Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Monday 3 April 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

29 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 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.......................................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

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

C       6.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 11  

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Ferry Road/Charlesworth Street Pedestrian Refuge Island....................................... 13

A       8.       Linwood/Eastgate Public Transport Hub Upgrade Options...................................... 21

C       9.       471 Colombo Street - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation ........................ 39

C       10.     27 Gracefield Avenue - Request for Tree Removal..................................................... 47

C       11.     5 Buckleys Road - Proposed Parking Restrictions....................................................... 71

A       12.     Partial Surrender of Shirley Tennis Club Lease Area and Variation to Richmond Cricket Lease at Richmond Park................................................................................................ 87

C       13.     Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund - Tia Ann Denovan-Stroud........................................................... 97

c       14.     Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated - Emergency Preparedness.................................................................... 99

C       15.     New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 - Board Members' Attendance 103

C       16.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................. 107

B       17.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 115

B       18.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 115

C       19.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 116  

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 15 March 2017  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Linwood College Festival of Nations

Navjot McCormack, Head of English Language Learning, will speak on behalf of Linwood College regarding their Festival of Nations event held in March 2017.

 

4.2

Te Mapua Child and Youth Trust

Amy and Dan Marsden, Directors, will speak on behalf of Te Mapua Child and Youth Trust, giving an overview of the work the Trust does within the community.

 

4.3

Cashmere/Technical Football Club

Bill Cowen, Club President, will speak on behalf of Cashmere/Technical Football Club regarding issues that the club have currently regarding sportsgrounds facilities, funding and the ownership of Linwood Lower Fields lighting system.

 

4.4

Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE) 2017

Nicole Stowers and members of the LYFE crew will speak on behalf of Linwood Youth Festival Experience regarding LYFE 2017.

 

4.5

Linwood Avenue Summer Pool

Amanda Murray will speak on behalf of Youthtown regarding Linwood Avenue Summer Pool.

 

4.6

Policing in the Doris Lusk Reserve and the Inner City East Area

Jeffrey Martin from the New Zealand Police will speak about policing in the Doris Lusk Reserve and the Inner City East area.

 

4.7

Community Engagement and Reintegration for the Department of Corrections

Lisa Joseph, District Manager Community Corrections, and Lauren Ball, Senior Advisor Community Engagement and Reintegration from the Department of Corrections, and Brad Grainger, New Zealand Police, will provide some information on the work undertaken by Community Corrections, including the neighbourhood notification process.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 15 March 2017

Time:                                    10.02am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

15 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00080

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday 27 February 2017 be confirmed.

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Ōtākaro Limited

             Albert Brantley - Chief Executive, Robert Fiske - General Manager Development, and Annemarie Settle - General Manager Communications and Stakeholder Engagement, representing Ōtākaro Limited updated the Board on Ōtākaro Limited projects within the Community Board Area.

             The Board thanked Mr Brantley, Mr Fiske and Ms Settle for their deputation.

4.2       Fuse Youth Centre – Shoreline Youth Trust

             Gareth Davies, Manager, and Aaron Powley, Programme Co-ordinator, represented the Shoreline Youth Trust and spoke about their programmes and Fuse Youth Centre in Sumner.

             The Board thanked Mr Davies and Mr Powley for their deputation.

4.3       Anti-social behaviour in Doris Lusk Reserve

             The scheduled deputation did not attend.

 4.4      Road Repairs to Main Road, St Andrews

             Bronny Clifford and Julie Gane, residents of Main Road St Andrews, advised that ten years ago they were advised by the Council that their part of the Main Road (numbers 40-48) would be renewed.  A bus stop on the Main Road has been moved to where they had an entrance/exit and now their part of Main Road has become a cul-de-sac situated behind the bus stop.  Residents believe there is a safety issue when trying to exit this newly formed cul-de-sac as some people exceed the speed limit in the area making exiting dangerous.  The street is currently in very poor condition and has many pot holes.  Members of the public and contractors also park haphazardly and this presents safety issues.  Photographs were tabled to show the Board the issues the deputation was highlighting.

             The Board thanked Ms Clifford and Ms Gane for their deputation.

4.5       Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape Plan

             Elizabeth Evans, a local resident of Woolston, noted her concerns about the Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape Plan.  She is concerned about tree planting shading her property, security, potential anti-social behaviour, issues caused by dog usage, and the possibility of the holding ponds becoming stagnant during low flows.  She is however supportive of the Urban Forest project.

             The Board thanked Ms Evans for her deputation.

4.6       Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape Plan

             Maureen Warburton, a local resident of Woolston, noted her support for the Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape plan but highlighted concerns about the Plan.  She said she shared the same concerns as Elizabeth Evans noted in her deputation.

             The Board thanked Ms Warburton for her deputation.

4.7       Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape Plan

             Julie Dance, a local resident of Woolston, noted her support for the Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape Plan but shared concerns about the plan.  She is concerned about security and lighting, new boundary fences, and the use of chemicals and spraying.

             The Board thanked Ms Dance for her deputation.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

6.   Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape Plan

 

Board Comment

Residents’ concerns about shade, security, anti-social behaviour, dog usage, usage of chemical sprays, new boundary fencing, and holding ponds were discussed.  It was noted that this project will be an amazing asset for the community and address flooding in the area.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the flood mitigation basin at Lower Linwood Fields to implement the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Bells Creek works to reduce the risk of flooding.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00081

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the flood mitigation basin at Lower Linwood Fields to implement the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Bells Creek works to reduce the risk of flooding.

2.         Request that staff engage regularly with residents during the project.

3.         Request that staff instigate a regular monitoring programme for problems with anti-social behaviour, dogs and other issues once the project is complete and report back on it to the Board and residents.     

4.         Request that staff report back to the Board within three months on project detailed design, shading modelling, and feedback from residents.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

7.   Scott Park - Stall Site for Food/Coffee/Retail Vendor

 

Board Comment

The Board asked about the selection process of the vendor and contract conditions.  It was noted that more than one vendor would be unlikely to be sustainable.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Scott Park – Stall Site for Food/Coffee/Retail Vendor report.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00082

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Scott Park – Stall Site for Food/Coffee/Retail Vendor report.

2.         Specify that any vendor chosen is to provide rubbish bins and to take away this rubbish.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Sara Templeton                                                                                                            Carried

 

Alexandra Davids left the meeting at 11:43 am.

Alexandra Davids returned to the meeting at 11:45 am.

8.   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Agree to whether or not to provide comment for the Council’s draft submission on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

3.         Agree on issues to be reported by the Chairperson in her report to the Council.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00083

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Will provide informal comment to Councillors on the Council’s draft submission on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

3.         Would like to thank Community Governance Team staff for attending and supporting the Community Board at community events.

Sally Buck/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                                   Carried

9.   Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received and noted the following information from members:

1.         Issues with Heathcote Street Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team repairs.   The Board would like to know the process in relation to sign off of the works.

10. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

11  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00084

Part C

That at 12.02pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 43 to 44 of the agenda be adopted.

Darrell Latham/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.14pm.

Meeting concluded at 12.15pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

 

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

17/287590

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Debbie Williams

Claymore Street – Request to remove street tree

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 03 April 2017

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence from D Williams, Claymore Street, Request to Remove Street Tree

12

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

7.        Ferry Road/Charlesworth Street Pedestrian Refuge Island

Reference:

17/45925

Contact:

Andy Cameron

andy.cameron@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the outcome of community consultation and to request they approve the installation of a pedestrian refuge island, build out, and bus layby with associated 'No Stopping' restrictions on Ferry Road at the intersection of Charlesworth Street. Please refer to Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following community consultation.  This project was initiated in response to a request by the community board to investigate a crossing facility at this location. The proposal was communicated to the Community Board prior to consultation by memo on 18 January 2017

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 Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the line marking changes, kerb alignment changes and traffic islands on Ferry Road from its intersection with Charlesworth Street and extending in an easterly direction for 30 metres, in accordance with Attachment A.

2.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Charlesworth Street and extending in an easterly direction for 30 metres.

3.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a point 735 metres west of its intersection with Settlers Crescent and continuing in a westerly direction for 51 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Charlesworth Street and extending in an easterly direction for 30 metres.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a point 735 metres west of its intersection with Settlers Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for 12 metres.

6.         Approve that a bus stop be created on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a point 747 metres west of its intersection with Settlers Crescent, and extending in a westerly direction for 14 metres.

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a point 761 metres west of its intersection with Settlers Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for 25 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - install a pedestrian refuge island, build out and bus layby with associated 'No Stopping' on Ferry road at the intersection of Charlesworth Street (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Ferry Road on the desire line for the bus stop by providing a crossing facility.

·     The pedestrian refuge island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages.

·     The indented bus stop allows cyclists to pass safely using the existing cycle lane when the bus is stopped.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of two parking spaces

4.4       Community Feedback

4.5       Community engagement on the Ferry Road Pedestrian Island Installation was open from 19 January 2017 to 8 February 2017.

4.6       A total of 70 leaflets were hand delivered to Ferry Road, Charlesworth Street, Olds Place and Waterman Place. The leaflet was also sent to 75 key stakeholders and 66 absentee owners.

4.7       During the course of engagement, Council received comments and feedback from three organisations and one resident. The organisations were; Environment Canterbury, Canterbury District Health Board and Christchurch Disability Group. All respondents have been communicated with by phone and/or email to discuss their individual project inquiries.

