Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 19 April 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 Rehua Marae, 79 Springfield Road, St Albans

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

12 April 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

19 April 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 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.       Notice of Motion........................................................................................................... 15

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 17

C       8.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................. 25

STAFF REPORTS

C       9.       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Parking Restrictions at Existing Bus Stops.................. 27

C       10.     454 St Asaph Street Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction..................... 45

C       11.     Martindales Road Pedestrian Refuge Island............................................................... 53

C       12.     Glenelg Spur - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.................................................... 59

C       13.     An Accessible City Traffic Plan - 30km Riccarton Avenue Threshold Gateway ....... 67

C       14.     Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Community Response and Resilience Project - Mt Pleasant to Taylors Mistake..... 75

C       15.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................... 79

B       16.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 85

B       17.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 85 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 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 Monday, 3 April 2017  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Environment Canterbury Passenger Services

Claire Nicholls, Community Engagement Advisor, and John Yin, Operations Planner, will speak on behalf of Environment Canterbury regarding public transport services.

 

4.2

Te Whare Roopu o Oterepo

Adrienne Carmichael, Co-ordinator, will speak on behalf of Te Whare Roopu o Oterepo – Waltham Community Cottage regarding the cottage and the work that they do in the community.

 

4.3

Rebuild of Avonside Girls’ and Shirley Boys’ High Schools

Sue Hume, Principal of Avonside Girls’ High School, John Laurenson, Principal of Shirley Boys’ High School and Jo Scott, of Great Scott! Communications will speak to the Board on the design for the rebuild of the high schools which will share a site at Queen Elizabeth II Park.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 3 April 2017

Time:                                    3pm

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

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

3 April 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

 

1.1       Apologies

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00060

An apology was received and accepted from Brenda Lowe-Johnson.

Sally Buck/Dion Swiggs                                                                                                                                              Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Sara Templeton declared an interest in Item 13 – Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board’s 2016/17 Youth Development Fund – Tia Ann Denovan-Shroud.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00061

Community Board Decision

That the open minutes and public excluded minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 be confirmed.

Dion Swiggs/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                           Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Linwood College Festival of Nations

Part B

Navjot McCormack, Head of English Language Learning, and Tony Veitch spoke on behalf of Linwood College regarding the school’s recent Festival of Nations event held in March 2017.  Ms McCormack outlined this successful event, which showcased 47 ethnic communities.  The Festival of Nations also included some well attended workshops, and food from various nations.  There are discussions on making this an annual community event.

Following questions from Board members, the Chairperson thanked Ms McCormack and Mr Veitch for their deputation.

 

4.2       Te Mapua Child and Youth Trust

Part B

Amy Marsden, Co-Director, spoke on behalf of Te Mapua Child and Youth Trust, giving an overview of the work the Trust does within the community.  The Trust with the support of volunteers offers a range of support services to families of children with high needs, and behavioural and emotional issues that have not been able to be helped in mainstream settings.  Families and children are referred through various agencies, including the Canterbury District Health Board, psychologists and the police.

Following questions from Board members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Marsden for her deputation.

 

4.3       Cashmere/Technical Football Club

Part B

The deputation did not attend.

 

4.4       Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE) 2017

Part B

Nicole Stowers and Amanda Murray, on behalf of Youthtown, spoke on the Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE) 2017 and the highlights of the organising of the event with young people who helped to organise the event.  A video and slide show of LYFE 2017 was shown.

Following questions from Board members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Stowers and Ms Murray for their deputation.

 

4.5       Linwood Avenue Summer Pool

Part B

Amanda Murray spoke on behalf of Youthtown regarding Linwood Avenue Summer Pool.
Ms Murray outlined how young people had been trained as life guards during this event and the idea of providing swimming lessons to ensure all those who wanted to be lifeguards had the opportunity to reach the required levels of competence.  The Board discussed with the deputation about making a Draft Annual Plan submission.

Following questions from Board members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Murray for her deputation.

 

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

Part B

Jeffrey Martin, Senior Constable New Zealand Police, spoke about policing in the Doris Lusk Reserve and the Inner City East area.  Senior Constable Martin outlined issues with alcohol, drugs and homelessness in relation to the Linwood Village area, and stated that there had been a 28 percent increase in calls for service to the police about anti-social issues in Doris Lusk Reserve in recent years.  The need for a drop-in centre and/or wet house was raised with the Board members, and whether there would be merit in a temporary alcohol ban.

Following questions from Board members, the Chairperson thanked Senior Constable Martin for his deputation.

 


 

 

 5.  Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.   Correspondence

 

6.1       Claymore Street - Request to Remove Street Tree

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00062

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board receive the information in the correspondence report dated 3 April 2017 regarding the removal of an Alder tree in Claymore Street. 

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

6.2       Latimer Community Housing Trust Update and Request for Support

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00063

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board receive the information in the correspondence report dated 3 April 2017 from the Latimer Community Housing Trust Update.

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment Continued

 

4.7       Community Engagement and Reintegration for the Department of Corrections

Part B

Lisa Joseph, District Manager Community Corrections, and Lauren Ball, Senior Advisor Community Engagement and Reintegration from the Department of Corrections, provided information on the work undertaken by Community Corrections, including the neighbourhood notification process.  The Board were informed that the Department of Corrections would notified the Board when a person is released into the Community Board area on parole or on conditions.

Following questions from the Board, the Chairperson thanked Ms Joseph and Ms Ball for their deputation.

 

Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 4:07pm.

Deon Swiggs returned to the meeting at 4:14pm.

 

7.   Ferry Road/Charlesworth Street Pedestrian Refuge Island

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00064 (Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Community Board

Part C

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.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

8.   Linwood/Eastgate Public Transport Hub Upgrade Options

 

Board Consideration

The Board noted that the deputation that brought the matter before the Board on the issues around the Eastgate Bus Hub had not been advised that the report was to be presented to the Board.  The Board requested staff to contact the deputations before the report was presented to the Council.

