be filled as part of future the Regenerate Christchurch plans the flood level in Horse Shoe Lake will rise further, increasing the flood risk. 

10.12.1  Treatment: Undertake the recommended option.

10.12.2  Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is very high.

Implementation

10.13  Implementation dependencies  - N/A

10.14  Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.15  The advantages of this option include:

·   No expenditure required

10.16  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The level of service provided by the pump station is lower than that provided when the station was built in 1979.

·   The reliability issues are not resolved.

·   The flood risk to the local community will remain higher than design level and progressively increase.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

PS205 Options assessment and cost estimates 9 Dec 2016

32

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Bas Van Lammeren - Project Manager

Stephen Bensberg - Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

7.        Disposal of land acquired under the Flood Intervention Policy

Reference:

17/107957

Contact:

Justin Sims

Justin.sims@ccc.govt.nz

941 6424

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is:

1.1.1   For the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to Council to remove the dwellings on any land acquired under the Flood Intervention Policy (the Policy), declare them surplus and sell the vacant sections on the open market.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by utilising the significance assessment worksheet.

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

2.2       The decisions made in this report will be applied to all future purchases made to enact the flood intervention policy and extends beyond the seven properties described in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve the removal of the dwellings on the properties acquired or to be acquired under the Policy.

2.         Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy authority to consider retaining non-habitable structures such as garages on the property if these are considered to enhance re-sale value.

3.         Declare the properties acquired under the Policy surplus and delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy authority to initiate a process to dispose of the land at open market value, entering into such agreements and to take such steps considered expedient or necessary to effect the sale.

 

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 – Remove the dwellings and sell the properties (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Remove the dwellings and retain the properties

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Removal of the dwellings fulfils the purpose of the Policy.

·     Removal of the dwelling and selling the properties will reduce ongoing maintenance and holding costs.

·     Sale of the vacant sections would return developable land to the market.

·     Sale of the vacant sections would recoup some costs of the original purchase.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     none

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       At the Council meeting of 10th December 2015, the Council resolved to adopt a policy to intervene where habitable floor levels are at risk of frequent flooding (in a 10 year average recurrence interval event) and there has been exacerbation of flooding due to the Canterbury earthquake sequence. (The Council’s resolution can be found at attachment A.)

5.2       In accordance with the resolution, staff:

5.2.1   Have acquired 4 of the 7 properties;

5.2.2   Are negotiating with the owners to purchase two of the remaining properties;

5.2.3   Have had one offer rejected by the property owner.

5.3       As the properties have been acquired in accordance with the Policy for welfare reasons, Council does not need to retain them for another use. If it did so, the stock of developable land in Christchurch would be reduced. Additionally holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk. It also comes at a cost in terms of operating / holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes.

5.4       The Policy envisages a subsequent sale of the properties to recoup some of the purchase costs.

5.5       The dwellings need to be removed to fulfil the purpose of the Policy. Once removed, any new building would need to meet the floor level requirements of the District Plan which means the new dwelling would have a habitable floor level above the flood level.

5.6       Some of the properties benefit from detached garages and/or ancillary buildings which may enhance re-sale value if left in-situ. Demolition of ancillary building should be decided on a case by case basis following consultation with the appointed real estate agent.


 

6.   Option 1 - Remove the dwellings and sell the properties (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Remove (demolish or relocate as appropriate on a case by case basis) the dwellings on the properties acquired and any other improvements if they do not enhance re-sale value, then sell the sections on the open market through a disposal process.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement is not required for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       No one is specifically adversely affected by this option due to the property being acquired from a willing private seller.  Any owner who rejects the offer of assistance will be able to sell on the open market as they see fit.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – agents and legal fees will be incurred in the sale but the sale proceeds will offset these. Additional legal and administrative fees may be incurred in documenting any cross lease co-owners consent to the demolition. 

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none.

6.9       Funding source – LDRP budget.

Legal Implications

6.10    Some of the properties are held on a cross lease and therefore the co-owners consent is required prior to demolition.

6.11    A sale and purchase agreement will be entered into with any prospective purchaser.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.12    There is a risk the vacant sections may not sell on the open market due to a lack of demand.  This will result in the properties being retained by Council in the short term.

6.12.1 Treatment: use a reputable real estate agent to ensure marketing reaches as many people as possible.

6.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - removal of the dwellings.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – as soon as they can be arranged following Councils resolution.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Removal of the dwellings fulfils the purpose of the Policy.