4.8       No responses, either supporting or objecting to the proposal were received from immediately adjacent residents.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Background

·   Ferry Road is a minor arterial road, carrying approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. Ferry Road is a two lane road with a flush central median.

·   There are existing on-street cycle lanes on both sides of this section of Ferry Road. These cycle lanes are approximately 1.5 metres.

·   On the north east side of Ferry Road there is a footpath which is approximately 2 metres wide, however there is no footpath on the south west side of Ferry Road and there are no crossing facilities.

·   There is a single bus route which travels through Woolston, using Ferry Road. The Purple Route is a high frequency route, with buses every 15 minutes, linking Sumner, the City Centre, Riccarton Mall, the University of Canterbury and Christchurch International Airport. On this section of Ferry Road there is a bus stop on the north east side of Ferry Road to the west of its intersection with Charlesworth Street, and one on the south west side of Ferry Road east of that intersection.

5.2       Context

·   The high volumes of traffic that use Ferry Road combined with the road layout make it difficult for pedestrians to cross. Pedestrian counts shows frequent, low volume, crossing movements in this location, all of which were associated with the bus stop.

6.   Option 1 - Install a pedestrian refuge island, build out and bus layby (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install a pedestrian refuge island, build out and bus layby on Ferry Road at the intersection with Charlesworth Street, with associated No Stopping and lighting upgrade.

Significance

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

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

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

6.1       Local residents are specifically affected by this option due to it addressing several nuisance factors that currently affect them.  The views of all four respondents were generally supportive and included the following comments.

·        That the proposed pedestrian refuge will improve safety for all pedestrians

Project Team Response – Agree

·        That this proposal may limit the stop to only one bus

Project Team Response – Current usage confirms the need for only one stop matching the current stop capacity.

·        That the footpath extends to the rear door of the bus so passengers can disembark safely.

Project Team Response – Agree. The path does extend to the rear doors.

·        Inclusion of double hand rails, kerb cut downs and repainting the existing yellow no stopping lines.

Project Team Response - The proposed design for the pedestrian crossing complies with the CSS (Construction Standard Specifications) guidelines. As such double hand rails and cut downs will be included. Traffic Operations have a maintenance contractor that checks road markings every 6-9 months. Any that do not meet the code are repainted.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.3       Cost of Implementation – This project is one of three projects that will be funded through Pedestrian Safety Initiatives. This project has a total cost estimated at $131,749.

6.4       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.5       Funding source -2017 CAPEX Pedestrian Safety Initiatives

Legal Implications

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

6.7       Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions, traffic control devices, traffic islands and pedestrian crossings.

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

Risks and Mitigations    

6.9       Not Applicable

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies - Approval by community board

6.11    Implementation timeframe - Construction to be completed by the end of this financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Ferry Road on the desire line for the bus stop by providing a crossing facility.

·   The pedestrian refuge island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages.

·   The indented bus stop allows cyclists to pass safely using the existing cycle lane when the bus is stopped.

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

•    Loss of two parking spaces

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Ferry Road will remain as is.

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 consistent.

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       This option was not consulted on, however previous feedback received by council indicate that there is a desire for improvement and hence this option is not supported.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - This option does not address known pedestrian safety issues.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - None

Legal Implications

7.8       None

Risks and Mitigations   

7.9       This option does not address the safety issues and therefore there will be a higher risk of a crash involving pedestrians.

Implementation

7.10    Implementation dependencies - None

7.11    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   No loss of parking

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option does not address safety issues associated with crossing Ferry Road at the intersection with Charlesworth Street.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation Plan Ferry Charlesworth Road TP349801

19

 

 

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

Andy Cameron - Junior Project Manager

Kim Swarbrick - Engagement Advisor

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

William Homewood - Traffic Engineer - Investigation & Design

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

8.        Linwood/Eastgate Public Transport Hub Upgrade Options

Reference:

16/1448342

Contact:

Philip Basher

philip.basher@ccc.govt.nz

8605

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to review and recommend to the Council a means to seek the future improvement of passenger facilities at the Linwood/Eastgate Public Transport Hub.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report fulfils the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board’s resolution HFCB/2016/00131 and the Council’s resolution CNCL/2016/00343.

1.3       The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting on 5 July 2016 considered a report reviewing options to relocate the bus stop adjacent to 35 Buckleys Road to Cranley Street. The Community Board resolved that the Council “request the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee explore options to build a covered integrated bus interchange at Linwood.”

1.4       This was considered by the Council on 11 August 2016 and the Council resolved (section 5.10 for the resolution) on the joint Infrastructure, Transport & Environment Committee and Hagley/Ferrymead Community workshop that was held on 7 September 2016 (sections 5.10 – 5.12).

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the policy’s criteria to this project.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the contents of this report.

2.         Recommends to the Council that:

a.         Staff seek to further evaluate the preferred option for inclusion in the 2018 Long Term Plan.

 

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: 10.4.3 Provide journey reliability on high frequency core services

·     Level of Service: 10.4.5 Ensure user satisfaction with the appearance, safety and ease of use of transport interchange(s) and suburban hubs

4.2       The following options have been considered (Figure 1):

·     Option 1 – Buckleys Road facilities upgrade (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Buckleys Road facilities upgrade on-street and waiting lounge

·     Option 3 – Eastgate Mall car park (rear entrance)

·     Option 4 – Cranley Street former library site

Figure 1 – Linwood/Eastgate PT Hub Options 2016

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option 1)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Better value for money

·     Improved passenger waiting facilities

·     Matches current and intermediate passenger waiting demand

·     No bus service diversions maintains core route reliability

·     Minimal delays for transferring passengers

·     Improves pedestrian crossing facilities with signals

·     Lower ongoing operational costs

·     Potential to provide better weather proofing

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Buckleys Road perceived as an unpleasant and unsafe location particularly in the hours of darkness

·     New shelters on Buckleys Road subject to the S339 LGA 1974 consultation process which could include a Hearing Panel.

·     Limited future proofing for service and passenger demand growth until a lounge (Option 2) is required later

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Linwood / Eastgate Public Transport (PT) Hub has been identified as a key PT interchange site in 2005. The Council commissioned Beca consultants to prepare a scoping report on site options at Linwood/Eastgate. The report reviewed these options (Attachment A):

A.  Buckleys Road / Linwood Avenue on-street superstops (preferred option)

B.  Mall car park (adjacent to entrance)

C.  Mall car park west (former library site)

D.  Mall car park east

5.2       Option A is essentially Option 1 as outlined in this report. The advantages and disadvantages as similar to those also given in this report. Beca did not propose a separate waiting lounge.

5.3       Options B and C are similar to Options 3 and 4 as outlined in this report. However, Option D is not being considered now as it would not provide any of the benefits considered necessary.

2008 Review

5.4       In 2008 the Council commissioned Abley to review and confirm the preferred options for the 18 identified suburban interchange sites in Christchurch. The report classified Linwood/Eastgate as Category A (the most crucial locations) which also included Riccarton, Northlands and The Palms. The preferred scheme was endorsed by Abley at an estimated cost of $1m without the lounge and $1.6m with the lounge. The main difference was that in 2008 there was a possible lounge/waiting facility site (a former filling station) on the northern side of Buckleys Road opposite the Mall, but this has now been redeveloped.  These estimated costs did not include provision for a signalised pedestrian crossing on Buckleys Road.

Contextual Update

5.5       It was the Council’s intention to implement a programme of suburban interchange improvements across the City, but the allocated resources were diverted into the proposed central City Interchange project in 2009.

5.6       In 2014/15 Staff from Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, New Zealand Transport Authority and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as part of the Passenger Transport (PT) Infrastructure Business Case process in the post-earthquakes environment developed a programme in the Programme Business Case (PBC) report to address two key problems:

·   Increased bus service travel times and unreliability

·   Improve the delivery  and coordination of bus services and passenger infrastructure

5.7       The PT PBC chosen programme option for PT infrastructure investment is based on:

·   Highlighting bus priority on the core PT corridors

·   Limited improvements for passenger facilities at key transfers points, such as Linwood/Eastgate

·   Maintaining basic level of service at other bus stops on these corridors

5.8       Nevertheless, the Long term Plan (LTP) 2015 -2025 has no provision for either the Yellow Line corridor to New Brighton or the Linwood/Eastgate PT hub. The LTP is being reviewed in 2017 to the updated plan in 2018.

5.9       The other key PT hubs have either been upgraded recently, e.g. Riccarton and Northlands, or have active projects seeking improved facilities, e.g. Northlands (signalised pedestrian crossing) and The Palms upgrade. Riccarton and Northlands were identified as part of the 2013 Crown / Council cost sharing agreement as the two busiest suburban hubs in Christchurch.  The Palms’ passenger facilities are in a poor state of repair and have required upgrading for several years.

Workshop 7th September 2016

5.10    The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board at the 5 July 2016 meeting requested that the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee explore options for a covered integrated bus interchange at Linwood. This was considered by the Council on 11 August 2016 and resolved:

“That a workshop comprising the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board be held to explore options for building a covered integrated bus interchange in Linwood with a report back to the Council.”

5.11    The workshop took place on 7 September 2016 and included members of the ITE Committee, the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board, Council and ECan staff. This report has been prepared as a result of these deliberations and the Council’s resolution to include the options discussed below and analysis on other relevant issues.