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2017/00065

Community Board

Part A

That the Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Request staff further evaluate the preferred option for inclusion in the 2018 Long Term Plan.

Darrell Latham/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                         Carried

Yani Johanson voted against the resolution and requested that this be recorded.

 

 

The Board adjourned the meeting at 4.37pm and reconvened at 4.42pm.

 

9.   471 Colombo Street - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00066 (Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Community Board

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve the installation of a bus shelter outside of 471 Colombo Street.

Deon Swiggs/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                             Carried

 

10. 27 Gracefield Avenue - Request for Tree Removal

 

Staff Recommendation

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00067

Community Board

Part C

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, and that two specimen trees be planted in the road reserve either side of the proposed vehicle crossing, at the applicant’s expense, according to the resource consent condition.

Deon Swiggs/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                            Carried

 


 

 

11. 5 Buckleys Road - Proposed Parking Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00068(Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Community Board

Part C

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.

Sara Templeton/Yani Johanson                                                                                    Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2017/00069(Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Community Board

Part A

That the Board recommends 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 Men’s 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.

Darrell  Latham/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00070(Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 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.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Sara Templeton left the meeting at 5:04pm.

Sara Templeton returned to the meeting at 5:07pm.

 

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

 

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.

 

Community Board

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.      Approve a grant of $1,000 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated to fund the back packs, vests and business cards for emergency preparedness.

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00072 (Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve the attendance of Board Members Brenda Lowe-Johnson, Tim Lindley and Jake McLennan at the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 at the Heritage Centre, Methven from 11-13 May 2017.    

Sally Buck/Alexandra  Davids                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

16. 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 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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00073

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Agreed to provide comments for the Council’s draft submission on the Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document including:

a.      What is the process if central or local government agencies do not agree to set up an Urban Development Authority.

b.     The lack of transparency for the community.

c.      No equal relationship or partner, one agency is more powerful than the other.

3.         Will hold a submission workshop on Monday 10 April 2017 for the Board to formulate the Board submission on the Council’s Draft Annual Plan.

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

5.         Request that staff investigate various funding options to support Latimer Community Housing Trust including the Council’s Capital Endowment Fund and the Resilience Fund.

6.         Write a letter of support for Latimer Community Housing Trust funding applications to other funders.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

 

 

17. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received and noted the following information from members:

1.         Sydenham Heritage Trust have signed an agreement with a contractor, and work to clear the site is due to commence shortly.

2.         Sumner Cell Phone Tower – the community have asked questions about a newly erected mobile cell phone tower in Sumner.  Staff had provided the responses to the questions raised.

3.         Dyers Road between Linwood Avenue and Bridge Street regarding the development of an off road cycleway, staff were asked for further advice.

 

18. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

 

 

    Meeting concluded at 6.25pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

 

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

6.        Notice of Motion

Reference:

17/375011

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.10.1 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion was submitted by Jake McLellan.

 

1.   Recommendation to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Accepts the Notice of Motion from Jake McLellan regarding parking restrictions on Ferry Road between Fitzgerald Avenue and Wilsons Road.

2.         Request staff to urgently investigate the removal of seven day parking restrictions on the north and south sides of Ferry Road between Fitzgerald Avenue and Wilsons Road, and replace with Monday to Saturday parking restrictions.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

17/347529

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Elizabeth Graham

Industrial Traffic in Residential Streets East of Linwood Avenue

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 19 April 2017

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence from Elizabeth Graham regarding Industrial Traffic in Residential Streets East of Linwood Avenue

18

b

Go Bus Response to Correspondence from Elizabeth Graham

24

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

8.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

17/365510

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Neighbourhood Week 2016

Noela Letufuga

Community Governance Team

Community Pride Garden Awards 2017

Noela Letufuga

Community Governance Team

Main Road – Safety Barrier Installation

Adrian Thein

Project Management - Transport

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

9.        Linwood-Central-Heathcote Parking Restrictions at Existing Bus Stops

Reference:

17/259417

Contact:

Peter Rodgers

Peter.rodgers@ccc.govt.nz

941 6303

 

 

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 alterations to road markings and parking restrictions for existing bus stops at 1008 Ferry Road, 367 Tuam Street, 868 Colombo Street and 205 Bealey Avenue as per Attachments A – D.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated.

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 assessing the impact of the project against the 10 criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement assessment.

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:

1008 Ferry Road Bus Stop

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 162 metres west of its westernmost intersection with Settlers Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 27 metres be revoked.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 162 metres west of its westernmost intersection with Settlers Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

3.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 170 metres west of its westernmost intersection with Settlers Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 185 metres west of its westernmost intersection with Settlers Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

367 Tuam Street Bus Stop

5.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Tuam Street commencing at its intersection with Livingstone Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 32 metres be revoked.

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Tuam Street commencing at its intersection with Livingstone Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

7.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 10 metres west of its intersection with Livingstone Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 24 metres west of its intersection with Livingstone Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

868 Colombo Street Bus Stop

9.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 168 metres south of its intersection with Bealey Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres be revoked.

10.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 168 metres south of its intersection with Bealey Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

11.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the east side of Colombo Street Street commencing at a point 176 metres south of its intersection with Bealey Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

12.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 190 metres south of its intersection with Bealey Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of four metres.

205 Bealey Avenue Bus Stop

13.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Bealey Avenue commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 41 metres be revoked.

14.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Bealey Avenue commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

15.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Bealey Avenue commencing at a point 24 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

16.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Bealey Avenue commencing at a point 39 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of four metres.