·   Removal of the dwellings and selling the properties will reduce ongoing maintenance and holding costs.

·   Sale of the vacant sections would return developable land to the market.

·   Sale of the vacant sections would recoup some costs of the original purchase.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None.


 

7.   Option 2 - Demolish the dwellings and retain the properties

Option Description

7.1       Remove the dwellings but do not sell the sections.

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 not required.

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       No one is specifically affected by this option due to the property being acquired from a willing private seller.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – not selling the property

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – the Policy envisaged the properties would be sold to recoup some of the purchase cost.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – none this would be a one off exception

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation –legal and administrative fees may be incurred in documenting any cross lease co-owners consent to the demolition. 

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – rates, insurance and ongoing landscape maintenance.

7.9       Funding source – operational budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    None

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    There is a risk the vacant sections may be unlawfully occupied and would therefore require security inspections.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.13    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   none

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Retaining land for no purpose.

·   Ongoing maintenance and holding costs.

·   No costs of the purchase would be recouped.

·   Retaining the properties removes developable lots from the market.

·   Increased security issues and potential squatters on the land.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council 10 December 2015 - Minutes

63

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Justin Sims - Property Consultant

Thomas Parsons - Surface Water Engineering Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

8.        Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - 42 Hereford Street

Reference:

17/266976

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to the Council, to approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located at 42 Hereford Street (located adjacent to the King Edward Barracks KEB). 

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

a.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter at 42 Hereford Street.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located at 42 Hereford Street.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather.

·     Seating provided within the shelter.

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport.

·     Increased revenue earning capacity for the council as the shelter type will incorporate advertising.

·     Cost of purchasing the shelter and the shelter installation will be covered by Adshel NZ, not council.

·     Maintenance cost of the shelter will be covered by Adshel NZ, and not council.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Shelters can be a target for vandalism.  Where a shelter is located in a busy location, where there is good passive surveillance, such as 42 Hereford Street, vandalism incidents are less likely to occur than in areas of poor passive surveillance.  If vandalism does occur to the shelter, for example a side panel is broken, once notified of the event, it is the responsibility of Adshel NZ to tidy and make safe the site, and repair the broken component of the shelter.

4.4       Consultation has been undertaken with Ngai Tahu Property Ltd, who own the adjacent KEB site that the proposed shelter is located adjacent to.  Ngai Tahu Property Ltd have agreed to the proposed shelter installation, and are aware of what the proposed shelter (with advertising) will look like.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A bus passenger shelter, that includes an advertising panel, is proposed to be installed at an existing bus stop located adjacent to 42 Hereford Street.  This existing bus stop is located adjacent to the currently undeveloped section of the KEB site.  The location of the bus stop is indicated in Attachment A.

5.2       The bus stop located adjacent to 42 Hereford Street is serviced by the number 17 bus line that connects Huntsbury to Bryndwr, via the city centre.  An average of about 20 passengers per weekday use this bus stop to travel by public transport. 

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

5.4       Staff confirm the shelter will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to the existing developed, as well as undeveloped sections of KEB, as a result of the proposed shelter installation. 

5.5       Due to the correspondence that has occurred with staff representing the interests of Ngai Tahu Property Ltd, staff can confirm that the shelter will not, or is highly unlikely to prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to the future development of the currently undeveloped section of the KEB site.

5.6       Consultation has been carried out with the affected party, Ngai Tahu Property Ltd.  The consultation with Ngai Tahu Property Ltd covered a period of late January 2017 to late February 2017.  Ngai Tahu Property Ltd have agreed to the proposed shelter installation, and are aware of what the proposed shelter with advertising will look like.

5.7       The proposed shelter will be provided by Adshel NZ.  The shelter will include an advertising panel that incorporates digital advertising on one side, and regular ‘poster’ advertising on the other side of the panel. 

5.8       As a consequence of the digital advertising component, Adshel NZ have to undertake a resource application, for the activity to be permitted under the newly operative Christchurch District Plan rules.  Irrespective of the digital advertising component, Adshel are also required to seek approval to install the shelter and advertising panel under the council’s relevant bylaw and policies concerning structures on street and advertising on bus passenger shelters. 

5.9       The applications for resource consent, bylaw and policies are a separate process to that of approval of the shelter under section 339 of the Local Government Act, to which this report relates.  All approvals have to be granted before Adshel can commit to installing the shelter.