5.12    A summary of the workshop’s discussions are given below:

The main matters discussed were:

1.         The options for improvements at the existing Buckleys Road bus stops

2.         The need for improved pedestrian crossing on Buckleys Rd in front of the Mall

3.         Options for an off-street waiting area

4.         Off-street (off Buckleys Rd) facilities options in the Mall’s car park

5.         The Mall’s resource consent conditions re car parking; the supply of car parks may not meet the District Plan’s requirements.

Conclusions:

·    There was no consensus, except that the PT passenger facilities need improvement

·    Staff to prepare a report for the Council outlining the PT Facilities options including assessments of their advantages and disadvantages, the Mall’s resource consent conditions, the purchase and/or disposal of land, safety (crash) analysis & Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, and ECan’s views

·    The Report will be prepared for early 2017 and will be considered by the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board before being reviewed by the Council.

Issue Analysis

5.13    This analysis addresses the issues raised at the joint workshop.

Resource Consents

5.14    Resource Consent (RMA92030243) seeks to establish an additional 1,755m² of gross leasable floor (GLF) space (Stage 2) at the Eastgate Mall was approved by the Council on 26 November 2015. This supplement an earlier resource consent for 2,153m² GLF (Stage 1) approved in July 2015. The proposed development is shown in yellow in Figure 2 below, and the Council owned site at 10 Cranley Street is shown  in blue (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2 – RMA92030243 Site Location

 

5.15    Although the District Plan rules requires the Mall to provide 1,474 car parks the resource consents will supply 943 car parks (Stage 1) and 950 (Stage 2) as the effects of this under supply are considered to be minor. As mentioned below (5.18.6) 63 of these car parks at 10 Cranley Street are leased to Eastgate Mall by the Council and the Mall relies on these spaces to help supply their car parks.

5.16    The District Plan rules on car parking are used as a guide on the potential car parks supply required at a development site, they do not necessarily need to be strictly adhered too in light of professional advice and experience. In the case of RMA92030243 Eastgate Mall’s consultant Novogroup prepared a Transport Assessment. This report provided evidence that the maximum parking demand at the Mall would be 723 car parks, which means that there is a surplus of over 200 car parks to be provided. This argument was accepted by CCC’s staff and the resource consent was approved accordingly.

5.17    Although it is not certain if and when the developments take place, but if they do it is clear from Figures 1 and 2 that Options 3 and 4 would be compromised and may not be feasible, for reasons given below in the options assessment chapters. The proposed developments would also limit the potential use of Cranley Street by the buses services currently using that road. In addition it is clear that the Resource Consent for Stage 2 is contingent on the Mall buying 10 Cranley Street from the Council. This is not certain and the Council is obliged to fulfil its legal duties when disposing of freehold land.

Land Issues

5.18    Land Issues can be summarised as:

5.18.1 To acquire land in Eastgate Mall’s car park (either purchase or probably leased) to accommodate passenger facilities (shelters, seats, real time information) and bus stops.

5.18.2 To agree routes into and out of the Mall’s car parks to minimise conflict and loss of car parks.

5.18.3 To acquire property for a waiting lounge by a lease.

5.18.4 Need to fund a lease.

5.18.5 Possible need to acquire additional land for modified intersections.

5.18.6 The lease of 10 Cranley Street (CCC owned) to Eastgate Mall for 63 car parks. The lease started on 1 January 2015 for five years until 31 December 2019; it can be renewed for up to two years e.g. 31 December 2021.

5.18.7 Consider the future of Linwood Library if it were to be relocated to 10 Cranley Street. It is currently not identified in the LTP 2015 – 2025.

5.18.8 Consider the legal and property implications if the Council wishes to sell 10 Cranley Street.

Crashes

5.19    Crash Analysis has been conducted for five years between 2011 and 2016 for the area surrounding the Mall, e.g. Buckleys Road, Russell Street, Chelsea Street, Cranley Road and Linwood Avenue. A total of 81 crashes have been reported in five years and there were three serious injuries and 35 slight injuries.

5.20    There were 10 crashes involving pedestrians, six with cyclists and two involving buses. The majority of the crashes involved cars, although there were five crashes with powered two wheeled vehicles, e.g. motorcycles and mopeds. The serious injury crashes occurred at the intersection of Buckleys Road and Norwich Street, of Buckleys / Linwood / Aldwins and Buckleys Road at the Warehouse car park entrance. Eighteen of the 35 slights injuries occurred at the Aldwins / Buckleys / Linwood intersection.

5.21    The majority of crashes (52) occurred at or adjacent to the Aldwins Road / Buckleys Road/ Linwood Avenue intersection, many of which were rear end shunts, following too closely or failing to comply with the traffic signals. This intersection is identified in the Capital Programme (CPMS 17103) for intersection safety improvements in 2019/20.

5.22    The Linwood Avenue / Chelsea Street and Linwood Avenue / Cranley Street intersections recorded six crashes each. The former intersection is signal control with vehicles failing to comply with the lights being the main factor. The Cranley Street intersection is priority controlled and four crashes were caused by vehicles turning right from Linwood Avenue.

5.23    The current configuration of this intersection would severely restrict the ability of buses diverting from Buckleys Road to the Mall’s car park. Vehicles wanting to turn right from Cranley Street into Linwood Avenue are required to U-turn a 100 metres east at the Linwood/Chelsea intersection.

5.24    The Buckley Road / Russell Street signalised intersection recorded four crashes two of which were rear end shunts. All of these intersections would be crucial if the buses were diverted into the Eastgate Mall car park.

5.25    In addition there were reported two crashes at the Russell Street entry/exit for the Mall’s car park. Two crashes were recorded within the Mall’s car park close to the Warehouse store. This indicates that maintaining a safe passage for the buses as well as for other vehicles and pedestrians would be critical if Options 3 or 4 were to be chosen.

5.26    The provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing (Options 1 & 2) on Buckleys Road may help to reduce pedestrian crashes.

Safety & Security

5.27    CPTED principles will be applied to any proposed designs which ever option is chosen. At this stage it is too early to involve the Community Support team until a specific scheme design is drafted. Principles include passive surveillance, lighting, the elimination of darken spaces, CCTV and visibility. However, it is important to note that both ECan and Council staff have concerns over the safety of bus passengers in the Mall’s car park once the shopping centre is closed. In addition a waiting lounge would require a constant security presence as evidenced by the Council’s experience with the Riccarton lounges.

Environment Canterbury

5.28    Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) views are:

·   Prefer to enhance the passenger facilities in the current bus stop locations on Buckleys Road and include an additional crossing provision on Buckleys Road between the stops.

·   ECan is not in favour of an interchange facility in or adjacent to the car park area to the east of the Mall for the following reasons:

a)    Removes core services from the main arterial route (Buckleys Road) resulting in extra time delays for through customers, additional mileage costs and potentially significant contractual costs if extra buses are needed to maintain the current service frequency.

b)    Current road network does not allow the diversion of buses into and out of the Mall’s car park because of turning restrictions.

c)    Travel time delays due to restricted movements and additional signals required.

d)    Increase bus / car conflict, particularly in the Mall’s car park.

e)    Reduced safety for bus customers particularly outside the Mall’s opening hours.

Current Bus Operations at Eastgate

5.29    The following bus routes serve this location:

5.29.1 Core Routes –  Orbiter (Buckleys Road) and Yellow Line (Buckleys Road & Linwood Avenue north of the Mall)

5.29.2 Connector Route – 80 (Buckleys Road)

5.29.3 Local/suburban (through) Route – 140 (Buckleys Road, Russell Street, Chelsea Street, Linwood Avenue, Cranley Street, Mall car park to Chelsea Street)

5.29.4 Local/suburban (terminates at Eastgate) Routes – 145 and 535 (Buckleys Road, Russell Street, Chelsea Street, Linwood Avenue, Cranley Street, Mall car park to Chelsea Street)

5.30    The 145 and 535 buses use Cranley/Chelsea and Russell Streets to turn around, and use of part of the Mall’s car park is crucial to the successful operation of these low frequency routes (including the 140). If the more frequent core and connector services (e.g. at least every 15 minutes) were obliged to use this route it would have significant journey time delays, costs and safety issues for passengers, shoppers and taxpayers. The use of Cranley Street to turn around the buses may not be feasible if the proposed expansion of the Mall takes place as other repositioning arrangements may be required. Figure 3 illustrates the current bus routes juxtaposed with the PT Hub options under consideration.

Figure 3 – Linwood/Eastgate PT Hub Options & Bus Routes 2017

 

6.   Option 1 – Buckleys Road Facilities Upgrade On-street (Preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option would seek to upgrade the existing bus passenger facilities (including the on-street shelters by providing larger and better weather proofed structures) on Buckleys Road and provide improved signalised pedestrian crossing facilities. The main emphasis would be to improve the passenger shelters on Buckleys Road by providing larger and better weather proofed structures to accommodate current and intermediate passenger waiting demand. A lounge could be required at a later stage (Option 2), but at this time there insufficient passenger waiting demand to justify it.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance would be conducted if the project is formally included in the Council’s LTP and capital programme. There would be community and stakeholder consultations at the keys stages and the engagement strategy would be determined if this project becomes active.

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       Residents, nearby businesses, the Mall and its tenants would be affected by this option and they will be consulted if this project becomes active. It would also be necessary to consult the owners and/or occupiers specifically affected by any new shelters in accordance with section 339 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1   Inconsistency - None

6.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - None

6.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

6.7       Potential cost of implementation (currently no provision in the LTP) - $1.1m includes

6.7.1   Shelters - $600,000

6.7.2   Signalised crossing - $500,000

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – unknown at this time

6.9       Funding source – no current provision in the LTP for capital improvements or operational expenditure

Legal Implications

6.10    None at this time.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    At this time only high level of risk can be determined with confidence as the project is at an early concept stage.