 

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: 10.4.10 Improve the accessibility of bus stops via a targeted review and improvement programme

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve alterations to five existing bus stops (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

·     Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·     Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·     Addresses deficiencies identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015)

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of on street parking spaces.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Bus Stop Guidelines Recommended bus stop layout

5.1       The Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) recommends that a kerbside bus stop be marked with a 14 metre bus stop box, plus eight metres of ‘no stopping’ (broken yellow lines) on the entry to the bus stop and four metres of ‘no stopping’ on the exit of the bus stop. This is a total of 26 metres. In some cases, bus stops can been marked with a longer bus stop box, and shorter ‘no stopping’ provided the total of 26 metres is met. All of the existing bus stops in this report do not have the recommended minimum of 26 metres.

5.2       This allocation of additional kerbside road space for bus stops is reflected in the priorities in the Parking Strategy (2003), which states that kerbside road space should be allocated first for safety, traffic flow, pedestrian or cycle facilities and landscaping. Any leftover kerbside road space shall be allocated for parking, according to priority tables in sections 6-11 of the Parking Strategy. In all cases except industrial areas, bus stops are the top priority (in industrial areas, loading zones take priority over bus stops when required).

5.3       On the attached plans and in the resolutions in this report, no stopping restrictions are proposed over driveways. In practice these will not be marked over the driveway unless it becomes a problem, as it is already illegal for a vehicle to park over a driveway, and passage of vehicles over the road markings can wear them out quickly. It is best practice to include these in the resolutions in the event that the location of a driveway moves in the future.

Background: 1008 Ferry Road

5.4       The bus stop adjacent to 1008 Ferry Road is marked with a length of 13.5 metres, plus 7.5 metres of no stopping on the entry to the bus stop. However, it does not have the recommended four metres of no stopping on the exit from the bus stop. This bus stop is serviced by the Purple Line, the 535 Lyttelton – Eastgate, and the 140 Mt Pleasant - Russley bus routes. This bus stop is a timing point for all of these routes so buses running ahead of schedule are required to stop here and wait until their scheduled departure time.

5.5       This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2005).

5.6       It is proposed to extend the bus stop box by one metre and install 4 metres of no stopping on the exit of the bus stop as per Attachment B, which will bring it up to the recommended length.

Background: 367 Tuam Street

5.7       The bus stop adjacent to 367 Tuam Street is marked with a length of 14 metres. This bus stop is a timing point, meaning that bus drivers will often sit for a few minutes to ensure that they keep on schedule. No stopping restrictions extend from the bus stop to the intersection of Livingstone Street and these provide the recommended four metres exit. This bus stop is serviced by the 80 Lincoln -Parklands bus route.

5.8       There is one unrestricted parking space to the west of the bus stop, between the bus stop and the vehicle entrance to #363 Tuam Street, which is usually occupied. Because buses have to manoeuvre around cars parked in this parking space, they are unable to stop in the area of the bus stop marked on the road and stop closer to the intersection with Livingstone Street, over the ‘no stopping’ restrictions.

5.9       This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2005). It is also a timing point, so buses running ahead of schedule are required to stop here and wait until their scheduled departure time. Bus drivers requested this bus stop be investigated by Council staff as it is a stop that they are required to stop at unless running behind schedule, and they usually have difficulty accessing the bus stop.

5.10    It is proposed to remove this one unrestricted parking and install 8 metres of no stopping restrictions in order to provide room for buses to safely manoeuver into the bus stop as per Attachment C.

Background: 876 Colombo Street

5.11    The bus stop adjacent to 876/868 Colombo Street is marked with a length of 12 metres. The entrance to the bus stop is kept clear by the driveway of 876 Colombo Street (Motel), however the bus stop length is insufficient for buses to remain clear of the driveway, as the largest bus in the Christchurch fleet is 13.5 metres, and bus drivers need to leave room in order to pull out of the bus stop. This bus stop is serviced by the 28 Papanui - Lyttelton bus route.

5.12    This bus stop is not a timing point so buses only need to stop long enough to pick up and drop off passengers.

5.13    This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2005). Redbus and the Motel owner (876 Colombo Street) have both requested that Council extend the bus stop to allow buses to keep clear of the driveway, and buses have difficulty properly accessing the stop.

5.14    While it is permitted for a bus to stop over a driveway while at an authorised bus stop, it is best practice to have the front and back doors of the bus opening over a full height kerb to minimise the distance needed to stop down from the bus. This cannot be achieved without removing some on street parking and it is preferable to leave the driveway to 876 Colombo Street clear as it provides the necessary eight metre entry to the bus stop.

5.15    It is proposed to move the bus stop box slightly south, away from the driveway, extend the bus stop box by three metres and install four metres of no stopping as per Attachment D.

Background: 205 Bealey Ave

5.16    The bus stop adjacent to 205 Bealey Ave is marked with a length of 14 metres. There are two unrestricted parking spaces to the west of the bus stop.

5.17    Recently, road works and trenching along Bealey Avenue have removed most of the bus stop markings and this has caused issues with cars parking in the bus stop, and not realising that it is a bus stop. The existing bus stop sign is also sun-bleached and nearly invisible to read. These issues have been referred to maintenance and the sign is to be replaced with a new sign and the road markings have been reinstated – confirmed on 23rd March 2017.

5.18    This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2005).

5.19    It is proposed to remove the eight metres of unrestricted parking to the west of the bus stop and install no stopping restrictions in order to enable buses more room to turn into the bus stop and pull up to the kerb.


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve alterations to four existing bus stops (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       As shown in Attachments A to D, approve the recommended bus stop alterations adjacent to 1008 Ferry Road, 367 Tuam Street, 868 Colombo Street and 205 Bealey Avenue.

6.2       The type of bus stop provided for in all locations, is a 'kerb-side' bus stop, located directly adjacent to the footpath.  Provision of the necessary entry taper, bus box and exit taper, that adheres to the recommended provisions as set out in the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) is achievable at all locations. 