5.10    Subject to all approvals being granted, Adshel NZ will cover the co cost of the shelter purchase, installation, maintenance and repairs.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located at 42 Hereford Street (located adjacent to the King Edward Barracks (KEB). 

6.2       The proposed location of the shelter is shown in Attachment A.  The type of shelter, inclusive of the digital advertising panel is shown below:

Type of bus passenger shelter (with advertising) proposed

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance includes the consultation with occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter.  The owner of the adjacent property (KEB), is Ngai Tahu Property Ltd, who have been consulted with.  A summary of the consultation is provided in section 6.5 – 6.7.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Consultation has been carried out with the affected party, Ngai Tahu Property Ltd.  Consultation with Ngai Tahu Property Ltd covered a period of late January 2017 to late February 2017.  Ngai Tahu Property Ltd have agreed to the proposed shelter installation, and are aware of what the proposed shelter with advertising will look like.

6.6       During consultation, plans for the undeveloped section of the KEB site were discussed.  The proposed location of the shelter reflects the outcome of these discussions, in that the shelter is unlikely to obstruct the future locations of vehicle or pedestrian access points. 

6.7       Also discussed during the consultation period was the likely inclusion of a pedestrian priority crossing on Hereford Street.  As a consequence of the pedestrian crossing, the location of the bus stop will be amended.  The future amendment to bus stop will mean the shelter will be closer to the front of the bus stop, which is a better outcome for bus passengers.  Plans associated with the pedestrian crossing are at a design stage, but will be presented to the Council for approval in due course.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – No implementation cost to council.  Adshel NZ pay for the cost of implementation.

6.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – No maintenance or ongoing costs.  Adshel NZ pay for maintenance and ongoing costs.

6.11    Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

6.14    If the shelter is vandalised, for example a side panel is broken, once notified of the event, it is the responsibility of Adshel NZ to tidy and make safe the site, and repair the broken component of the shelter.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies:

·   Recommendation by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to the Council, and subsequent approval by the Council to approve the shelter installation relevant to section 339 of the Local Government Act, as outlined in this report.

·   Separate to this report, approval of the resource consent application approval.

·   Separate to this report, approval of the relevant bylaw and policies application.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – Adshel NZ anticipate to have the shelter installed by the end of May 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather.

·   Seating provided within the shelter.

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport.

·   Increased revenue earning capacity for the council as the shelter type will incorporate advertising.

·   Cost of purchasing the shelter and the shelter installation will be covered by Adshel NZ, not council.

·   Maintenance cost of the shelter will be covered by Adshel NZ, and not council.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Shelters can be a target for vandalism.  Where a shelter is located in a busy location, where there is good passive surveillance, such as 42 Hereford Street, vandalism incidents are less likely to occur than in areas of poor passive surveillance.  If vandalism does occur to the shelter, for example a side panel is broken, once notified of the event, it is the responsibility of Adshel NZ to tidy and make safe the site, and repair the broken component of the shelter.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

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

Significance

7.2       As there is no bus passenger shelter proposed, no consultation is 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 inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

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

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

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages to this option.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

·   Does not take advantage of increased revenue earning potential for the council.

·   Does not take advantage of infrastructure, maintenance and on-going costs that are provided for and undertaken by an external party, at the expense of the external party.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 42 Hereford Street

72

 

 

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

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

9.        ITE report 3 Waters and Waste - March 2017

Reference:

17/313742

Contact:

John Mackie

John.mackie@ccc.govt.nz

6548

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to inform of the activities undertaken by the 3 Waters and Waste Unit, who are responsible for the planning, asset management, operations, maintenance and capital project delivery for all 3 waters and waste infrastructure. This includes drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, land drainage and solid waste services within the city.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to keep them up to date with the current status of the Three Water activities in Christchurch.

2.   Significance

2.1       There are no decision(s) sought in this report and therefore the significance is low in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the 3 waters and waste February 2017 report attached.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       SCIRT are in the final stages of completing the horizontal infrastructure rebuild and preparing for the transition of SCIRT back in to Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

ITE report 3 Waters and Waste - March 2017

75

 

 

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

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

10.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12 April 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

11

SCIRT Defects Liability Management

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Relating to a commerical transaction with SCIRT contractors

30 June 2018

12

Disposal of land purchased for Quarryman's Cycle Trail

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Purchase of the property to be demolished has not settled yet.

After settlement of the purchase of the property

13

Contract Variation

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The report contains commercially sensitive information

Once the Council has made a decision on the contract