6.12    Risk of community and stakeholder opposition caused by concerns about crime and littering.  This could result in substantial modification of the project or its cancellation in conflict with any objectives to improve and encourage public transport in Christchurch.

6.12.1 Treatment: this cannot be determined at this time, although the implementation of past PT infrastructure projects have been eased by extensive and productive consultation at the political and community levels.

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

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - none at this time

6.14    Implementation timeframe – none at this time

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

A.     Better value for money

B.     Improved passenger waiting facilities

C.     Matches current and intermediate passenger waiting demand

D.     No bus service diversions required maintains core route reliability

E.      Minimal delays for transferring passengers

F.      Improves pedestrian crossing facilities

G.     Lower ongoing operational costs

H.     Potential to provide better weather proofing

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

A.     Buckleys Road perceived as an unpleasant and unsafe location particularly in the hours of darkness

B.     New shelters on Buckleys Road subject to the S339 LGA 1974 consultation process which could include a Hearing Panel.

C.     Limited future proofing for service and passenger demand growth until a lounge (Option 2) is required later

7.   Option 2 – Buckleys Road Facilities Upgrade & Waiting Lounge

Option Description

7.1       This option would seek to upgrade the existing bus passenger facilities (including the on-street shelters by providing larger and better weather proofed structures) on Buckleys Road (Option 1) and provide improved signalised pedestrian crossing facilities. The project would include seeking to lease a ground floor unit in the Mall as a passenger waiting lounge.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance would be conducted when the project is formally included in the Council’s LTP and capital programme. There would be community and stakeholder consultations at the keys stages and the engagement strategy would be determined if this project becomes active.

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       Residents, nearby businesses, the Mall and its tenants would be affected by this option and they will be consulted if this project becomes active. It would also be necessary to consult the owners and/or occupiers specifically affected by any new shelters in accordance with section 339 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - none

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - none

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – not applicable

Financial Implications

7.7       Potential cost of implementation (currently no provision in the LTP) – approximately $1.7m includes:

7.7.1   Shelters - $600,000

7.7.2   Lounge fitout - $460,000

7.7.3   Lounge procurement & design costs - $40,000

7.7.4   Signalised crossing - $500,000

7.7.5   Resource and building consents - $50,000

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – unknown at this time estimated between $250,000 and $300,000 p.a. based on the operational costs for the Riccarton waiting lounges, but adjusted for the Linwood/Eastgate Mall local factors. These costs include cleaning, security, maintenance, rent, depreciation, etc.

7.9       Funding source – no current provision in the LTP for capital improvements or operational funding for a lounge.

Legal Implications

7.10    None at this time although a property lease agreement would be required for the lounge.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.11    At this time only high level of risk can be determined with confidence as the project is at an early concept stage.

7.12    Risk of community and stakeholder opposition caused by concerns about crime and littering.  This could result in substantial modification of the project or its cancellation in conflict with any objectives to improve and encourage public transport in Christchurch.

7.12.1 Treatment: this cannot be determined at this time, although the implementation of past PT infrastructure projects have been eased by extensive and productive consultation at the political and community levels.

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

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  -  none at this time

7.14    Implementation timeframe – none at this time

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

A.     Integrate with Mall particularly if lounge included

B.     Improved passenger waiting facilities

C.     No bus service diversions required

D.     Future proofing for service and passenger demand growth

E.      Potential to provide a weather proofed waiting lounge

F.      Minimal delays for transferring passengers

G.     Potential improvements in safety and security

H.     Improves pedestrian crossing facilities with signals

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

A.     Cost of lease and fitout to meet the requirements for a public building

B.     A lounge in the Mall would be on the “wrong” side of Buckleys Road in terms of most majority of passenger waiting demand in the evening peak hours

C.     No apparent option for lounge on opposite side of Buckleys Road

D.     Current and intermediate passenger demand is not sufficient for a separate waiting lounge

E.      Lounge means high security, cleaning, other operational and on-going lease costs

8.   Option 3 – Eastgate Mall Car Park (rear entrance)

Option Description

8.1       This option would provide improved passenger facilities in the Eastgate Mall’s car park close to the Mall’s entrance with new passenger shelters and bus stops in the Mall’s car park. Buses would need to divert from Buckleys Road onto Russell Street to access the car park. It would also be necessary for the buses to utilise Chelsea Street, Cranley Street and Linwood Avenue to access and exit the site.   Would also include leasing a lounge space within the Mall on the ground floor close to the entrance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance would be conducted when the project is formally included in the Council’s LTP and capital programme. There would be community and stakeholder consultations the keys stages and the engagement strategy would be determined if this project becomes active.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Residents, nearby businesses, the Mall and its tenants would be affected by this option and they will be consulted if this project becomes active.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – None

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – None

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

8.7       Potential cost of implementation (currently no provision in the LTP) – approximately $2.12m includes:

8.7.1   Shelters - $600,000

8.7.2   Lounge fitout - $460,000

8.7.3   Lounge acquisition costs - $10,000

8.7.4   Resource and building consents - $50,000

8.7.5   Intersection improvements, e.g. Linwood/Cranley or Linwood/Chelsea - $1m

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – unknown at this time see section 7.8 for the indicative estimates

8.9       Funding source – no current provision in the LTP for capital improvements or operational expenditure.

Legal Implications

8.10    None that this time, although property purchase, a lease and the access arrangements to the Mall’s car park will require legal input.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.11    At this time only high level of risk can be determined with confidence as the project is at an early concept stage.

8.12    Risk of community and stakeholder opposition caused by concerns about crime and littering.  This could result in substantial modification of the project or its cancellation in conflict with any objectives to improve and encourage public transport in Christchurch. In addition there is the risk that the Council and Eastgate Mall’s owner may not be able to agree to lease the land required or agree a suitable route for the buses accessing the site.

8.12.1 Treatment: this cannot be determined at this time, although the implementation of past PT infrastructure projects have been eased by extensive and productive consultation at the political and community levels.

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

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies  - none at this time

8.14    Implementation timeframe – none at this time

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

A.  Integrates with the Mall

B.  Improved passenger waiting facilities

C.  Possible weather proof waiting facility

D.  Accommodates future passenger growth

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

A.  Expensive option

B.  Requires diversion of the core bus routes (Orbiter and Yellow) and the 80 from Buckleys Road

C.  Need to allow core buses to re-establish their routes on the arterial network is problematic.  The current configuration of the Linwood Avenue / Cranley Street intersection restricts the ability of buses to divert via the Mall’s car park; there is no direct right turn facility from Cranley Street into Linwood Avenue.

D.  Mall’s internal roads may be unsuitable for buses

E.   Potential to compromise future service growth as using the Mall’s car parks and roadways may impose capacity constraints

F.   Potential safety issues for pedestrians and other vehicles in the Mall’s car park

G.  Safety and security concerns when the Mall is closed

H.  Current and intermediate passenger demand is not sufficient for a separate waiting lounge

I.    Lounge means high security, cleaning, other operational and on-going lease costs

J.   Feasibility to agree with the Mall to lease the requisite land

K.  The 2015 resource consents if they are actioned would limit or even exclude this option

L.   Could negatively impact on Eastgate Mall’s ability to supply car parks in accordance with the District Plan rules and the resource consent

9.   Option 4 – Cranley Street former library site

Option Description

9.1       This option would utilise the Council owned site that formerly accommodated the Linwood Library (10 Cranley Street), as a newly constructed passenger waiting lounge. The bus stops could be located on Cranley Street which is a legal road, but new shelters would need to be provided. Buses will need to divert from Buckleys Road onto Russell Street to access the site. It would also be necessary for the buses to utilise Chelsea Street or Cranley Street and Linwood Avenue to access and exit the site.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance would be conducted when the project is formally included in the Council’s LTP and capital programme. There would be community and stakeholder consultations the keys stages and the engagement strategy would be determined if this project becomes active.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       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

9.5       Residents, nearby businesses, the Mall and its tenants would be affected by this option and they will be consulted if this project becomes active.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

9.6.1   Inconsistency – none

9.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – none

9.6.3   Amendment necessary – not applicable

Financial Implications

9.7       Potential cost of implementation (currently no provision in the LTP) – approximately $4.15m includes:

9.7.1   Shelters - $600,000

9.7.2   Lounge construction & fitout - $2m

9.7.3   Lounge acquisition costs - $500,000 (to acquire land from Library Services)

9.7.4   Intersection improvements, e.g. Linwood/Cranley or Linwood/Chelsea - $1m

9.7.5   Resource and building consents - $50,000

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – unknown at this time see section 7.8 for the indicative estimates

9.9       Funding source – no current provision in the LTP for capital improvements or operational expenditure.

Legal Implications

9.10    None that this time, although property purchase, and the access arrangements to the Mall’s car park will require legal input. Currently 10 Cranley Street is leased by the Council to Eastgate Mall to provide car parks for an initial term of five years from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019. Eastgate have the right to renew the lease for two periods of one year each, e.g. up to 31 December 2021.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.11    At this time only high level of risk can be determined with confidence as the project is at an early concept stage.