6.3       There is a full height kerb present along the full length of the all bus stops.  The hard footing at 205 Bealey Avenue bus stops will have to be addressed to ensure the bus stop is accessible to passengers boarding or alighting the front or rear door of the bus.

Significance

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

6.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with Environment Canterbury as the bus service operator.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The properties listed below and the neighbouring properties are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed parking restrictions.  Consultation documentation was mailed and delivered by hand.  The consultation period commenced Tuesday 7th March 2017, and finished Wednesday 22nd March 2017.

6.8       For the full text of consultations submissions and the staff response see Attachment E. Addresses and names have been removed.

6.9       Environment Canterbury supports this proposal.

6.10    1008 Ferry Road – no responses were received.

6.11    367 Tuam Street – one response was received opposing the proposal, however after discussion with staff the objection was dropped.

6.12    The reason for opposing the proposal was that the bus stop is over a driveway and impede access, however this was a misunderstanding and staff can confirm that buses will not stop over the driveway and will therefore not impede property access. As the objection has been withdrawn, the submission has not been included in Attachment E.

6.13    868/876 Colombo Street – Seven responses received, six in support and one in opposition.

6.14    The reasons for opposing the proposal were:

·   The proposal removes on street parking outside St Marys

·   Moving the bus stop closer to the apartments will increase the noise

·   Suggest relocating the bus stop elsewhere on Colombo Street, closer to Bealey Avenue.

6.15    Staff response was:

·   The proposal does remove one on street parking space outside St Marys, however the Council Parking Strategy prioritises parking for bus stops over any other type of parking, and St Marys apartments has an underground car park for residents.

·   Some level of noise is inevitable at a bus stop on a busy collector road near the central city. There is no record of noise control being called out to this area.

·   The bus stop is not proposed to be relocated as it is well used by bus users in its current location. According to data provided by Environment Canterbury, around 18 people catch the bus from here each day.

6.16    As a result of consultation, no changes were made to the Colombo Street proposal because the Parking Strategy prioritises bus stops over all other types of parking, some noise is inevitable at a bus stop and on a collector road near the central city, and the bus stop in the existing location is proven to be well used.

6.17    205 Bealey Ave – Four responses received, two in support and two in opposition.

6.18    The reason for opposing the proposal was:

·   Loss of parking

6.19    Staff response was:

·   The Council Parking Strategy (2003) prioritises parking for bus stops over parking for all other purposes. It is not proposed to relocate the bus stop over the driveway to 205 Bealey Avenue as placing the front door of the bus over a lowered kerb at a driveway makes it difficult for mobility impaired passengers to embark or disembark from the bus. Moving the bus stop further to the east would remove the same number of parking spaces and require relocation of other bus stop sign and removal of more road markings, so is not proposed at this stage.

·   The existing bus stop layout is not consistent with the recommended bus stop length in the bus stop guidelines and does not provide a fully accessible bus stop.

6.20    As a result of consultation, no changes were made to the Bealey Avenue proposal because the Parking Strategy prioritises bus stops over all other types of parking and as there is no feasible alternative available.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.22    Cost of Implementation - $700 for removal of road markings and new road markings.

6.23    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Maintenance of road markings is covered by the existing maintenance budget and the impact will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.24    Funding source – Public Transport Minor Works

Legal Implications

6.25    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee.

6.26    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

6.27    Follows best practice by adhering to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

Risks and Mitigations    

6.28    Risk - Illegal parking: caused by road users parking in the marked bus stop box and/or on the ‘No Stopping’ lines.  This will result in the bus stop being difficult or impossible to access for buses, buses stopping in the traffic lane or bypassing the bus stop altogether and inconveniencing passengers.

6.28.1 Treatment: Parking Enforcement and road users obeying the road rules.

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

Implementation

6.29    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval, however the 205 Bealey Avenue road markings can only be implemented after the upcoming repairs to this part of Bealey Avenue later in the 2016/17 financial year.

6.30    Implementation timeframe - Work is expected to be completed within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.31    The advantages of this option include:

·   Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

·   Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·   Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·   Addresses deficiencies identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015)

6.32    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of on street parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing, existing bus stops road marking are not amended to adhere to the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines.

Significance

7.2       See section 6.4 – 6.5

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See section 6.6

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See section 6.7 – 6.19

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   This option is inconsistent with the Council Parking Strategy (2003), as it does not prioritise allocating kerbside road space for traffic flow and parking for public transport over parking for all other purposes.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       The insufficient length of a marked bus stop and ‘no stopping’ restrictions does not adhere to the bus stop road marking recommendations as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    Risk: Vehicles legally park near the bus stop affect how the bus can pull into a bus stop in a safe and efficient manner, and how close to the kerb the stop can stop to pick-up or set-down passengers. The likelihood of this occurring is ‘likely to almost certain’, due to the high demand for on street parking in the vicinity of the bus stops. The impact of this is on passenger accessibility (particularly mobility impaired passengers) and bus line journey time efficiency.

7.10.1 Treatment: No treatment possible as such parking is legal and permitted.

7.10.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is at least Medium to High due to the likelihood of the risk occurring.

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:

·   Does not remove any on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The lack of bus stop road markings continues to not adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Lack of adherence to the recommended bus stop length does not provide good passenger accessibility, nor provide improvements to the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·   It does not address deficiencies identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015), nor concerns raised by members of the public, the motel owner at 876 Colombo Street, GoBus, Redbus, and Environment Canterbury.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

1008 Ferry Road Bus Stop alteration plan for board approval

37

b

868 Colombo Street bus stop alteration plan for board approval

38

c

367 Tuam Street bus stop alteration plan for board approval

39

d

205 Bealey Avenue bus stop alteration plan for board approval

40

e

Linwood-Central-Heathcote bus stop alterations March 2017, Consultation submissions and staff response

41

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Rodgers - Consultant

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

10.    454 St Asaph Street Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction

Reference:

17/219664

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

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 P30 parking restrictions along part of the south side of St Asaph Street between Phillips Street and Nursery Road in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       This site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated at 454 St Asaph Street.