9.12    Risk of community and stakeholder opposition caused by concerns about crime and littering.  This could result in substantial modification of the project or its cancellation in conflict with any objectives to improve and encourage public transport in Christchurch. In addition there is the risk that the Council and Eastgate Mall’s owner may not be able to agree a suitable route for the buses accessing the site.

9.12.1 Treatment: this cannot be determined at this time, although the implementation of past PT infrastructure projects have been eased by extensive and productive consultation at the political and community levels.

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

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies  - none at this time

9.14    Implementation timeframe – none at this time

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

A.  Possible weather proof waiting facility

B.  Improved passenger waiting facilities

C.  Accommodates future passenger growth

D.  Lounge on CCC owned site

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

A.  Most expensive option and requires the construction of a new building

B.  Requires diversion of the core bus routes (Orbiter and Yellow) and the 80 from Buckleys Road

C.  Need to allow core buses to re-establish their routes on the arterial network is problematic.  The current configuration of the Linwood Avenue / Cranley Street intersection restricts the ability of buses to divert via the Mall’s car park; there is no direct right turn facility from Cranley Street into Linwood Avenue.

D.  The legal road portion of Cranley Street is not suitable for buses to turn or perform complex manoeuvres.

E.   Mall’s internal roads may be unsuitable for buses

F.   Potential to compromise future service growth as using the Mall’s car parks and roadways may impose capacity constraints

G.  Potential safety issues for pedestrians and other vehicles in the Mall’s car park

H.  Current and intermediate passenger demand is not sufficient for a separate waiting lounge

I.    Safety and security concerns when the Mall is closed

J.   Lounge means high security, cleaning, other operational and on-going lease costs

K.  Relatively longer walk for passengers to and from the Mall than other options 

L.   Currently 10 Cranley Street is leased to Eastgate Mall until 2020 (or 2022).

M. Could negatively impact on Eastgate Mall’s ability to supply car parks in accordance with the District Plan rules and the resource consent

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Eastgate Mall Interchange Figure 4.1 options from BECA report November 2005

38

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Philip Basher - Transport Policy Engineer

Approved By

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

9.        471 Colombo Street - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Reference:

17/271288

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located at 471 Colombo Street (located adjacent to the vehicle testing station building, VINZ). 

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

a.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter outside of 471 Colombo 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 adjacent to 471 Colombo 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.  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.  If vandalism persists, then the glass side panels can be replaced with mesh panels.

4.4       Consultation has been undertaken with the owner and occupiers of 471 Colombo Street, the only property to which the shelter is located adjacent to.  A summary of the consultation is provided in section 6.5.

 

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 471 Colombo Street.  The location of the bus stop is indicated in Attachment A.

5.2       The shelter is one of 12 bus shelters proposed to be installed by Adshel NZ.  Adshel NZ have a preferred list of 10 sites, and a back-up list of 2 sites.  The proposed shelter at 350 Colombo Street falls into the back-up list.  What this means is, if the various approvals to the installation of all the shelters in the preferred list are granted, then the back-up list will not be required.  This does not mean a shelter will not be installed here, what it does mean is further discussion between council staff and Adshel will occur to determine if Adshel are willing to install a standard advertising shelter (poster only) instead, or if council installs a standard council shelter.  For the basis of this report, and to support Adshel’s other applications associated with this project, it is assumed that an Adshel shelter will be installed. 

5.3       The bus stop located adjacent to 471 Colombo Street is serviced by the Blue line and the number 28 bus lines.  The Blue line connects Cashmere to Belfast, via the city centre.  The 28 connects Lyttelton to Papanui, via the city centre.  An average of about 25 passengers per weekday use this bus stop to travel by public transport. 

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

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

5.6       Consultation has been carried out with the affected owners and occupiers of 471 Colombo.  The consultation period for the shelter occurred from Friday 20 January 2017 to Friday 10 February 2017.  During this period feedback from the site service manager of VINZ, the occupiers of 471 Colombo Street, was received, which indicated their approval to the proposal.  No feedback was received from the property owner.

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 471 Colombo Street. 

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. 

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 owners and occupiers of 471 Colombo.  The consultation period for the shelter occurred from Friday 20 January 2017 to Friday 10 February 2017.  During this period feedback from the site service manager of VINZ, the occupiers of 471 Colombo Street, was received, which indicated their approval to the proposal.  No feedback was received from the property owner.

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

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

6.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

6.10    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

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

6.12    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.  If vandalism persists, then the glass side panels can be replaced with mesh panels.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies:

·   Approval by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to authorise the installation of the shelter 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.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    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.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Shelters can be a target for vandalism.  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.  If vandalism persists, then the glass side panels can be replaced with mesh panels.

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: 471 Colombo Street

46

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

10.    27 Gracefield Avenue - Request for Tree Removal

Reference:

17/230451

Contact:

Jonathan Hansen

jonathan.hansen@ccc.govt.nz

941 8328

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve/decline the removal of the Council Chinese Crab Apple tree located on the berm outside 27 Gracefield Avenue

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request by the property owner of 27 Gracefield Avenue, to remove the Council Chinese Crab Apple tree outside the property to allow the construction of new vehicle crossing.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by a score of 18

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside 27 Gracefield Avenue as per the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside number 27 Gracefield Avenue as per the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Decline the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside number 27 Gracefield Avenue

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It will allow the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 to proceed

·     The tree is growing next to the power lines and will need on-going pruning to maintain a safe distance

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The tree is in a healthy condition

·     The mature tree adds some amenity to the area

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A request for the removal of the Chinese Crab Apple tree was received from the property owner of 27 Gracefield and the Architects for this project.

5.2       Council Eastern Arborist met with the property owners and the Architect to discuss their plans and the long term options for the tree.

5.3       The tree is a Malus prunilfolia Rinki (Chinese Crab Apple) and Council records show it was planted in 1955. It’s over all condition rating is Fair (3) (refer Attachment 1)

5.4       The request to remove the tree is for the construction of vehicle crossing (refer Attachment 2). There is currently a single-storey residential dwelling located at 27 Gracefield Avenue. The property owner has an approved Application for Resource Consent (Land Use) under Application Number RMA/2016/2068 (refer Attachment 3) to develop two multi-storey dwellings.

5.5       The following comments were made in the Resource Consent decision regarding the proposal to remove the tree:

“As part of the proposed development, a street tree is sought to be removed to allow for the formation of a second vehicle crossing. The removal of trees in streets forming part of special amenity areas such as Gracefield Avenue require consent as a restricted discretionary activity. Relevant assessment matters contained in Clause 12.4.4 include the following:

a) The value of the trees in terms of enhancing the visual character to the residential area concerned.

b) The visual impacts on the amenities of the street.

c) Any effects in terms of the safety of traffic in the street.

d) Any effects in terms of access to properties.

e) The significance of the street concerned as an important thoroughfare defining the garden city image of the city.

f) The quality, extent and location of any planting proposed to compensate for loss of existing trees.

“The street tree to be removed is a Chinese Crab Apple (Malus prunifolia Rinki) which is quite large and well established. Several other street trees are located along Gracefiled Avenue. The tree itself offers a level of visual amenity especially to the application site and also for the surrounding sites to some extent. However, the immediately opposite the application site there are three street trees in the road reserve which help lessen the effects of the proposed street tree removal on 20 and 22 Gracefield Avenue. Neither the safety of traffic nor access to properties will be affected by the proposed removal. The garden city image is an important aspect of Christchurch which should be maintained. I am of the view that with replacement plantings of two additional street trees, the effects associated of the tree removal on the visual amenity and character of the street can be mitigated. Any replacement tree will need to be of a height and species to ensure that the loss of the existing tree can be outweighed by this positive effects of the new ones. Advice was sought from“ a Council Arborist ”who stated that the tree was in good health but that he did not support the removal of the street tree. Furthermore,“ the Council Arborist ”did not wish to propose any conditions on the consent as it might be implied to the applicant that the tree is likely to be approved by the community board as part of a separate statutory process under the Local Government Act. While I accept that the tree is in good health, I do not accept that conditions will imply the community board approval. Furthermore, I consider that with appropriate conditions relating to the replacement of the street tree with a further two trees, this will ensure that any adverse effects can be mitigated to be less than minor on both the adjoining and surrounding environment.”

5.6       The following recommendations were made and adopted in the Resource Consent decision regarding the

“2. The proposed landscaping shall be established in accordance with the landscape plan submitted with the application, prepared by Canopy, Drawing Number 1623, and dated June 2016.  This plan is forms part of the Approved Consent Document pages 35-40.

3. Two specimen trees (Chinese Crab Apple, Malus prunifolia Rinki)) shall be planted in the road reserve either side of the proposed vehicle crossing. These must be at least 2 metres in height at the time of planting and once established must be maintained at a height of at least 6 metres thereafter. Works should be carried out in accordance with the Christchurch City Council’s Construction Standard Specifications https://www.ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/construction- requirements/construction- standard-specifications/.

4. All required landscaping shall be provided on site within 3 months of the work being completed.

5. All landscaping required for this consent shall be maintained. Any dead, diseased, or damaged landscaping is to be replaced immediately with plants of a similar species.”

5.7       The following comments were made in the Advice Notes of the Resource Consent decision regarding the tree removal process:

“This consent only approves the removal of the street tree to the extent that the City Plan requires. Community board approval is still required before the tree can be removed. This consent does not pre- determine community board approval by any sense and the applicant has been made fully aware of this. The applicant should contact Council arborist” “to discuss the community board process and proposal before any work is carried out.”

5.8       As part of the consultation process, Council Eastern Arborist delivered a total of 28 consultation letters to properties in Gracefield Avenue (refer Attachment 4). The letter also refers to the removal of a street tree outside number 41 Gracefield Avenue, however this is no longer relevant and this will be communicated back to the people who responded to the original consultation. There was also no mention of the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 in the consultation letter which has the adopted recommendation to plant two new street trees outside the property of number 27 Gracefield Avenue. The inclusion of this decision may have assisted the consultation process.  Of the 28 consultation letters, 16 responses were received with 14 submissions supporting the request to remove the tree and two submissions did not support removal of the tree.


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside number 27 Gracefield Avenue as per the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 with all costs to be borne by the applicant (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside number 27 Gracefield Avenue as per the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 with all costs to be borne by the applicant

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage locally, with affected residents and ratepayers

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       Residents and rate payers are specifically affected by this option due to amenity value of the tree. Of the 28 consultation letters, 16 responses were received with 14 submissions supporting the request to remove the tree and two submissions not supporting removal of the tree.

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 – Approx. $630

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

6.9       Funding source – Applicant to fund

Legal Implications

6.10    Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 has been approved and shows the tree to be removed.

Risks and Mitigations    

If the tree removal request is approved then there may be a loss of amenity within the area while the replacement trees establish.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - The removal of the tree may cause some disruption to residents and road users.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – The tree can be removed at any time once approved by the Community Board.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   It will allow the approved Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 to proceed

·   The tree is growing next to the power lines and will need on-going pruning to maintain a safe distance

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The tree is in a healthy condition

·   The mature tree adds some amenity to the area

7.   Option 2 - Decline the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside number 27 Gracefield Avenue

Option Description

7.1       Decline the request to remove the Chinese Crab Apple tree outside number 27 Gracefield Avenue

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage locally, with affected residents and ratepayers

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       Residents and rate payers are specifically affected by this option due to amenity value of the tree. Of the 28 consultation letters, 16 responses were received with 14 submissions supporting the request to remove the tree and two submissions not supporting removal of the tree.

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 – Not applicable

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable

7.9       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 has been approved and shows the tree to be removed.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 has been approved and shows the tree to be removed, therefore the development will be affected.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   The tree is in a healthy condition

·   The mature tree adds some amenity to the area

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Resource Consent Application – RMA/2016/2068 has been approved and shows the tree to be removed.

·   The tree is growing next to the power lines and will need on-going pruning to maintain a safe distance

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Tree Assessment - 27 Gracefield Avenue

53

b

Landscape Plan - 27 Gracefield Avenue

56

c

RMA20162068  Decision - 27 Gracefield Avenue

57

d

Consultation Letter re Request for Tree Removal outside 27 & 41 Gracefield Avenue

65

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Jonathan Hansen - Arborist South

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

11.    5 Buckleys Road - Proposed Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/45527

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8875

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the removal of two P30 parks and replace with two P5 parking restrictions to support parking demand for local businesses, in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located near the intersection of Linwood Avenue and Buckleys Road.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated in response to requests from members of the public.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke the parking restriction on the North West side of Buckleys Road, commencing at a point 24 metres north east of its intersection with Linwood Avenue, and extending in a North Easterly direction for 11 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the North West side of Buckleys Road, commencing at a point 24 metres North East of its intersection with Linwood Avenue, and extending in a north easterly direction for 11 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Remove existing P30 parking restriction and install two P5 parking restrictions (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     A P5 parking restriction reflects the actual parking demand in this area, and reduces the chance of a vehicle parking for 30 minutes and removing short term parking opportunities.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Reduction of available P30 parks, however enough supply in immediate area to accommodate.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business recently raised concerns that the P30 parking restriction outside 5 Buckleys Road did not support the parking demand in the area.

5.2       Council staff have monitored Buckleys Road north kerbside parking demand between Linwood Avenue and 5 Buckleys Road. On several occasions at various times of the day cars observed parking in this area stayed for no longer than five minutes. A detailed parking survey undertaken in December 2016 recorded 17 vehicles parking within a 2 hour period. Thirteen of these vehicles parked for no more than 5 minutes and the balance parked for 10-20 minutes. The observed and surveyed parking demand supports a P5 parking restriction as shown on attachment A.

5.3       Council staff also observed that the surrounding P30 parking restrictions in the immediate area had surplus P30 parking spaces available. It is council’s staff view that there is adequate P30 parking supply to meet demand given that two P30 parks will be removed.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Remove existing P30 parking restriction and install two P5 parking restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

Install P5 parking restriction as shown on attachment A.6.2            This option removes two existing P30 parks, there is adequate P30 parking supply in the immediate area to accommodate the loss of two P30 parks.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Affected property owners and tenants were advised of the recommended option by letter drop.

6.6       Letters were delivered to tenants and absentee owners at the following addresses; 5, 9, 1/9, 2/9, 13 and 15 Buckleys Road.

6.7       The tenants at 5 Buckleys Road verbally supported the proposal, no other feedback was received.

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 – Approximately $250 to install signs and poles.

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

6.11    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   A P5 parking restriction reflects the actual parking demand in this area, and reduces the chance of a vehicle parking for 30 minutes and removing short term parking opportunities.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduction of available P30 parks, however enough supply in immediate area to accommodate

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing parking restrictions.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the issues raised by a local business.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option

76

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

12.    Partial Surrender of Shirley Tennis Club Lease Area and Variation to Richmond Cricket Lease at Richmond Park

Reference:

16/1193281

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941 8320

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to recommend to the Council that they:

1.1.2      Approve a partial surrender of the lease area for Shirley Tennis Club containing two tennis courts at Richmond Park.

And

1.1.3      Approve a variation to the lease of Richmond Working Mens Club and MSA Cricket Club to include the two tennis courts surrendered above to be re‑purposed for batting practise at Richmond Park.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Clubs.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by officers completing an assessment of significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve a surrender of part of the Shirley Tennis Club Incorporated’s lease area at Richmond Park, being 7317m2 of recreation reserve described as Reserve 4804 held in CFR CB657/53 and Part Lot 1-2 Deposited Plan 11905, to remove an area of 1106m2 for two tennis courts (shown as Area E in Attachment A to this report), that are no longer required.

2.         Approve a variation to the current lease area for the Richmond Working Mens Club and MSA Incorporated at Richmond Park, currently being 179m2 of recreation reserve described as Reserve 4804 held in CFR CB657/53, to include an additional area of 1106m2 to convert to a cricket batting practise area (shown as Area E in Attachment A to this report).

3.         That the Chief Executive, in her capacity as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, give consent to the variation of the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b) and (c) of the Reserves Act 1977.

4.         Instruct the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions and administer the terms and conditions of the leases.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

·     Level of Service: 7.1.5 Provide well utilised sports parks

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve a partial surrender of the current lease area for Shirley Tennis Club to remove two courts and approve a variation to the current lease for Richmond Working Mens Club and MSA Cricket Club to include two tennis courts to be re-purposed as a batting practise area.  (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Not approve any changes and leave as status quo.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Providing additional sporting facilities in the Eastern suburbs

·     Utilisation of an area that is not required by the Tennis Club but is needed for the Cricket Club

·     Clubs working together for a mutually beneficial outcome that is no cost to Council but benefits both Clubs

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An area of recreation reserve occupied exclusively by a local sports club.

 

5.   Context/Background

Richmond Working Men’s Club and MSA Cricket Club

5.1       The Richmond Cricket Club is made up of five cricket teams, all playing in the afternoon grade competitions, comprising of around 60 members. The club is part of Metro Cricket/Canterbury Cricket.

5.2       Approximately 15 years ago Council gave permission to lay a concrete pad and erect practise nets on the park. Unfortunately the location wasn’t ideal with over hanging trees creating vision issues during evening play and the courts haven’t stood up to the test of time.

5.3       The Tennis Club and Cricket Club have had discussions with Council staff regarding surrendering the two tennis courts that suffered earthquake damage and their future utilisation by Cricket for batting practise.  This proposal ensures there is no cost or loss of park space to Council if this was to occur.

5.4       Allowing the Cricket Club to lease from Council the non-utilised tennis courts would allow Cricket to be able to erect practise nets within the courts.  .

Shirley Tennis Club

5.5       Council approved two new tennis courts for the Shirley Tennis Club on the old Bowling Club site in late 2016.

5.6       The two courts they would like to surrender were damaged in the earthquakes and deemed too expensive to fix for tennis requirements.  They are suitable for Cricket to utilise for batting practise.

Public Advertising

5.7       The land is held as Recreation Reserve, and Sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 apply. The Christchurch City Council as administering authority must publicly advertise the proposal and consider any objections received in writing before making the decision to vary the lease over the area the Lessee is presently occupying.

5.8       The Council has publicly advertised the proposal to vary both leases. Submissions closed 5 December 2016 and no objections were received.

Delegations

5.9       The decisions in this report and the respective delegations to make those decisions are as follows:

5.9.1   The lease surrender and variation - The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board does not have the delegated authority to vary a lease where there is a change in the amount of land the Lessee will occupy. This decision therefore needs to be made by the full Council with a recommendation from the Community Board.

5.9.2   The consent of the Minister of Conservation is required for this transaction. On 12 June 2013, the Minister of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve. Council has delegated the delegated Reserves Act ministerial powers to the Chief Executive Officer.