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.

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

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

 

3.      Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes between Monday to Friday on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 60 metres east of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in an eastern direction for 12 metres.

 

4.      Key Points

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

1.1.3     Activity: Parking

·                Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·                Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P30 Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·                Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

1.1.4                   The advantages of this option include:

·                Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to the Euro Motors Ltd business.

·                Provides improved access for loading and deliveries.

1.1.5     The disadvantages of this option include:

·                None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The business owner at Euro Motors Ltd has expressed concern about parked vehicles occupying the unrestricted on street space outside their business at 454 (and 452 to a lesser extent) on St Asaph Street, Phillipstown. Whilst this activity is legitimate, vehicles (predominantly staff and customers at Tandem Smash repairs opposite) often park randomly on both sides of the road for the majority of the day. All of the adjacent businesses have off-street parking facilities available. Consequently, parking turnover is considered to be longer than necessary.

5.2       Deliveries to Euro Motors Ltd in small to medium goods vehicles also have substantial difficulty manoeuvring into a parking space near the business location. There is also no dedicated off‑street space available for deliveries to take place, nor for customers.

5.3       Upon investigation, staff concur that existing unrestricted on-street parking area presents difficulties for customers and deliveries at this location.

5.4       The installation of the P30 restrictions will increase parking turnover to assist the customer activity at Euro Motors yet during their working hours still retain parking opportunities for customers at the adjacent business activities.

5.5       Since the proposal is for Monday to Friday only, the adjacent businesses would be unaffected during the weekends.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P30 restrictions

Option Description

6.1       Install P30 restriction on the south side of St. Asaph Street in accordance with Attachment A.

6.2       These restrictions would be in effect between Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm, which corresponds with the business hours of the Euro Motors business.

6.3       This option provides approximately 2 car lengths of P30 parking space on the street. This would increase parking turnover for customer use at this location.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       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

6.6       Council officers have discussed with the affected business at IES Canterbury (no.446), no.454, Tandem Smash repairs (no.469 and 471), Harrington Brewery distributors (no.473). A letter and plan of consultation was issued to each of these businesses.

6.7       No responses in objection or requesting amendment were 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 – $200 to install signs.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee 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 – Linwood-Central-Heathcote 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:

·      Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to the Euro Motors business.

·      Provides improved access for loading and deliveries.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·                None identified.

7.      Option 2 -  Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

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 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       This option is inconsistent with the local business request for P30 parking to support business activity and increase parking turnover.

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:

·                None identified.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·                Does not support the customer and delivery demands of the closest business.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Appendix A Consultation plan

50

b

Appendix B Location plan

51

 

 

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

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

11.    Martindales Road Pedestrian Refuge Island

Reference:

16/1445172

Contact:

Andy Cameron

Andy.Cameron@ccc.govt.nz

03 9415916

 

 

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 with associated 'No Stopping' restrictions on Martindales Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following community consultation. The project was initiated in response to concerns raised from local school and community to provide a safer pedestrian crossing location on Martindales Road.

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 that a central pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Martindales Road in accordance with Attachment A of this report.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Martindales Road, commencing at a point 64 metres east of its intersection with Port Hills Road, and extending in an easterly direction for 25 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Martindales Road, commencing at a point 60 metres east of its intersection with Port Hills Road, and extending in an easterly direction for 36 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 on Martindales Road located approximately 70m east of the roundabout on Port Hills Road.  (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 Martindales Road.

·     Provides a safe place to wait whilst crossing the road in two stages.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     6 Parking spaces will be removed

4.4       Community Feedback

4.5       Community Engagement on the Martindales Road Pedestrian Island was scheduled for delivery on 23 February 2017. However, there was a mix up at the Copy Centre and 13 documents were released a week earlier.   The engagement period was kept open until 16 March 2017 so no one was advantaged/disadvantaged by the delivery timeframe.  

4.6       A total of 59 leaflets were hand delivered to Martindales Road and Port Hills Road. The leaflet was also sent to 88 key stakeholders and 14 absentee owners.

4.7       During the course of engagement, council received comments and feedback from one organisation and three residents. The organisation was St Johns Ambulance who thanked Council for the opportunity to comment and do not foresee any issues for ambulance as a result of this project.

4.8       The three resident responses all agreed with the intention to create a safer crossing point. Two stated they would prefer the crossing point to be located further from Port Hills Road intersection and one indicated desire to have the roundabout changed to traffic lights and/or speed humps on Port Hills Road to slow traffic down.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

 

5.1       This facility has been requested by Heathcote Valley School due to a number of incidents involving children crossing Martindale Road, and was supported by Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board.

5.2       Currently there is a crossing point at the roundabout on the intersection with Port Hills Road which provides very limited line of sight for people crossing north to south.

5.3       Traffic observations showed vehicles holding their speed into Martindales Road making crossing at the current location difficult.

5.4       Pedestrian counts revealed that heading west the majority of people crossed at the current location while heading east a variety of crossing locations were used moving east along Martindales Road.

Proposal

5.5       It is proposed to Install a pedestrian refuge island on Martindales Road located approximately 70m east of the roundabout on Port Hills Road, as shown in Attachment A

5.6       Associated No Stopping to create adequate sight lines.

5.7       Upgrade existing lighting to meet current standards for pedestrian refuge islands.

6.   Option 1 - installation of a pedestrian refuge island  with associated 'No Stopping' restrictions on Martindales Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install a pedestrian refuge island on Martindales Road located approximately 70m east of the roundabout on Port Hills Road.