5.9.3   In exercising the Minister’s delegation, thedelegate must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

·    The land has been correctly identified;

·    The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

·    The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

·    The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

·    Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

·    Council officers have publically notified the Council’s intentions to consider varying the lease for both Shirley Tennis Club and Richmond Working Men’s and MSA Cricket Club.

·    Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease complies with the Minister’s requirements.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve a partial surrender to the Shirley Tennis Club lease and approve a variation to the Richmond Working Mens Club and MSA Cricket Club. (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve a partial surrender of the current lease area for Shirley Tennis Club to remove two courts and approve a variation to the current lease for Richmond Working Means Club and MSA Cricket Club to include the two surrendered tennis courts.  

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

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       Club members and players of cricket are specifically affected by this option due to the need to provide facilities for batting practise due to the old ones being damaged by earthquakes. The tennis club are affected by this option due to the financial burden of paying for courts that are no longer required by the club.   Both Clubs views are in favour of this option.

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 – staff time to prepare the report is budgeted for.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.10    A partial surrender to the Deed of Lease for the tennis club to document the arrangement will be prepared. The Club will be responsible for the cost of preparation which is $250 plus GST plus a share in the cost of public advertising.

6.11    A variation to the Deed of Lease for the cricket club to document the arrangement will be prepared. The Club will be responsible for the cost of preparation which is $250 plus GST plus a share in the cost of public advertising.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.12    The Clubs cease to operate.

6.13    Risk the Clubs walking away from the improvements thereby causing Council to have to remove the tennis courts and remediate the land.  This will result in extra costs to the Council.

6.13.1 Treatment: The leases have provisions to cover this by stating the Clubs must remove all improvements and make good the land.

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

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Approval by Council to a partial surrender for the tennis club and approval by Council to vary the cricket club lease.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Completion following Council resolution.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Providing additional sporting facilities in the Eastern suburbs

·   Utilisation of an area that is not required by the Tennis Club but needed for the Cricket Club

·   Clubs working together for a mutually beneficial outcome that is no cost to Council but benefits both Clubs

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Having an area of recreation reserve occupied exclusively by a local sports club.

7.   Option 2 – Not approve changes to the relevant Leases.

Option Description

7.1       Not approve any changes and all leases left as status quo.

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       Both Clubs and their members are specifically affected by this option due to Cricket needing to provide an area for batting practise that has been lost due to earthquakes and Tennis are paying for an area of land in their lease that they do not use.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – does not support Council’s Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025)

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – the LTP provides a level of service to deliver overall customer satisfaction with sports parks

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – changes to the LTP that would not support overall customer satisfaction with sports parks

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – No cost to Council

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Operational budgets for maintenance of reserve

7.9       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    By not approving the lease variations there would be risk to the Community Board and Council from not achieving levels of service set out by the Council.

7.12    Risk – Reputational/image caused by Community Board and Council not approving a variation to both leases.  This will (may) result in minor negative short term coverage to the Community Board and Council.

7.12.1 Treatment: The Community Board and Council would be required to tolerate the risk and impact to the Clubs in not approving the variation.

7.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - Council resolution

7.14    Implementation timeframe – Adequate time to notify the Tennis Club to remove the improvements.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Not having exclusive use by a sports club over an area of Reserve

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Limiting the Cricket Clubs ability to provide members with practise areas.

·   Ongoing maintenance by the Council of the area of Reserve if no clubs have the lease on it.

·   Financial strain on the Tennis Club from having to pay for an area they no longer utilise

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Shirley Tennis Lease Plan

94

b

Richmond Cricket Lease Plan

95

 

 

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

Lisa Barwood - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

13.    Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund - Tia Ann Denovan-Stroud

Reference:

17/239593

Contact:

Diana Saxton

diana.saxton@ccc.govt.nz

941 6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application received for the Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $6,450 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Tia Ann Denovan-Stroud, a 16 year old representing Canterbury Aoraki Dragonboat team to compete in the Dragon Boat Nationals at Lake Karapiro, Cambridge from 7-8 April 2017.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Tia Ann Denovan‑Stroud towards competing in the Dragon Boat Nationals at Lake Karapiro, Cambridge in April 2017.

 

 

4.   Applicant - Tia Ann Denovan-Stroud

4.1       Tia is a 16 year old resident of Heathcote.  Tia has been selected as a member of the Canterbury Aoraki Dragonboat team to compete in the Dragon Boat National Championships at Lake Karapiro, Cambridge from 7-8 April 2017.

4.2       Tia started dragon boat racing in Term 4, 2016 and enjoys the sport very much.  This involves dragon boat training twice a week and two sessions of gym work per week with increased intensity more recently in preparation for the nationals. This is the first time a team has been put together to represent Canterbury at the national competition and Tia would like to go on to represent Canterbury Aoraki Dragonboat at the world championships in due course.

4.3       Taking part in the nationals will provide experience, motivation and the opportunity to succeed in her chosen sport. Tia will be a positive role model for the sport and will help promote this fast growing sport to others including those with limited resources as Dragon Boat is more accessible than rowing. It will also be very exciting for Tia to be part of the first girls’ representative team.

4.4       Tia is a Year 12 student at Christchurch Girls High School and she also attends ARA Institute once a week to study Level 3 Outdoor Education and Sustainability. Tia is an accomplished sportswoman playing netball, basketball, touch rugby and cricket. She is also a member of the school jazz band playing saxophone.

4.5       Tia has had limited time to fund raise for the trip but plans to do a sausage sizzle and to busk at her local supermarket.  She also does a paper round delivery two times a week.

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Tia Ann Denovan-Stroud, to compete in the Dragon Boat Nationals at Lake Karapiro, Cambridge in April 2017:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return airfares Christchurch – Auckland and coach to Cambridge

376

Accommodation – 3 nights

125

Food

80

 

 

Total

$581

 

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

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

14.    Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated - Emergency Preparedness

Reference:

17/239548

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

vimbayi.chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

000056005

Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated

Emergency Preparedness

$1,983.00

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $1,983 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated towards Emergency Preparedness.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2016/17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$104,363

$48,285

$56,078

$54,095

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote - Application to the 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Moa Kids Community Learning Centre Incorporated - Emergency Preparedness - Decision Matrix

101

 

 

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

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

15.    New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 - Board Members' Attendance

Reference:

17/257356

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to seek approval for a member or members of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to attend the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 at the Heritage Centre, Methven from 11-13 May 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the attendance of Board Members at the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 at the Heritage Centre, Methven from 11-13 May 2017.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The conference is being held at the Heritage Centre, Methven from 11-13 May 2017. The conference theme is ‘Making 1 + 1 = 3” and is designed bring together the Community Boards of New Zealand to share practice and to help improve the understanding and work of community boards.

4.2       The programme (attached) includes key-note speakers and interactive workshops hosted by experts. The wide range of speakers selected for the conference will provide the opportunity for delegates to participate fully and take away ideas that they can apply within their own environment.

4.3       The New Zealand Community Board Executive Committee will also offer the Best Practice Awards which recognise significant contributions made by community boards to the process of achieving excellence in local governance. The awards scheme was developed as a learning tool for quality improvement in the functioning of community boards and allows boards to showcase projects and initiatives that have made a difference in the community.

4.4       The conference registration fee for each attendee is $745 for registrations until 3 April and $845 after that date (exclusive of GST). Accommodation costs range from $105 to $170 night depending on the choice of accommodation. Alternatively delegates may choose to travel each day from Christchurch (travel time is one hour from Christchurch Airport). Two night’s accommodation will be needed should delegates choose to attend the Welcome Function on Thursday 11 May.  Travel reimbursement will be based on shared vehicle costs for those who will be accommodated in Methven.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

New Zealand Community Board Conference 2017 Programme

105

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

16.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/257444

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to resource the Community Board to promote a pro-active partnership approach to decision-making between the Council and Community Boards working together to achieve the best outcomes for the city with decisions being made with a good understanding of community views.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Agree to whether or not to provide comment for the Council’s draft submission on the Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document.

3.         Provide direction on how the Board will formulate its submission on the Draft Annual Plan.

4.         Request that the Mayor thank the city school principals and educators for their work through the earthquakes.

 

 

2.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

2.1       Community Board Plan update against outcomes

2.1.1   Board members attended the Waltham Fair and assisted with the clearing out of the Opawa Adult Library on Saturday 18th March.

2.1.2   Board members attended the Woolston Fair and assisted with finding out from residents what they would like to see in the Woolston Playground and the proposed community facility.

2.2       Petition: To Establish School Speed Zones with Flashing 40km/hr Signage outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools – the petition that was presented to the Board’s 27 February 2017 Board meeting was presented to the Council’s 9 March 2017 meeting.  The Council resolved:

That the Council receive the petition and request staff to provide a report to the Community Board with regard to establishing school speed zones with flashing 40km/hr signs outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools.

2.3       Community Board Meeting 19 April 2017 – preparations are in hand for the Board to meet with Te Whatumanawa Māoritanga o Rehua Marae Trustees and to hold the Community Board meeting at the marae. 

2.4       ANZAC Wreaths –Board members have confirmed who will be attending ANZAC services this year and staff will arrange for the collection of the wreaths.


 

2.5       Board area Consultations/Engagement

2.5.1   The community workshops for Draft Annual Plan consultation were held on Monday 27 March in Linwood and Thursday 30 March in Mt Pleasant.  A verbal update will be given at Board Meeting on 3 April.

2.5.2   Staff will be supporting a Regenerate Christchurch community workshop for community engagement on the Otakaro Avon River Corridor.  The workshop will be held at the Aranui Wainoni Community Centre at 41 Hampshire Street, Aranui on 4 April from 6pm - 8pm.  An invitation with further information has been sent to all Board Members.

2.5.3   School Principals’ Breakfast Meeting with the Board - was held on Wednesday 15 March.  The meeting was attended by 14 principals.  The Board took to undertake the following actions:

·   That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and principals meet with NZ Police and Safer Christchurch at the next School Principals Breakfast;

Staff have noted this for the next meeting and an invitation will be sent out in due course.

·   That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and principals meet with Safer Christchurch team to advocate for the schools;

A request has been sent through to staff to action this.  The Board will be updated on progress.

·   That Council staff work with Christchurch East, Linwood North, and Opawa Schools on a safe travel plan for children going to and from these schools;

A request has been sent through to staff to action this.  The Board will be updated on progress.

·   That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board request the school zone priority list and a meeting with the Board and principals to explain criteria and process.

A request has been sent through to staff to provide this information. 

·   That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board request staff to prepare a report on the installation of parking restrictions on the corner of Colenso Street and Wakefield Avenue.

Staff have been informed of this and will be talking to the principal to get better understanding of issues in the area, and then report to the Board on steps to be taken.

·   Request the Mayor thank the city school principals and educators for their work through the earthquakes.

2.6       Submission Opportunities

2.6.1   The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has released its discussion document on Urban Development Authorities.  All the details and the consultation document can be found at: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/consultation/urban-development-authorities.  The Board is asked if it wishes to provide comment for the Council’s submission and how they would like to coordinate this.

2.7       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

2.7.1   The community workshops for Draft Annual Plan consultation were held on Monday 27 March in Linwood and Thursday 30 March in Mt Pleasant.  A verbal update will be given at Board Meeting on 3 April.

2.7.2   Draft Annual Plan Board Submission – Staff seek to confirm how the Board wishes to formulate their submission on the Draft Annual Plan. 

2.8       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

2.8.1   Staff in the Community Governance Team continue to work with community groups and organisations to put together a plan to assess what emergency preparedness at household and community level should look like.  Information on this will be provided to the Board as the process unfolds.

2.9       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

2.9.1   The Board is asked to consider which matters they would like highlighted on the Council’s Newsline.

2.9.2   Staff from the Communications team explained that the Port Hills fires meant staff were not able to focus on the Board’s request.  The Board will be meeting with staff from the Communications Team and can discuss this as part of their strategy for communicating with the community.

2.10    Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

2.10.1 The Board is asked to consider which matters they would like the Board Chairperson to raise at Council.

3.   Significant Community Issues

3.1       Linwood/Woolston Pool

3.1.1   Status

The Board had a workshop with staff on the process for the development of an aquatic facility based in Linwood/Woolston. 

3.1.2   Action

Staff will meet with the Board on 3 April 2017 after the board meeting and present a memo that will cover the outcome of discussion at the last meeting, next steps, and milestones and dates for reporting to the Board.

3.1.3   Timeframe

Meeting with the Board to be held on 3 April 2017.

 

3.2       Inner City East and Doris Lusk Reserve

3.2.1   Status

The Board discussed the Inner City East, and in particular Doris Lusk Reserve with Te Whare Roimata Trust.  Te Whare Roimata are still keen for the Board to support the process of developing a community-led Revitalisation Plan for the Inner City East and Linwood Village area.

3.2.2   Action

The Board to decide on how they would like to support the community-led Revitalisation Plan process, and issues on Doris Lusk Reserve. 

Staff met with organisations working with the homeless in the Inner City East on Friday 24 March 2017 to discuss some of the challenges on Doris Lusk Reserve in particular and homelessness in the area in general.  Should the Board wish to pursue a liquor ban on the park, a report that went to the Regulations and Consent Committee in 2014 is attached, and a possible resolution will be sent under separate cover.

3.2.3   Timeframe

Ongoing.

3.3       Latimer Community Housing Trust

3.3.1   Status

The Board heard from the Latimer Community Housing Trust about the project to develop up to seven units on land they own on Barbadoes Street.  Because of challenges faced along the way, the Trust is requesting support from the Board.  The Trust is requesting the Board to provide letters of support for the project and to assist with funding options.  They would also like to explore the idea of a Council staff member assisting with project management.

3.3.2   Action

Staff will table a memo at the Board meeting pertaining to this project.

3.3.3   Timeframe

Ongoing.

4.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

4.1       Community Facilities

4.1.1   Woolston Community Facility

Status

Community consultation on the new facility continues, closing on Thursday 30 March 2017.

A public drop in session was held on 14 March 2017 at St Johns Church in Woolston. As of the 27 March 2017, 37 submissions have been received.

Public feedback on the design of the building was also received from residents at the Woolston Gala held on 25 March 2016.

The first Working Group meeting was held on Friday 24 March 2017, with the next meeting scheduled for 6 April 2017.

Action Required

A report is to be presented to the Board’s 1 May 2017 meeting to approve the design.

Timeframe

Construction is due to begin in the second half of the year.

4.1.2   Opawa Public Library

The community ‘move out’ day was held on Saturday 18 March.  There were about 60 volunteers who assisted on the day including volunteers from the library, Board Members, Student Volunteer Army, local residents, and Council staff.  Books and other useable materials were put into storage.

4.1.3   Matuku Takotako Sumner Centre – plans are underway for a ceremony to return the original time capsule and a new capsule into the frame of the new facility.  The ceremony will be a small one due to the site being under construction and will be held in 4 April 2017. An invitation has been sent to all Board Members.


 

4.2       Events Report Back

4.2.1   Woolston Gala, was held at Woolston Park on 25 March. The Gala is organised by the Woolston Residents Association and Community Centre with funding support from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  There were nearly 70 market stalls, plus a variety of information and food stalls, fun activities and live entertainment. Community Governance Team staff were present alongside Community Board members to engage with the community on the Woolston Park playground, Woolston Community Facility and Draft Annual Plan.

4.2.2   Waltham Fair, with funding support from Spreydon/Cashmere Community Board was held at Waltham School on 18 March.

4.2.3   Wainoni Avonside Community Fun Day was held on 25 March.

5.   Parks, Sports and Recreation Update (bi-monthly)

5.1       Local Parks Update

5.1.1   April is one of the busiest months in the Local and Sports Parks Maintenance Contract. There is an increase in the frequency of all mowing activities, amenity gardening, hedge pruning, play surface cleaning, irrigation checks, and sports field renovations.

5.1.2   Contract key performance will be tabled at meeting.

5.1.3   Mowing and spraying programme

Activity

Frequency

Ornamental Mowing

3

Amenity Mowing

2

Informal Mowing

1

Sports Field Mowing

4

Weed Spraying

1

 

 

 

 

 

5.1.4   Field surface activities.  The sports field renovation program commences on 31 April and will be completed by 2 June.  Activities carried out: under-sowing, fertilising, de‑compacting, seed and soil top up.  Parks programmed for renovation are Bromley Park, Barnet Park Sports Grounds, Ferrymead Park, Heathcote Domain, Linwood Park, McCormacks Bay and St Leonards Park.

 

Description

Time Frame

Under-sowing

Completed by Friday 5 May 2017

De-compaction

Completed by Friday 2 June 2017

Fertiliser application

Completed by Friday 7 April 2017

Irrigation Performance Check (per field)

Completed by Friday 5 May 2017

Soil and seed, supply and place

Completed by Friday 31 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The dates provided are weather dependant

5.2       Sports Parks Update

Summer sports codes have now finished, with the majority of winter codes beginning 1 April. The winter line marking programme began on the 6 March and is on track to be completed by 28 March.

5.3       Capital Works Projects

5.3.1   The city wide garden mulching program begins on the 27 March and will be completed by the 30 September.  The activities carried out in the programme are: weed whacking large weeds, spraying weeds, and applying mulch. 

The mulch will be applied at 100mm thick.  The Herbicide to be used is an organic fatty acid and pine oil mix.  City Care were awarded the contract to weed whack, spray and apply mulch.  Burnside contracting were awarded the contract to supply and deliver mulch.

5.3.2   Linwood Nursery Car Park proposal.  Below is a quote for the works required to convert the old nursery site into a useable car park.

Description

Unit

Volume

Rate

Total

Carpark 3960

 

 

 

 

Per grade are to set levels and roll

m2

3962

0.92

3645.04

Place and compact 100mm Asphalt millings topcourse

m2

3960

7.8

30888

Dust mitigation spraying

m2

3960

0.9

3564

 

 

Roadway 3m wide

 

 

 

 

Pre grade area to set levels and roll

m2

498

0.92

458.16

Place and compact 100mm Asphalt millings topcourse

m2

498

7.8

3884.4

Dust mitigation spraying

m2

3960

0.9

3564

 

 

 

 

46003.6

 

Unfortunately the Local and Sports parks team do not have any operational budget to fund this project.  If the Board wish to pursue the installation of the car park then it could be put forward for annual plan funding, or discretionary capital funds use.

6.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

6.1       Total of unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $65,328.  Funding table is Attachment A.

6.2       Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $54,378.

6.3       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $5,950.

6.4       Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $4,750.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Funding 2016/17

114

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

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

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Louise McLean - Governance Support Officer

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

17.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

18.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 April 2017

 

 

19.  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:


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 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

20

Public Excluded Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 15 March 2017

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.