Significance

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

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

6.5       Local residents and school children are specifically affected by this option due to it introducing improved safety measures for them to cross Martindales Road.  Only four respondents provided feedback. Their views are generally supportive and included the following comments.

·        Agreement with the intention to create a safer crossing point.

Project Team Response - Agree

·        Preference for the crossing point to be located further from Port Hills Road intersection.

Project Team Response – The proposed location best fits the current desire lines and is more likely to be used by people heading south along Hills Road

·        A desire to have the roundabout changed to traffic lights and/or speed humps on Port Hills Road to slow traffic down.

Project team response – Port Hills Road is categorised as a collector. Raised tables is a traffic calming treatment reserved for local roads, and council does not apply it on collector roads. Traffic signalisation is outside the scope of this project.

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 – This project is one of four projects funded through Road Safety At Schools and has a cost Estimate of $45,000

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

6.9       Funding source – 2017 CAPEX Road Safety At Schools

Legal Implications

6.10    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.

6.11    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.

6.12    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  

6.13    Not Applicable

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies  - Approval by community board

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Martindales Road.

·   Provides a safe place to wait whilst crossing the road in two stages.

·   Provides a safe facility for Cyclists on a road that is part of the Long Bay Route, and the beginning of the proposed Heathcote Expressway cycle route.

 

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   6 Parking spaces will be removed

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Martindale 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 with this level.

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.

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

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - none

Legal Implications

7.7       None

Risks and Mitigations   

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

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies  - None

7.10    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   No loss of parking

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

•    This option does not address known safety issues associated with crossing Martindale Road.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation Plan tp350001 Martindales Pedestrian Island

58

 

 

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

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

12.    Glenelg Spur - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/309658

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 installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on Glenelg Spur in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       Glenelg Spur is located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated in response to requests from 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 all existing parking restrictions on the northern side of Glenelg Spur commencing at its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in an easterly direction for 54 metres.

2.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the southern side of Glenelg Spur commencing at its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in an easterly direction for 40 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Glenelg Spur commencing at its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in an easterly direction for 26 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Glenelg Spur commencing at a point 32 metres east of its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in an easterly direction for 22 metres.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Glenelg Spur commencing at its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in an easterly direction for 40 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking:

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8  Optimise Operational Performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving forward visibility.

·     Maintains access for emergency vehicles

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A member of the public raised concerns regarding parking on Glenelg Spur that restricted visibility of oncoming vehicles and narrowed the available road width restricting emergency vehicle access.

5.2       The proposed parking restrictions will improve vehicle visibility of oncoming traffic and reduce the risk of vehicles parking on both sides of the street and obstructing emergency vehicle access.

5.3       Glenelg Spur is a local road and is estimated to have an average daily traffic volume less than 500 vehicles per day. The area surrounding Glenelg Spur is residential.

5.4       No accidents have been recorded on the NZTA crash database from 2007-2017.

 


 

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

Option Description

Install no stopping restrictions as shown on attachment A.Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by post.

6.5       Residents and absentee owners at; 1, 3, 2 and 8 Glenelg Spur were consulted with.

6.6       A copy of resident feedback and council staff responses is included as Attachment C.

6.7       No objections to the proposal were received, only clarifications required on the number of parking spaces available outside 1 Glenelg Spur.

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 $100 to install road markings.

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:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving forward visibility.

·     Maintains access for emergency vehicles

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvements.

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 forward vehicle visibility or emergency vehicle access.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option

64

b

Location Plan

65

c

Consultation Summary

66

 

 

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

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

13.    An Accessible City Traffic Plan - 30km Riccarton Avenue Threshold Gateway

Reference:

17/189124

Contact:

Stefan Jermy

stefan.jermy@ccc.govt.nz

941 6356

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to report back to the board on the outcome of community consultation, and request that they approve changes to the traffic management and streetscape that support the installation of a 30km threshold gateway on Riccarton Avenue.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. The origin of this project is the ‘An Accessible City’ (AAC) chapter of the Central Christchurch Recovery Plan. This project is a specifically identified and funded project within Councils 2015-2025 Long Term Plan. The proposal was presented to the board at a seminar on 28 November 2016 prior to consultation.

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 using the engagement significance matrix.

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 all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Riccarton Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a north westerly direction for 61 metres.

 

2.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Riccarton Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a north westerly direction for 61 metres.

 

3.    Approve the line marking changes, kerb alignment changes and traffic islands on Riccarton Avenue from its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a north westerly direction of 61 metres, in accordance with Attachment A.

 

 

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 – Threshold treatment outside the hospital (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a major visual gateway to the central city 30km area.

·     Road Narrowing to slow vehicle speeds, with the installation of an island.

·     Gated speed signs to highlight the change in speed limit.

·     Provides additional landscaping adjacent to Hagley Park.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The removal of one parking space.

 

5.   Context/Background

An Accessible City

5.1       In October 2013 the An Accessible City (AAC) transport chapter was adopted into the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.  The AAC chapter seeks to respond to earlier feedback from the community over future transport arrangements in the central city, as received through the Share an Idea community consultation of 2011, and later reflected in elements of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan blueprint of land-use development adopted in 2012.  The Recovery Plan is built upon a principle of achieving a compact, people friendly core. This will create an attractive environment for people to live, work, visit and spend time in the central city.

5.2       The overarching transport objective is to manage future traffic volumes to around pre-earthquake levels and hence avoid the onset of excessive traffic congestion which might otherwise result from the projected land uses contained in the Recovery Plan.  The success of this objective is dependent on achieving a significant uptake of travel by public and active transport modes. 

5.3       Subsequently Council has adopted a programme of works that deliver the transport changes and street scape enhancements that give effect to AAC through the Long Term Plan. 

5.4       The AAC TP30km Threshold gateway is programmed for construction in the current financial year. 

Problem Summary

5.5       In 2014 a change was made to Council’s Speed Limits Bylaw that set the speed limit of the central city at 30 kilometres per hour.  The primary driver for this project is to;

·    Create a safer speed environment in the Central City to encourage more people to come and spend more time.

·    Complement the other First Phase AAC projects TP1-11, together with the delivery of early anchor projects and privately led developments throughout the core of the central city.

·    Enable the early implementation of the 30 km/hr speed zone to ensure that typical vehicle speeds are consistent across the 30km/h zone without the need to resort to enforcement as the primary mechanism to maintain those speeds

·    Ensure that people coming to the central city recognise from the outset that speeds on all streets within the Inner Zone and Main Streets will have a lower speed prior to the earthquakes. This will be achieved by a combination of streetscape, traffic management and other measures, supporting the heart of the central city being more accommodating of pedestrian activity and other street activities

·    Help reduce the ongoing costs of temporary traffic management measures as the central city is reconstructed, by roadworks taking place in a more consistent low speed zone

·    Help deliver road safety improvements and improved pedestrian and cycling safety and amenity as early as possible in the recovery of the central city.

5.6       In support of the slow core it is a requirement to install gateway treatments at the entrances to the 30km/h zone in the CBD core to provide an engineering element which is visual but also encourages vehicles to reduce to 30km as the enter the slow core.

 


 

 

6.   Option 1 - Threshold treatment outside the hospital (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option provides a gated threshold to identify the change in speed limit with larger signs and road narrowing through the use of a stick on islands. Additional landscaping adjacent to Hagley Park is also provided.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are communication and consultation with the hospital and nearby business.

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       The proposed plan for the Riccarton Avenue threshold was presented to the Linwood‑Central‑Heathcote Community Board at a seminar on 28 November 2016. The main point raised during discussion centred on the staff recommendation that daffodils be planted in a bed on the south of Riccarton Avenue, near the Hagley Park boundary.

6.6       Consultation was undertaken from Monday 5 December until Monday 19 December 2016, with letters and a proposed plan sent to the Canterbury District Health Board and the University of Otago, Christchurch, for circulation to staff.

6.7       Fifteen submissions were received, including one from the District Health Board stating that it had no formal comment on the proposed signage outside the hospital. However, it recommended that the flexi posts defining the cycle lane eastwards be retained. The flexi-posts were installed to provide separation between the cycle lane and vehicles. They will remain as they continue to provide a safety benefit.

6.8       Of the remaining submissions, six opposed the loss of a parking space outside the hospital to make way for the threshold and 30km/h signage.  They were advised that although the project team understood their concern about the loss of a parking space, the threshold and signs signalling entry to the 30km/h zone must follow design and safety standards.  Removal of the parking space will allow the 30km/h sign to be more easily observed and the build-out will narrow the road and slow traffic.

6.9       Three submitters opposed the 30km/h speed zones while another three suggested the zone (and threshold) could be moved closer to the entrance near the Women’s Hospital.  The extent of the Central City 30km/h speed zone was included in the An Accessible City chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan in October 2013 and the 30km/h speed limit was implemented on those streets by the City Council on 12 March 2016.  Thresholds are required to clearly indicate to travellers that they are entering or leaving the 30km/h zone.

6.10    One submitter suggested the removal of a further car parking space to improve the line of sight when crossing the cycle lane and another requested more parking for motorbikes and scooters. This is outside the scope of the project.

6.11    No changes were made to the proposals as a result of consultation or further technical advice.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Cost of Implementation is estimated at $20,000.

6.14    Funding source is from the AAC phase 2 program.

Legal Implications

6.15    There are no legal implications for this project.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.16    Risk management was applied to this gateway threshold. Identified as a project of low and risk and value, given the minor scope and cost. The key risk to the project is disruption to operation of the hospital. The installation of the threshold will be carried out in off peak hours with detailed traffic management in place so not to disrupt hospital traffic.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - Approval to install.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – First quarter of 2017 for installation.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a major visual gateway to the central city 30km area.

·   Road Narrowing to slow vehicle speeds through the installation of an island

·   Gated speed signs to highlight the change in speed limit

·   Aligns with posted speed limited and the street environment

·   Provides additional landscaping adjacent to Hagley Park

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no disadvantages identified.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the current street form and entrance to the 30km cordon.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low.

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       Community views were not sought on the option to ‘do nothing’.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Consistency – Is consistent with the LTP and with the AAC Transport Chapter of the Central City Recovery Plan.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Do nothing is inconsistent with the LTP, which funds the project in the current year.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No impact to maintenance costs.

7.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.11    The risk of this option to ‘do nothing’ is that drivers won’t recognise the speed limit change. The 30km signs currently used in the cordon function as reminders or repeater signs. Omitting a gateway at this section results in no large signage, road makings and traffic island to provide visual and physical warnings of a speed limit change. Drivers would inherently progress into the slower cordon at 50km per hour.

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:

·   Retains the single car park

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No visual and engineering narrowing of the road to support the 30km threshold gateway.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

TP30km - Riccarton Avenue at Hagley Avenue

74

 

 

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

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Jennie Hamilton - Engagement Advisor

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

William Homewood - Traffic Engineer - Investigation & Design

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

14.    Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Community Response and Resilience Project – Mt Pleasant to Taylors Mistake

Reference:

17/302624

Contact:

Carly Waddleton

carly.waddleton@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5120

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00056114

Sumner Bays Union Trust

Taylors Mistake to Mt Pleasant Community Response & Resilience Project

$10,000.

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from the Sumner Bays Union Trust.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $7,000 to Sumner Bays Union Trust towards wages of a Community Preparedness Facilitator.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$104,363

$48,285

$56,078

$49,078

 

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

Sumner Bays Union Trust Decision Matrix LCH DRF 19Ap

77

 

 

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

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

15.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/257536

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.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Inform staff of items they would like passed on to the Newsline Team for inclusion online and in the Board’s newsletter.

3.         Inform staff on items they would like included in the Board Report to Council.

 

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board Matters

3.1.1   Graffiti Statistics – Attached is the bi-monthly report on the suburban statistics of the graffiti in the Christchurch City area.

3.1.2   Community Board Plan - Over the next few months Community Boards will be working on developing Community Board Plans for their areas.  A Community Board Plan is a resource that articulates what a community board’s priorities are based on the outcomes the Board would like to achieve.  It sets out what the Board will do that contributes to achieving the desired outcomes. 

Staff will present to the Board on the experience of the last Community Board Plan and work with the Board on developing a Plan over the next few months.

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement

3.2.1   Staff supported a Regenerate Christchurch community conversation with the Greater Linwood Forum.  The monthly forum is attended by community groups and organisations working in the greater Linwood area, including Linwood, Bromley, Phillipstown and Woolston.  The Forum was held at the Phillipstown Community Hub.

3.2.2   The Sumner community will be holding a community meeting on Wednesday 10 May, 6.30pm to 8.00pm to provide updates to and discuss matters of interest to the community, including Council projects.  Staff are working with the community to provide Council staff support to the meeting.  Board members are welcome to attend.

3.3       Submission Opportunities

3.3.1   Consultation for the Heathcote Expressway- Puari ki Kahukura cycleway concluded on Friday 14 April 2017.

3.3.2   Consultation for Intersection Safety Improvements closes on Friday 28 April.  Submitters are asked “How do you think the Council could improve intersection safety?”

3.3.3   Consultation for the Land Transfer Proposal closes on Friday 5 May.  Feedback is sought on a proposal to transfer three properties to Development Christchurch Limited to allow it to use the land for specific regeneration outcomes and to access capital for investment purposes.  The former convention centre site and the City Care Milton Street Depot properties are within the Community Board area.

3.4       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.4.1   Board members attended 3 April 2017 Greater Linwood Forum, Avon Loop Planning Association, Englefield Residents’ Association and the MOA Neighbourhood Committee meetings on behalf of the Board to provide groups with information on the Annual Plan and to encourage them to make submissions. 

3.5       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

3.5.1   A report seeking funding for development of a Bays Area Emergency Preparedness Plan will be presented to the Board on 19 April 2017.

3.6       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

3.6.1   The Board had a workshop with staff from the Communications Team to talk about how the Board would like to communicate with the Community.  A monthly seminar slot will be included for the Board and staff to discuss what needs to go into a newsletter.

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

3.7       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at the Council

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

4.   Key Local Projects (KLPs) and Strengthening Communities Funded Projects

4.1       Community Pride Garden Awards – the annual community awards ceremony was successfully held on Friday 31 March at Mt Pleasant Community Centre and was well attended.  One hundred and nineteen awards were issued in total, with fifty being presented on the day.  A verbal update on this Community Board Project will be given to the Board.

4.2       Community Service Awards – nominations for these community awards closed on Thursday 13 April.  A report will be coming to the Board on 17 May with the final nominations for Board consideration.  The ceremony will be held mid-June, further details to follow.

5.   Significant Community Issues

5.1       Inner City East and Doris Lusk Reserve

5.1.1   Status

The Board had a deputation from NZ Police on issues in the Inner City East and Linwood Village area, and in particular Doris Lusk Reserve.  The Board heard again about the need for a drop-in centre in the area and hopefully a wet-house in the future.

 

 

 

5.1.2   Action

The Board decided that they would like a workshop held to further discuss a drop-in centre, liquor ban in the Linwood Village area, and other initiatives that organisations working with the homeless may have.

5.1.3   Timeframe

Time has been set aside for this discussion on 18th April 2017.

5.2       Latimer Community Housing Trust

5.2.1   Status

The Board discussed a letter from the Latimer Community Housing Trust about their 276 Barbadoes Street Development, and the support they were seeking with further funding.  The Board also discussed a memo prepared by staff that provided further information on the Latimer Community Housing Trust.  The Board resolved to support the Trust and asked staff to prepare a report with the various funding options available to them, and to write a letter of support to ensure they are able to get other support from funders.

5.2.2   Action

A letter has been written and provided to the Trust.  Staff are currently preparing a report with the various funding options.

5.2.3   Timeframe

To be presented to the Board within four weeks.

6.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

6.1       Community Facilities

6.1.1   Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre Time Capsule Ceremony- was held on Tuesday 4 April to install a time capsule into the framework of the new facility.  The small ceremony was live streamed to allow the community an opportunity to be part of this historic occasion.  The time capsule contained items recovered from the original capsule found in the foundation stone of the original 1907 building as well as new items added.  These included the 2015/16 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Plan and the 2016 Activity Guide for Seniors, amongst others.  Members of the Board attended the ceremony.

6.1.2   Linwood/Woolston Pool.  The Board is to have two, one hour workshops with staff to discuss the scoping of the work needing to be done on the Linwood/Woolston Pool, and the site investigation process.  Staff are working on identifying suitable times to meet within the next four weeks, in order to inform the 2018/2028 Long Term Plan.

 

7.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

7.1       Total of unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $63,728.  Funding table is Attachment B.

7.2       Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $53,378.

7.3       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $5,600.

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

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Graffiti Statistics - Suburb Street Report

83

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Funding 2016/17

84

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Louise McLean - Governance Support Officer

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

19 April 2017

 

 

16.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

17.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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